Premarital Sex

[Seth]

God isn't competing in the relationship,God has to be first, for both of you, make God your priority and your marriage will be blessed

I do wish you'd go into more detail to support your claims. I know, that's what's outlined in the Bible. But, what I'm looking for is to understand why it is that way. Not that it should be that way. Anybody can tell another person what to do. Difficult to explain why to do it.

Still, putting God before your significant other in a relationship undoubtedly causes problems if both you and your significant other aren't in agreement. And even if you are, that creates an awkward distance between both you and your spouse. Because, your spouse is no longer your "one and only". There's one that comes before her/him. There has to be a more efficient way of doing things, one that doesn't inherently cause trouble in relationships.

I don't wish to put God in the closet so to speak whenever what He instructs me to do conflicts with what my spouse wants. But, rather, to be in a position where it doesn't cause problems. Where the intended meaning behind my actions isn't to purposefully to put God in precedence over my significant other. But, rather, as a complementary force that operates much like the holy Trinity.

Just my two cents. Please expound upon your point of view.

 

[lost1972]

Its not difficult to understand if both of you place God as the priority in your lives,and do as he says he will bless your marriage, if you think placing him above your spouse will cause problems, you both need to reexamine your relationship with him, nothing should ever come before him

 

[Seth]

Its not difficult to understand if both of you place God as the priority in your lives,and do as he says he will bless your marriage, if you think placing him above your spouse will cause problems, you both need to reexamine your relationship with him, nothing should ever come before him

Thank you for taking the time to post a second time. But it's not an answer I can actually work with. I know what you're saying. I understand it. And, I think it's too shallow to be an acceptable answer. Gives a complicated problem the broad-brush. Says God's supposed to fit in there somewhere, but not where. And not to mention, makes it so that the relationship of 3 by nature is unstable.

I don't have any conclusive stuff yet. But, I know what isn't the answer. And that's not it. For the time being, I'm rolling with it. Until I either understand some hidden meaning behind the simplicity, or come up with something better.

Finding foreign stimuli that contains an inkling of inspired thought has proven to be difficult.

 

[BarlyGurl]

Very charismatic. And though, there's nothing inherently wrong with your post, it could have been posed with more tact. The definition of tact is: "a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense".
Tact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
It's wise to respect someone's walk with God, and personal opinions regardless of whether or not they're right or wrong. Especially with the the way the Original Poster posed her question. It was an honest inquiry searching for resonation among her peers. Outright scorning her for considering doing something she hasn't even done yet is a sure-fire way to chase her off.

In short, stay the Molotovs. We don't want to turn this orderly discussion into an outright flame war.

In Short... if you don't like plain words... that is your problem... It is a matter of FACT that the the Plain teaching OF God is an OFFENSE to the worls and that isn't going to cause me to water down or soften the delivery. Further, as a 17 year old... your job is to be learning from your elders not correcting them... you young man are W-A-Y out of order. If anyone here is throwing Molotovs it is YOU.

 

[BarlyGurl]

You seem to be a fervent defender of the status quo. I would appreciate it if you could give your input on this subject. Or, anyone else for that matter.

The content of your post addressing me is a vague tangent of I don't know what you are alluding to what "defender of status quo" means or might mean. So unless you can figure out a more CLEAR way to present what it is you are supposing I was/ or do defend... there isn't any answer to be given.

 

[Seth]

In Short... if you don't like plain words... that is your problem...

Let me exemplify your wrongdoing more precisely. Imagine if I were to say...

You're an insensitive bigot misrepresenting the kind and loving nature of our one and only God. An deplorable aberration from the loving and tolerant philosophy our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught us to enact on others, and each other.

I imagine, that wouldn't sit well with you. Even if it is true. But, they too are just words. Words posed in a combative format that lacks the word I used in my previous post. "Tact". Contrast that, to my last post.

"Very charismatic. And though, there's nothing inherently wrong with your post, it could have been posed with more tact. It's wise to respect someone's walk with God, and personal opinions regardless of whether or not they're right or wrong.Especially with the the way the Original Poster posed her question. It was an honest inquiry searching for resonation among her peers. Outright scorning her for considering doing something she hasn't even done yet is a sure-fire way to chase her off."

This format was not combative, just suggestive and free of bitterness. As it should be. If that doesn't show you the importance of tact, I don't know if I can help you.

It is a matter of FACT that the the Plain teaching OF God is an OFFENSE to the worls and that isn't going to cause me to water down or soften the delivery.

I find it disgusting that you're justifying your inconsiderate out-lashings using God. I will not allow you to except yourself of responsibility within my own mind by hiding behind the Bible. It would be an injustice to God, and His Word. I ask that you kindly stand behind your own actions.

Further, as a 17 year old... your job is to be learning from your elders not correcting them... you young man are W-A-Y out of order.

Ahh, bringing up age. The last stand of an elder once their argument's been thwarted. I'm all too familiar with that phrase. It's a doubled edged sword. You're essentially assuming that you should be more wise than I by default. But-, anyways...

I've nothing to learn from someone who hasn't been reborn in the Spirit. You don't reflect God, or his Son's love. I hate to bring out the Bible to back up my claims, but in this scenario, I have to bring it up to show that you're out of line. Not I.

1 Corinthians 13:4, "[SUP]4 [/SUP]Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.[SUP]5 [/SUP]It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs."

So far, you've been bitter, you've claimed to be my superior and strongarm me into conforming to your point of view purely based on your age and experience, you've shown disrespect (or in other words, dishonored) for me, and another. And, you seem to be a bit of a hot-head.

If anyone here is throwing Molotovs it is YOU.

I believe you misunderstood the analogy. You've been tossing them throughout both posts. I've only just started. You can stop now, or we can keep going. This is kind of fun.

 

[Seth]

The content of your post addressing me is a vague tangent of I don't know what you are alluding to what "defender of status quo" means or might mean. So unless you can figure out a more CLEAR way to present what it is you are supposing I was/ or do defend... there isn't any answer to be given.

Are you subliminally implying that I'm too incompetent to pose a complete thought? I've suddenly lost interest in hearing what you do have to say on the topic I'd brought up in that post.

 

[BarlyGurl]

Are you subliminally implying that I'm too incompetent to pose a complete thought? I've suddenly lost interest in hearing what you do have to say on the topic I'd brought up in that post.

No... I don't subliminally anything... I would just SAY I thought you were incompetent if that is what I intended to mean.
I am somewhat perplexed that you somehow cannot understand hat your post was TOO VAGUE to pin down WHAT the subject matter was or is since "defender of the status quo" could mean absolutely anything and I am not a mind reader... thus do not know what you are talking about...
There is absolutely NO malicious intent in my post here... previously or the original where you felt so compelled to correct. You absolutely LACK any scriptural authority to be correcting elders and asserting that my posts have ANY malice attached to them says far more about YOU than it does about me.
The only one hurling accusations around here is YOU...attempting to shift blame to with contentious words... though well crafted might get you approval from your peers... but isn't impressing God... at all.

 

[Abiding]

Seth, can you see the hypocracy of this statement?

I've nothing to learn from someone who hasn't been reborn in the Spirit. You don't reflect God, or his Son's love. I hate to bring out the Bible to back up my claims, but in this scenario, I have to bring it up to show that you're out of line. Not I.

1 Corinthians 13:4, "[SUP]4 [/SUP]Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.[SUP]5[/SUP]It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs."

So far, you've been bitter, you've claimed to be my superior and strongarm me into conforming to your point of view purely based on your age and experience, you've shown disrespect (or in other words, dishonored) for me, and another. And, you seem to be a bit of a hot-head.

 

[lost1972]

God always comes first, he's a jelous God, nothing should come before him, if you belive he comes second to anything at all, please do some people praying, God is not a third wheel in a relationship, his plan very clearly says he is to be placed above all else, if you and your future spouse place him first, then he will give you the guidance you need to make your marriage work,if you think your spouse is supposed to be above God, you really need to reexamine what you believe, you can't decide to do what you want

 

[Christianrkchk89]

What if you were to have premarital sex with your boyfriend in the next few days and then he/you decide it wasn't what it was cracked up to be OR because it was enjoyable one of you become a little obsessed and the other doesn't feel the same, arguments begin to occur more often and then one of decides to break off the relationship. ..after all there is absolutely nothing binding you to each other. Then there you are, no longer a virgin and no longer in a relationship. You've each given away a piece of yourselves that is not retrievable. It's too late at that point to turn back.

There are reasons God sets up these boundaries.


I echo one of the previous posters who basically said that since you're asking, there's got to be a piece of your conscious that says having sex before marriage is wrong. And that part is correct.


If you've stayed pure until now then you can totally wait until your marriage night. If you can't wait then maybe get married or move back out from each other? It'll be easier not constantly being around one another. And (hopefully this isn't the case) if one of you is pressuring the other than maybe it's time for a small break.


It's not worth all the possible hurt that could come out of wedlock. What if you were to get pregnant? Your child could down the road think premarital sex is fine since you and their father did it. That's not what you want, right?


Be strong. And please don't give in.

 

[Ritter]

You absolutely LACK any scriptural authority to be correcting elders and asserting that my posts have ANY malice attached to them says far more about YOU than it does about me.
The only one hurling accusations around here is YOU...attempting to shift blame to with contentious words... though well crafted might get you approval from your peers... but isn't impressing God... at all.

An internet forum is a pretty level playing field. All he has to go by concerning age and relative maturity level are your tone and choice of words.

 

[rachelsedge]

I just feel that we are both ready to take the next step in our relationship and share in a special bond that you can only achieve with physical love since we are so devoted to each other.

The next step in your relationship is marriage, not sex. I don't have much else to add besides that...

 

[Ritter]

The next step in your relationship is marriage, not sex.

Good point. There is a lot of cart in the OP, but not a whole lot of horse.

 

[Seth]

No... I don't subliminally anything... I would just SAY I thought you were incompetent if that is what I intended to mean.
I am somewhat perplexed that you somehow cannot understand hat your post was TOO VAGUE to pin down WHAT the subject matter was or is since "defender of the status quo" could mean absolutely anything and I am not a mind reader... thus do not know what you are talking about...

"Defender of the status quo",

In other words a person who agrees with and instigates what is commonly accepted as right.

Just boffin-talk.

There is absolutely NO malicious intent in my post here... previously or the original where you felt so compelled to correct.

I understand you're just doing what you think is right, but you are in the wrong. And I've proven so in my last post. What you believe and advocate might be right, but you're going about being right the wrong way. What you said eludes to malicious intent. In a world where no effect isn't without a cause, it points toward a malicious intent.

Whether or not what I understood of your post was right, point still stands that it was offensive. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been offended by it. This is why I originally suggested that you try to employ a bit more tact to avoid these touchy situations.

You absolutely LACK any scriptural authority to be correcting elders and asserting that my posts have ANY malice attached to them says far more about YOU than it does about me.

"I know you are, but what am I?' Really?... That's your rebuttal?

More arbitrary accusations based on an ungrounded heresay point of view. Still going on about your superiority-though-age-belief. Please employ logic next time, otherwise I can't take you seriously.

The only one hurling accusations around here is YOU...attempting to shift blame to with contentious words... though well crafted might get you approval from your peers... but isn't impressing God... at all.

You jumped the shark a while back, I don't even know why I'm even addressing this. But oh well.

First sentence, you've done your fair share of accusations. You've done so in a rage-tastic and immature fashion. So your first sentence is false.

Second sentence, that is the nature of our dispute. I am trying to show you the error of your ways, and you mine. So far, you've been losing because you fail to pose a logically sound argument. The definition of contentious, is "Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial.". Scroll up, read over some of the things you've said. if that isn't likely to cause argument, if it isn't controversial then I don't know what is.

Third and fourth sentence... you're obscuring your own emotions and desire with what you assume God's to be again. I don't have time for this.


-

This argument's drawn on for far too long. Will be calling it quits soon - being that no ground is being gained in either direction.

 

[BarlyGurl]

An internet forum is a pretty level playing field. That's interesting Ritter... Since I kinda thought that God introduced a structure of authority for our conduct at all times. Seth has "READ" malicious motives into words as well as supposing other fallacies regarding my responses and railed at me on the basis of his own of his own misinterpretation. Woulda been a lot more productive to ask... "what are you trying to say?" then go on a diatribe. Who in this equation has contructed words with malice clearly attached to them??? I am don't have much cause to wonder who is demonstrating what... regarding "Relative maturity, tone and choice of words" here.

 

[Seth]

Seth, can you see the hypocracy of this statement?

I've nothing to learn from someone who hasn't been reborn in the Spirit. You don't reflect God, or his Son's love. I hate to bring out the Bible to back up my claims, but in this scenario, I have to bring it up to show that you're out of line. Not I.

1 Corinthians 13:4, "[SUP]4 [/SUP]Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.[SUP]5[/SUP]It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs."

So far, you've been bitter, you've claimed to be my superior and strongarm me into conforming to your point of view purely based on your age and experience, you've shown disrespect (or in other words, dishonored) for me, and another. And, you seem to be a bit of a hot-head.

I see it. But there's no clear right choice to make here. Her original post on this thread was combative toward the OP. I felt it necessary not to let that fly. I believe, she's dishonored others. And thus, doesn't deserve to be honored herself. I cannot chastise a fellow believer without temporarily putting aside kindness. To my knowledge, I've not boasted yet. If I have, I will reconcile. And finally, pride... I'll leave that for others to judge if I'm prideful or not. I just, like debating a bit more than is healthy I think.

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm getting a bit carried away. Will be derailing the argument soon. Brain's turning to mush anyways.

 

[BarlyGurl]

"Defender of the status quo",

In other words a person who agrees with and instigates what is commonly accepted as right.

Just boffin-talk.



I understand you're just doing what you think is right, but you are in the wrong. And I've proven so in my last post. What you believe and advocate might be right, but you're going about being right the wrong way. What you said eludes to malicious intent. In a world where no effect isn't without a cause, it points toward a malicious intent.

Whether or not what I understood of your post was right, point still stands that it was offensive. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been offended by it. This is why I originally suggested that you try to employ a bit more tact to avoid these touchy situations.



"I know you are, but what am I?' Really?... That's your rebuttal?

More arbitrary accusations based on an ungrounded heresay point of view. Still going on about your superiority-though-age-belief. Please employ logic next time, otherwise I can't take you seriously.



You jumped the shark a while back, I don't even know why I'm even addressing this. But oh well.

First sentence, you've done your fair share of accusations. You've done so in a rage-tastic and immature fashion. So your first sentence is false.

Second sentence, that is the nature of our dispute. I am trying to show you the error of your ways, and you mine. So far, you've been losing because you fail to pose a logically sound argument. The definition of contentious, is "Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial.". Scroll up, read over some of the things you've said. if that isn't likely to cause argument, if it isn't controversial then I don't know what is.

Third and fourth sentence... you're obscuring your own emotions and desire with what you assume God's to be again. I don't have time for this.


-

This argument's drawn on for far too long. Will be calling it quits soon - being that no ground is being gained in either direction.

The degree of your presumptive omniscience is remarkable... hmmmm.... the fruit!!!

 

[Seth]

The degree of your presumptive omniscience is remarkable... hmmmm.... the fruit!!!

Seriously...? What?... Do you even REGISTER logic?

Wait, don't answer that. I don't want to know. I'm done. Noseriously, I'm done. Nomorepostingforme. That's the way we wash our hands, FALALALALA-, LA LA LALA.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, ladies and gents. I've learned my lesson.

 

[Christianrkchk89]

How bout the two of you make a different thread and argue it out there? You're not helping the original poster at all by arguing about tact and such.