Virginity- Keeping it

[hadaza]

I agree it's POSSIBLE to wait, but you should prepare the young Christian for the possibility that they will fail in the face of temptation. Jesus tried to prepare Peter. "Before the cock crows, you will deny Me three times." But Peter wouldn't have the thought of himself sinning. And so, he did JUST THAT; he denied Jesus. Some can look at what Jesus said as prophecy, but I tend to think of it as a prediction based on Peter's pompous boasting of his loyalty. Often we predict people's behaviors without "knowing the future" because we know them so well, right?

We tread dangerous waters, when we start saying to ourselves "I'm above that sin" or "I'll NEVER do that." But if we do sin, there's forgiveness available. And teens don't hear that part of the deal. IF you DO screw up, Jesus will be faithful to forgive you. All teens hear is "Don't do that. It's mortal sin. And you'll regret it if you do." Law, law, law. No Gospel. Well, the whole reason Jesus came was because we COULDN'T keep the law. THAT'S what is lacking in the message teens receive from Christian leaders about sex. So, when and if they do fail, they fall into utter despair, and they are an emotional wreck far longer than need be, because for years they were only fed the law side of the coin. It's really quite sad.



God bless too, sister. [/QUOTE]

My concern about to prepare teens for the possibility of failing is that if the way to do that is giving them protection and they carry that is not that deliberately sinning? :/ there are ways to be prepared to temptation and if we are in regular communion with God he will help us to overcome that.

 

[jamie26301]

My concern about to prepare teens for the possibility of failing is that if the way to do that is giving them protection and they carry that is not that deliberately sinning? :/ there are ways to be prepared to temptation and if we are in regular communion with God he will help us to overcome that.

Yes, I see your point. The case could be made that having protection opens the door for temptation. You're alone with someone and think "Hey, I've got a condom, why not?" However, temptation could come and overpower someone, and there could be consequences that otherwise wouldn't exist. I think that being on the pill (some women use it for OTHER things than protection against pregnancy - I used it a long time for acne) or carrying condoms is a conscious issue, since there's no clear Scripture on either of those things. I think a young person should act according to their conscious - if they think it's sin, then they shouldn't do it. However, it would be smart to have those things if the young person has a strong sex drive and struggles immensely with sexual desire. Some people struggle with it more than others, would just be more prone to giving in.

Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

"TO HIM," in other words, some things that are "right" or "wrong" is relative to the individual.

I do agree that keeping our eyes focused on Jesus is the greatest way to overcome temptation. I'm in 100% agreement with ya, girl!

1Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
[SUP]2 [/SUP]looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

[Jda016]

There is always forgiveness for those who humbly and sincerely repent.

However, the idea is to stay away from sin as much as we can, because we love God and want to honor Him.

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

I would encourage any teen to stay out of situations that may provoke a lot of temptation. Stay away, not because of fear, but because you love Christ more than yourself.

 

[presidente]

Yes, I see your point. The case could be made that having protection opens the door for temptation. You're alone with someone and think "Hey, I've got a condom, why not?" However, temptation could come and overpower someone, and there could be consequences that otherwise wouldn't exist. I think that being on the pill (some women use it for OTHER things than protection against pregnancy - I used it a long time for acne) or carrying condoms is a conscious issue, since there's no clear Scripture on either of those things. I think a young person should act according to their conscious - if they think it's sin, then they shouldn't do it. However, it would be smart to have those things if the young person has a strong sex drive and struggles immensely with sexual desire. Some people struggle with it more than others, would just be more prone to giving in.

If were are going to give young people condoms to decrease the chances of their having to face all the potential consequences if they sin sexually, why not give them vials of hard-to-detect poison, too? After all, if a young person wants to murder someone and they use their fists, a knife, bullet, or baseball bat, that's easily traceable and the young person may end up in prison, having to face the consequences of the sin. But if you give all young people a vial of poison that makes it look like it's victim had a heart attack, the young murderers are more likely to get off easily.

I'm against giving unmarried people condoms in case they fall into fornication. I'm against giving them vials of poison in case they fall into murder. The Bible says to flee fornication. I don't think Joseph took a condom with him whenever he knew he was going to be around Potiphar's wife. When he was tempted, he ran out of there.

 

[ServantStrike]

I agree it's POSSIBLE to wait, but you should prepare the young Christian for the possibility that they will fail in the face of temptation. Jesus tried to prepare Peter. "Before the cock crows, you will deny Me three times." But Peter wouldn't have the thought of himself sinning. And so, he did JUST THAT; he denied Jesus. Some can look at what Jesus said as prophecy, but I tend to think of it as a prediction based on Peter's pompous boasting of his loyalty. Often we predict people's behaviors without "knowing the future" because we know them so well, right?

We tread dangerous waters, when we start saying to ourselves "I'm above that sin" or "I'll NEVER do that." But if we do sin, there's forgiveness available. And teens don't hear that part of the deal. IF you DO screw up, Jesus will be faithful to forgive you. All teens hear is "Don't do that. It's mortal sin. And you'll regret it if you do." Law, law, law. No Gospel. Well, the whole reason Jesus came was because we COULDN'T keep the law. THAT'S what is lacking in the message teens receive from Christian leaders about sex. So, when and if they do fail, they fall into utter despair, and they are an emotional wreck far longer than need be, because for years they were only fed the law side of the coin. It's really quite sad.



God bless too, sister.

My concern about to prepare teens for the possibility of failing is that if the way to do that is giving them protection and they carry that is not that deliberately sinning? :/ there are ways to be prepared to temptation and if we are in regular communion with God he will help us to overcome that.[/QUOTE]



All sin is willful sin when you get to the core of it. So any sin we commit we are the ones to blame. There is no distinction between sin and mortal sin that I can think of outside of the Catholic church, and I disagree with the entire idea of raking sins in some sort of hierarchy, since they are all stumbling blocks between us and God. Were it not for Christ, we'd be completely lost.

13There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.



But, yeah, I think people in general need to understand that even after sin has occurred, forgiveness is there, or they run the risk of committing the same sin again (and possibly turning it into a habit). That said, failure is never an option, or with that mindset I think one is guaranteed to sin - so I agree with you that prayer and thought and time needs to be spent ahead of time to ensure that we don't sin.

 

[jamie26301]

If were are going to give young people condoms to decrease the chances of their having to face all the potential consequences if they sin sexually, why not give them vials of hard-to-detect poison, too? After all, if a young person wants to murder someone and they use their fists, a knife, bullet, or baseball bat, that's easily traceable and the young person may end up in prison, having to face the consequences of the sin. But if you give all young people a vial of poison that makes it look like it's victim had a heart attack, the young murderers are more likely to get off easily.

I'm against giving unmarried people condoms in case they fall into fornication. I'm against giving them vials of poison in case they fall into murder. The Bible says to flee fornication.

Um, you're comparing sex between mutually agreeing partners to murder? How are those two even remotely the same? If you're making the case that it's because they're both sin, I can concur, but still... don't make that case with someone who advocates premarital sex. Because whether sex hurts the persons involved is a matter of perspective - however, murder hurts the one murdered and everyone who knew and were influenced the person. And people could argue that sex arose from their deep love for their partner, and wanting to express it - murder arises from hate for the victim. One is an intention to show love, one is an intention to demonstrate disdain. No, in my book, not the same. And, I'm not trying to be mean, but you'd probably lose credibility with any premarital sex advocate using that comparison.

That's ok if you're against it. That's your opinion. It shouldn't be enforced in secular society, and I don't even think the church should, but I feel if a person thinks they're being oppressed by their church's opinions, they can just find another church. Every individual church has the right to exclude anyone they please.

I don't think Joseph took a condom with him whenever he knew he was going to be around Potiphar's wife.

[

I don't think they existed back then.

When he was tempted, he ran out of there.

Well, of course, it wasn't his wife. Which is entirely different from sleeping with someone who isn't committed to anyone else.

 

[presidente]

Well, yes, presidente, chemistry is about hormones, and having sex is about that. But I remember when I kissed a Christian man, and he was a virgin, and I was very unattracted to him. It was actually the worst kiss I've ever had. But I was going to marry him anyway, because I thought he would take care of me, had morals, etc

It doesn't make sense to me that you have to kiss to know if you are attracted to someone. Your story doesn't support your theory either. As a single man, I did not have to kiss a woman to know that I was attracted to her. Why would you have to kiss to know that? Maybe you dated men you found unattractive and thought there might be some attraction if you kissed. I didn't date a girl unless I found her attractive.

I did kiss my wife before marrying her. She wanted to wait until marriage for a kiss. I should have been more patient, but that idea didn't register for me as something practical or having to do with morality because of my cultural blinders at the time. I don't quite remember where our first kiss fell in relation to our being engaged either. But I knew she was attractive. Attraction wasn't going to be a problem, no matter how good a kisser she was.

You know, if I hadn't had sex, I might've remained in a state of pride. When we obey the command of the Lord (which is good, don't get me wrong), it has a great chance to foster pride.

Do you want to go around killing people so you won't be proud of not being a killer? Do you recommend heavy drug use to prevent people from being proud about not using drugs? Would you recommend stealing a few cars to prevent pride, too?

I find these comments from you disturbing. Do you realize that you could be corrupting the youth? The Bible doesn't teach us to do one sin to commit another. If you are proud and you fornicate, you'll probably be a proud fornicator-- guilty of two sins. If you are proud and you don't fornicate and you don't repent, you can be a humble person without an STD and without having babies at a very inconvenient time of life.

The kind of pride that dismisses a very good, upstanding man or woman because they slipped up once in their lives.

If some guy posted that he had to marry a redhead, because he only wanted redheads, you probably wouldn't accuse him of pride for rejecting good, upstanding blondes and brunettes. If someone only wants to marry a virgin, good for him or good for her. That's a normal desire, or should be. It should be harder for those who have fallen into fornication to find someone to marry them.

I think it's a low blow to say that people who have had sex before marriage are automatically more likely to be unfaithful, than if they had been virgins.

I didn't say that. I said the person who had chosen to remain celibate before marriage was a 'good bet.' Someone who had fallen into sin or become a Christian after losing their virginity could have repented and could be a faithful partner. But a virgin, especially one who is not too incredibly young who has avoided temptation has demonstrated some self-control, and that's a good thing.

Honestly, I wouldn't have married someone who talks about marriage and sexuality like you do on this forum.

Statistically, from a 1990 study by Teachman, women who had only slept with their husbands had a much lower rate of marital
disruption (some kind of phrase like that that includes divorce), than those who had had multiple sexual partners. A virgin is a 'good bet' on a lot of levels. In the case of a female virgin, research demonstrates this.

Knowing that you both have the same libido, and similar sexual interests, is important (so you should discuss that - however, what you discuss and what actually happens could be different. My husband's and my sex life is different than we predicted it to be).

Read some married forums and you'll find plenty of examples of men who slept with their wives prior to marriage who complain that their interest diminished or disappeared after marriage. There are people who put on a show before marriage to snag a partner. There are people who lose interest after the relationship is no longer new or after they age a bit. Some people are interested only as long as there is novelty. In fact, there is a kind of stereotype of marriage that once marriage begins, sex ends. But that isn't the case for two virgins who marry.

I think a couple should discuss sexual frequency in marriage before engagement. If you know how often you think you'll want it, you share that. Ideally, your partner will agree to try to meet your needs whatever frequency you want, too, rather than insisting on whenever they want it only. Nowadays, a lot of people don't realize that marriage means taking on the responsibility to meet a partner's sexual needs. If a potential partner doesn't have that kind of ethic or at least change their mind quickly, I could see why that could be a deal-breaker. But a couple of virgins may not know what their libidos will be like if they haven't been switched on yet. They can still discuss their philosophies about sex and expectations. It's not a good conversation to be held in the dark on a couch or in a parked car, though.

I know this is common sense, but DON'T jump on someone JUST because they're virgin and that's rare.

I agree that it would be foolish to marry someone only because that person is a virgin without considering other aspects of compatibility, character, etc.

AGAIN, I am not condoning sex before marriage, but I think it's important to be sensible about the likelihood that our children will listen to culture before their pastor, especially if they go to public school. And a pastor's daughter who is told she can't have birth control or condoms because she's saving herself for marriage, is more likely to get a STD or get pregnant the night she slips up than the girl who is given protection.

Knowing you could die from an STD is yet another deterrent not to sin. Knowing you could get pregnant or get a girl pregnant is another deterrent from having sex too soon.

I completely understand where you're coming from, presidente, but as far as a first kiss being on your wedding day - you can't personally vouch for that, can you? You've never experienced it. So how can you be sure you're steering these folks right in the way of what they will feel?

No, I haven't experienced it. I kissed a couple of young women before my wife. But I do regret that. It was leading them on. I wasn't getting ready to commit to spend my life with either of them, and yet I 'awakened love.' I didn't think about it that way back then. i was too indoctrinated by my own messed up western culture to realize that.

And why should my concern about steerig them right have so much to do with 'what they will feel'? If the first kiss is awkward, they'll survive. They just need to be told to give a simple peck instead of trying to eat each other's face off like the virgins in one reality TV clip. You can look it up if you want to. It was a weird kiss, but it sure was a testament to the fact that two virgins can have desire. If you really love each other to commit for life, you can overcome a weird kiss.

The first time I had sex, it hurt like... well you know. I'm actually kinda thankful that I didn't have to deal with that on my wedding night (and be too sore to do anything in the morning either). The wedding night for two virgins would most likely be really awkward. Maybe loving and special, but awkward. Sex isn't something where you just pick it up and know what to do. It takes practice to get comfortable with it.

And I read the implicit message here corrupting the teens on this site, warning them of the dangers of not sinning, the dangers of being obedient to God, and how you think there are advantages to sinning.

If it is going to hurt, why not have someone who loves you enough to commit to spend their life with you there to comfort you? It might hurt a lot less less if the man there loves her that much and is gentle, instead of some jock on prom night wanting to put another notch on his belt, or even a boyfriend who say she loves her enough to move in with her, but doesn't really love her enough to commit his life with her. She might be sorer after the prom night scenario, and not able ot do anything. A man who loves enough to commit to life probably doesn't want to hurt his wife. A man using a woman for some entertainment for a night or for several months or year of a relationship probably doesn't mind hurting a woman quite as much.

My wife was a little shy the first time, but I think she would have been shy no matter what and it made sense to share that whole experience with someone who loved her enough to commit for life, a man willing to jump through all kinds of hoops and overcome obstacles to marry her. Why would you share that with some random person?

I'm sure that some who save their kiss for their wedding day could have a great marriage - but at the same time, there's a GREAT number of people who would expect to be kissed BEFORE the wedding day, and if someone just tells all these people "Sorry, can't kiss you until our wedding day" and they stop dating that person - amongst those who the person have rejected might be the one that is really suited for them.

My wife didn't want to kiss a man who wasn't going to be her husband. I think that was more her concern. If she'd had insisted on waiting, I sure would have married her. If a man leaves over something like that, let him go. And if a man won't stay with a woman to marry her because she won't sleep with him, good riddance. It works the same if the genders are reversed.

Why would a Christian want to marry someone who doesn't value virginity? If a man can't have at least some respect over the kissing issue, at least having some respect for her desire for purity even if they disagree over the details, why would she want him?

 

[Animus]

"TO HIM," in other words, some things that are "right" or "wrong" is relative to the individual.

This is fundamentally opposed to all sound Christian doctrine. Objective morality is at the heart of Christianity, and it is indeed one of the few things you can come close to proving on reason alone. We can say that the Nazi's were bad because good is a real thing, and not just a preference. The verse says "To him, it is sin" but it does not say, "To him that does not know, it is not sin". To assume this would be contrary to what we know. If a man commits a murder out of hatred, we say it is wrong regardless of whether he knows it or not. If a man eats a sandwich with pickles in it, I might call it a disgusting meal, but I would not call it wrong, except maybe as a joke. People have different answers to moral questions, just as people have different answers to mathematical questions. If I asked everyone here what 73 divided by 16 was there would no doubt be a variety of answers, some closer than others, but there is on right answer by which we compare all the answers. Not feeling guilt about a thing is not a sign of good, but a sign of ignorance.

However, it would be smart to have those things if the young person has a strong sex drive and struggles immensely with sexual desire. Some people struggle with it more than others, would just be more prone to giving in.

I have heard people defend pornography and masturbation the same way. "If I do this, then I won't need to go out and commit fornication and get girls pregnant". But this is not only contrary to biblical teaching, it is contrary to real experience. It is the people that watch the most porn and masturbate the most that are drawn further and further into the hole of sexual immorality and that find themselves needing more, and with increased novelty and variety, subjecting themselves to perversions and depraved minds. Everyone can tame their sex drive, but deep down most people do not really want to, at least "not just yet". If you are to do anything for a man in a hole, you should try to help him out, not give him a shovel, in hopes that he might dig his way to China. If he won't accept the help now, then maybe he will be more willing after he has gotten his hands dirty.

 

[jamie26301]

I find these comments from you disturbing. Do you realize that you could be corrupting the youth? The Bible doesn't teach us to do one sin to commit another. If you are proud and you fornicate, you'll probably be a proud fornicator-- guilty of two sins. If you are proud and you don't fornicate and you don't repent, you can be a humble person without an STD and without having babies at a very inconvenient time of life.

Well, corruption of youth could be defined in many different ways. I'm just providing some real world perspectives, the real world scenarios that are not discussed with the youth, and ultimately leads to them not only sinning, but falling away from the faith as well - because they wasn't prepared for what was out there (I'm not talking about birth control/condoms, I'm talking about being ready for the common attitudes in our society).

If some guy posted that he had to marry a redhead, because he only wanted redheads, you probably wouldn't accuse him of pride for rejecting good, upstanding blondes and brunettes. If someone only wants to marry a virgin, good for him or good for her. That's a normal desire, or should be. It should be harder for those who have fallen into fornication to find someone to marry them.

Well, for starters, someone who determines their partner by hair color - that's a physical characteristic, and what we're talking about is a past action or inaction. Not the same thing. And besides, even if he wanted red hair, the hair color shouldn't matter, because if a blonde or brunette consents, she can just dye her hair.

Honestly, I wouldn't have married someone who talks about marriage and sexuality like you do on this forum.

Yes, I know, not quite Puritan enough in sentiments. Sex, and the possibility of it, and the ramifications of it, are dirty secrets that a Christian should NEVER think about or investigate.

And that's fine - it offends your sentiments. Legalism offends mine.

Statistically, from a 1990 study by Teachman, women who had only slept with their husbands had a much lower rate of marital
disruption (some kind of phrase like that that includes divorce), than those who had had multiple sexual partners. A virgin is a 'good bet' on a lot of levels. In the case of a female virgin, research demonstrates this.

Well, here's a NEW study, not one from over 20 years ago...

New Research Says Living Together Before Marriage Doesn't Lead To Divorce

Read some married forums and you'll find plenty of examples of men who slept with their wives prior to marriage who complain that their interest diminished or disappeared after marriage. There are people who put on a show before marriage to snag a partner. There are people who lose interest after the relationship is no longer new or after they age a bit. Some people are interested only as long as there is novelty. In fact, there is a kind of stereotype of marriage that once marriage begins, sex ends. But that isn't the case for two virgins who marry.

Of course, but there are other factors in the bedroom not being satisfying. Communication OUTSIDE the bedroom is one of the things that makes partners want to have sex. Romancing in everyday life, like leaving notes, texts saying "I love you," gift-giving, contributes to the desire to have sex. The female's desire probably diminished because the male stopped wooing her - and that's partly his fault. And I agree, a lot of people have the wrong idea about marriage - they think that the passion should be constant and long-lasting, when the truth is, that it often comes and goes. Marriage is not just about feel-good feelings. There will be hard times. And a lot of people divorce when those hard times come, because they have the wrong idea of what a marriage should be - a life-time commitment between two people.

Knowing you could die from an STD is yet another deterrent not to sin. Knowing you could get pregnant or get a girl pregnant is another deterrent from having sex too soon.

Sure. I agree.

No, I haven't experienced it. I kissed a couple of young women before my wife. But I do regret that. It was leading them on. I wasn't getting ready to commit to spend my life with either of them, and yet I 'awakened love.' I didn't think about it that way back then. i was too indoctrinated by my own messed up western culture to realize that.

I read somewhere that scientists have discovered that the average person will have fallen in love about seven times before finding the right one. People kiss to show their attraction and love - I have NEVER thought that a man wanted to marry me just because he kissed me! LOL

And I read the implicit message here corrupting the teens on this site, warning them of the dangers of not sinning, the dangers of being obedient to God, and how you think there are advantages to sinning.

I never said their was an advantage to sinning. It can build up wisdom though, making honest mistakes through your life - It's been said "In order to be old and wise, you have to be young and stupid."

I have said time and time again, I believe people should wait before marriage. However, I live in the real world, and I know that the power of love for someone can do amazing things to even the strongest will. I know that I am not above any sin, and I don't underestimate my tendency to fall. Christians who charge into life believing that they will never do something, will ultimately end up doing it. I know - I've been there. I just want people to have the humility to realize that it is so easy to fall.

If it is going to hurt, why not have someone who loves you enough to commit to spend their life with you there to comfort you? It might hurt a lot less less if the man there loves her that much and is gentle, instead of some jock on prom night wanting to put another notch on his belt, or even a boyfriend who say she loves her enough to move in with her, but doesn't really love her enough to commit his life with her. She might be sorer after the prom night scenario, and not able ot do anything. A man who loves enough to commit to life probably doesn't want to hurt his wife. A man using a woman for some entertainment for a night or for several months or year of a relationship probably doesn't mind hurting a woman quite as much.

That's a very valid point. However, I'm glad the course of events happened the way they did in my life (I mean everything). It shaped me into who I am.

Why would you share that with some random person?

Just because you have sex with someone who you love very much and admire so much that is not yet your spouse DOES NOT make that man/woman "some random person." Wow...

My wife didn't want to kiss a man who wasn't going to be her husband. I think that was more her concern. If she'd had insisted on waiting, I sure would have married her. If a man leaves over something like that, let him go. And if a man won't stay with a woman to marry her because she won't sleep with him, good riddance. It works the same if the genders are reversed.

Sure. But just because someone leaves a person because they won't share an innocent, loving smooch doesn't mean that person was the scum of the earth - it simply means she/he feels that the expression of a kiss is an expression of love, and probably doesn't want to be with someone who won't share that with him/her, and interpret that as rejection. Because that is the primary way of showing affection in a budding relationship. That's just our culture - and reserving the first kiss for marriage is sorta akin to the extreme of being Amish, in terms of how many people would agree. Saving the kiss is a minority issue, thus limiting the people you could pursue.

But I do agree - if someone absolutely can't live without you, he'll wait for you.

Why would a Christian want to marry someone who doesn't value virginity? If a man can't have at least some respect over the kissing issue, at least having some respect for her desire for purity even if they disagree over the details, why would she want him?

I agree that the Christian should value virginity - it's hard to do! All I'm saying is that good Christians may have had sex, and thus aren't virgins, but very suitable mates. If the Christian wants to narrow the pool and ONLY date virgins - that's fine. I think it's a narrow-minded, but that's ME. Notice everything I've said on this thread is what *I* think. I'm not trying to push anything, but provide different perspectives.

And by the way, the "awakening love" Scripture - Solomon was already wed to his wife. I think that advice is meant to be used in a different context.

 

[presidente]

Well, corruption of youth could be defined in many different ways. I'm just providing some real world perspectives, the real world scenarios that are not discussed with the youth, and ultimately leads to them not only sinning, but falling away from the faith as well - because they wasn't prepared for what was out there (I'm not talking about birth control/condoms, I'm talking about being ready for the common attitudes in our society).

We can prepare youth for common attitudes in society (if they have no contact with society themselves through school) without implying that it is better to lose their virginity before their wedding night so they won't be sore the next day.

Well, for starters, someone who determines their partner by hair color - that's a physical characteristic, and we'rtalking about is a past action or inaction.

Choosing a spouse based on past action makes more sense than hair color. In some cases, virginity is also a physical characteristic.

The Bible doesn't imply that it is undesirable to marry a redhead, btw. There was no death penalty for being a red hair, dying your hair brown, and then marrying.

Not the same thing. And besides, even if he wanted red hair, the hair color shouldn't matter, because if a blonde or brunette consents, she can just dye her hair.

There are some guys who would want natural redheads, not fake redheads. I could have used Asians as an example. It's harder to fake not being Asian.

Yes, I know, not quite Puritan enough in sentiments. Sex, and the possibility of it, and the ramifications of it, are dirty secrets that a Christian should NEVER think about or investigate.

It's the lack of contrition over sexual sin that concerns me. That and the willingness to post comments in a discussion group for teens that makes fornication seems like no big deal.

Paul said, "What fruit had we then in those things of which we are now ashamed." A Christian should be ashamed of past sin, not talking about the 'advantages' of having committed it to teenagers online.

And that's fine - it offends your sentiments. Legalism offends mine.

Refraining from sin is not legalism.

Well, here's a NEW study, not one from over 20 years ago...
New Research Says Living Together Before Marriage Doesn't Lead To Divorce

First of all, it irritates me to see the sensational and often inaccurate spin the press puts on a marriage research article like this.

I don't want to pay Wiley any money to read the article. But the abstract doesn't mention virginity or prior sexual partners, so your research doesn't address the same research question.

He abstract says, " In comparisons standardized by age at coresidence, the difference in risk of marital dissolution between premarital cohabitors and those who married without prior cohabitation (“direct marriers”) was much smaller than in comparisons standardized by age at marriage, and in some models this difference was not significant. Selection into direct marriage and premarital cohabitation was also examined."

Which means in some of the author's statistical models, there WAS a significant difference in marriage dissolutions between cohabitors and those who married without cohabiting prior to marriage. It sounds likely the Huffington Post title is a big lie. (No big surprise there, that that rag would contain lies.) Age was just a better variable.

Also, the research question is different. Let suppose they take 3000 women who did not cohabitate with their spouses before marriage. About 3% of of them are virgins. The other 97% had hooked up with 10 or 20 different guys. They compare this group with a group who had cohabitated with one, two, or three guys each. The cohabitors had lower divorce rates than the mixed group of minority virgins and non-virgin non-cohabitators. My guess is the sample didn't look like that, but a woman who'd done long-term cohabitation may have bad less sexual partners than a woman who hadn't if the other other woman were a one-night-stand kind of girl instead of a shacking up kind of girl.

It's been said "In order to be old and wise, you have to be young and stupid."

Or the young person can do like the young man that Proverbs was addressed to and listen to the wisdom of the wise, and not be enticed by the wayword woman.

I have said time and time again, I believe people should wait before marriage. However, I live in the real world, and I know that the power of love for someone can do amazing things to even the strongest will. I know that I am not above any sin, and I don't underestimate my tendency to fall. Christians who charge into life believing that they will never do something, will ultimately end up doing it. I know - I've been there. I just want people to have the humility to realize that it is so easy to fall.

That's why people who are waiting need to learn about grace and trusting in God to preserve them.

I believe one of the reasons sex before marriage is so common is that it is so widely accepted that the youth will have sex before marriage. Our society promotes it. Your own posts about it don't do anything to help, and promote the idea that the youth are likely to mess up. I've lived in a country where virginity before marriage was the norm. Parents expected it. Society expected it. I really believe most people are virgins before marriage there, or were when I lived there, though certainly not all.


Of course, but there are other factors in the bedroom not being satisfying. Communication OUTSIDE the bedroom is one of the things that makes partners want to have sex. Romancing in everyday life, like leaving notes, texts saying "I love you," gift-giving, contributes to the desire to have sex. The female's desire probably diminished because the male stopped wooing her - and that's partly his fault. And I agree, a lot of people have the wrong idea about marriage - they think that the passion should be constant and long-lasting, when the truth is, that it often comes and goes. Marriage is not just about feel-good feelings. There will be hard times. And a lot of people divorce when those hard times come, because they have the wrong idea of what a marriage should be - a life-time commitment between two people.

Sure. I agree.

I read somewhere that scientists have discovered that the average person will have fallen in love about seven times before finding the right one. People kiss to show their attraction and love - I have NEVER thought that a man wanted to marry me just because he kissed me! LOL

I never said their was an advantage to sinning. It can build up wisdom though, making honest mistakes through your life - It's been said "In order to be old and wise, you have to be young and stupid."
I have said time and time again, I believe people should wait before marriage. However, I live in the real world, and I know that the power of love for someone can do amazing things to even the strongest will. I know that I am not above any sin, and I don't underestimate my tendency to fall. Christians who charge into life believing that they will never do something, will ultimately end up doing it. I know - I've been there. I just want people to have the humility to realize that it is so easy to fall.

That's a very valid point. However, I'm glad the course of events happened the way they did in my life (I mean everything). It shaped me into who I am.

Just because you have sex with someone who you love very much and admire so much that is not yet your spouse DOES NOT make that man/woman "some random person." Wow...

If you really love someone with the right kind of love, why would you entice that person to sin against the Lord?

Sure. But just because someone leaves a person because they won't share an innocent, loving smooch doesn't mean that person was the scum of the earth - it simply means she/he feels that the expression of a kiss is an expression of love, and probably doesn't want to be with someone who won't share that with him/her, and interpret that as rejection. Because that is the primary way of showing affection in a budding relationship. That's just our culture - and reserving the first kiss for marriage is sorta akin to the extreme of being Amish, in terms of how many people would agree. Saving the kiss is a minority issue, thus limiting the people you could pursue.

If you really love someone, you can put up with some pretty extreme stuff. And someone holding off for the first kiss should explain why. I didn't have the same mindset as my future wife, but I definitely wasn't going to leave her over something like that.

And by the way, the "awakening love" Scripture - Solomon was already wed to his wife. I think that advice is meant to be used in a different context.

She is addressing the daughters of Jerusalem.

I've lived in a country where parents and society in general expected virginity before marriage, and virginity before marriage was the norm. This attitude that the young people are going to fornicate is one of the reasons they do it. Sending the message to teens that they will likely fornicate is a corrupting influence.

 

[presidente]

Please disregard the previous message. I messed up the quotes and did not quote some of Jamie's response. Here is the corrected message below.

Well, corruption of youth could be defined in many different ways. I'm just providing some real world perspectives, the real world scenarios that are not discussed with the youth, and ultimately leads to them not only sinning, but falling away from the faith as well - because they wasn't prepared for what was out there (I'm not talking about birth control/condoms, I'm talking about being ready for the common attitudes in our society).

We can prepare youth for common attitudes in society (if they have no contact with society themselves through school) without implying that it is better to lose their virginity before their wedding night so they won't be sore the next day.

Well, for starters, someone who determines their partner by hair color - that's a physical characteristic, and we'rtalking about is a past action or inaction.

Choosing a spouse based on past action makes more sense than hair color. In some cases, virginity is also a physical characteristic.

The Bible doesn't imply that it is undesirable to marry a redhead, btw. There was no death penalty for being a red hair, dying your hair brown, and then marrying.

Not the same thing. And besides, even if he wanted red hair, the hair color shouldn't matter, because if a blonde or brunette consents, she can just dye her hair.

There are some guys who would want natural redheads, not fake redheads. I could have used Asians as an example. It's harder to fake not being Asian.

Yes, I know, not quite Puritan enough in sentiments. Sex, and the possibility of it, and the ramifications of it, are dirty secrets that a Christian should NEVER think about or investigate.

It's the lack of contrition over sexual sin that concerns me. That and the willingness to post comments in a discussion group for teens that makes fornication seems like no big deal.

Paul said, "What fruit had we then in those things of which we are now ashamed." A Christian should be ashamed of past sin, not talking about the 'advantages' of having committed it to teenagers online.

And that's fine - it offends your sentiments. Legalism offends mine.

Refraining from sin is not legalism.

Well, here's a NEW study, not one from over 20 years ago...
New Research Says Living Together Before Marriage Doesn't Lead To Divorce

First of all, it irritates me to see the sensational and often inaccurate spin the press puts on a marriage research article like this.

I don't want to pay Wiley any money to read the article. But the abstract doesn't mention virginity or prior sexual partners, so your research doesn't address the same research question.

He abstract says, " In comparisons standardized by age at coresidence, the difference in risk of marital dissolution between premarital cohabitors and those who married without prior cohabitation (“direct marriers”) was much smaller than in comparisons standardized by age at marriage, and in some models this difference was not significant. Selection into direct marriage and premarital cohabitation was also examined."

Which means in some of the author's statistical models, there WAS a significant difference in marriage dissolutions between cohabitors and those who married without cohabiting prior to marriage. It sounds likely the Huffington Post title is a big lie. (No big surprise there, that that rag would contain lies.) Age was just a better variable.

Also, the research question is different. Let suppose they take 3000 women who did not cohabitate with their spouses before marriage. About 3% of of them are virgins. The other 97% had hooked up with 10 or 20 different guys. They compare this group with a group who had cohabitated with one, two, or three guys each. The cohabitors had lower divorce rates than the mixed group of minority virgins and non-virgin non-cohabitators. My guess is the sample didn't look like that, but a woman who'd done long-term cohabitation may have bad less sexual partners than a woman who hadn't if the other other woman were a one-night-stand kind of girl instead of a shacking up kind of girl.

It's been said "In order to be old and wise, you have to be young and stupid."

Or the young person can do like the young man that Proverbs was addressed to and listen to the wisdom of the wise, and not be enticed by the wayword woman.

I have said time and time again, I believe people should wait before marriage. However, I live in the real world, and I know that the power of love for someone can do amazing things to even the strongest will. I know that I am not above any sin, and I don't underestimate my tendency to fall. Christians who charge into life believing that they will never do something, will ultimately end up doing it. I know - I've been there. I just want people to have the humility to realize that it is so easy to fall.

That's why people who are waiting need to learn about grace and trusting in God to preserve them.

I read somewhere that scientists have discovered that the average person will have fallen in love about seven times before finding the right one.

I doubt scientists have agreed on a scientific defition of 'falling in love.' Can they identify those situations where someone says, "I thought I was in love, but I guess I wasn't. He/she left me for someone else. I feel so stupid." If they can' catch the fake falling in love before it happens, that would save people a lot of grief.
If they mean 'falling in love' is some sort of infatuation, that's one thing. But especially 'falling in love' in a relationship is a result of choices. Even infatuation is-- choosing to look and choosing to think. The reason for seven times is our culture and choices individuals make. Our culture pushes children to date long before we expect them to marry, and then accepts break ups and heartbreaks as normal and a part of growing up. Why is that? Why not let people grow up and get ready to marry before pursuing this sort of thing? It has worked well in some culture including our ancestors'.

People kiss to show their attraction and love - I have NEVER thought that a man wanted to marry me just because he kissed me! LOL

Probably 200 years ago, Americans and the English would have had a different opinion about kissing and a man's intentions.

Just because you have sex with someone who you love very much and admire so much that is not yet your spouse DOES NOT make that man/woman "some random person." Wow...

If you really love someone with the right kind of love, why would you entice that person to sin against the Lord?

Sure. But just because someone leaves a person because they won't share an innocent, loving smooch doesn't mean that person was the scum of the earth - it simply means she/he feels that the expression of a kiss is an expression of love, and probably doesn't want to be with someone who won't share that with him/her, and interpret that as rejection. Because that is the primary way of showing affection in a budding relationship. That's just our culture - and reserving the first kiss for marriage is sorta akin to the extreme of being Amish, in terms of how many people would agree. Saving the kiss is a minority issue, thus limiting the people you could pursue.

If you really love someone, you can put up with some pretty extreme stuff. And someone holding off for the first kiss should explain why. I didn't have the same mindset as my future wife, but I definitely wasn't going to leave her over something like that.

And by the way, the "awakening love" Scripture - Solomon was already wed to his wife. I think that advice is meant to be used in a different context.

She is addressing the daughters of Jerusalem.

I believe one of the reasons sex before marriage is so common is that it is so widely accepted that the youth will have sex before marriage. Our society promotes it. Your own posts about it don't do anything to help, and promote the idea that the youth are likely to mess up. I've lived in a country where virginity before marriage was the norm. Parents expected it. Society expected it. I really believe most people are virgins before marriage there, or were when I lived there, though certainly not all.

 

[jamie26301]

We can prepare youth for common attitudes in society (if they have no contact with society themselves through school) without implying that it is better to lose their virginity before their wedding night so they won't be sore the next day.

Are people lacking in comprehension skills these days? No wonder my English professor said that the English is getting to be a desired major - we're becoming a society that can't comprehend words and people in companies will be looking for the reading skills for jobs that require such abilities.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already reintegrated many times. That's the problem with anyone, Christian or not, that has a narrow, hyper worldview and perspective. Even a HINT at something that's contrary to their sentiments, they take as a personal attack or corruption of youth, even though that in the CONTEXT of what is being said, the message is entirely different - it just has a WIDER view of things, a BIG PICTURE look at the situation.

Choosing a spouse based on past action makes more sense than hair color.

Thank you... which means your whole original comparison made no sense in the context of your argument.

In some cases, virginity is also a physical characteristic.

Yup, but the difference is that it is in the control of the individual, where as the gene of hair color is not.

Tell me, what if a virgin was raped? Would you advocate Christians not dating her because she's not a virgin? (I mean those Christians who want the ideal of virginity?)

The Bible doesn't imply that it is undesirable to marry a redhead, btw. There was no death penalty for being a red hair, dying your hair brown, and then marrying.

And this proves your point how?

There are some guys who would want natural redheads, not fake redheads.

Well, given that redheads are a minority, and it is supposed that they will even be extinct within the next century, I'd say that narrows the dating pool QUITE a bit.

And I'm sorry, but if a Christian man puts on his Christian Singles profile "Redheads only," I think most critically thinking women would roll their eyes and keep browsing - even the redheads. The first thought would be "SHALLOW. SUPERFICIAL. I guess he would want me to be a certain weight as well. Maybe I have to be short enough for him too... NEXT."

It's the lack of contrition over sexual sin that concerns me. That and the willingness to post comments in a discussion group for teens that makes fornication seems like no big deal.

You said the magic word: DISCUSSION. In other words, throwing around ideas - even the ones not commonly accepted. Boy, would this be one heck of a boring world if everyone thought the same way. There would be NO NEED for discussion, because everyone would be on the same page.

Paul said, "What fruit had we then in those things of which we are now ashamed." A Christian should be ashamed of past sin, not talking about the 'advantages' of having committed it to teenagers online.

You know what Paul ALSO said? "God works ALL THINGS to the good of those who loves Him."

[SUP]20 [/SUP]For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. [SUP]
21 [/SUP]What fruit did you have then in the things of which you arenow ashamed? For the end of those things is death.
[SUP]22 [/SUP]But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.
[SUP]23 [/SUP]For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I'd say since Paul emphasizes being free from sin in this chapter, that he is not saying that we should be ashamed of our past wrongs. Notice he is SPEAKING TO THE ROMANS who are feeling the emotion. He is showing that he understands how they feel. When you validate someone else for feeling rage over their credit cards being stolen, you're just saying "I understand why you feel that way" and not "You SHOULD feel that way, and if you don't, you're not a moral Christian."

The fruit Paul speaks of is holiness and life - he is saying that because you have sinned (and remember earlier in the letter he was making a case that ALL have sinned) you have forfeited your seat in heaven. He talks about "weakness of the flesh" and "lawlessness" and "lusts" (which lust can be other things than physical - in the context, is is talking about ALL sin: "Do not let SIN reign in your mortal body"). These are very general terms. Paul is not addressing particular sins here. He is saying that because you were sinning, you weren't being holy. You can't be both at the same time.

And since Paul also talked a bit about being FREE FROM GUILT, I would imagine the truly forgiven Christian is no longer ashamed, because the SIN IS NO LONGER THERE - IT WAS WASHED AWAY. Why be ashamed of something that doesn't exist? This is the MOST BASIC fundamental Christian theology! The forgiveness and God's forgetfulness of sin! Removing it as far as the east is from the west! But boy, when we go prooftexting and isolating verses, we lose sight of the big picture.


I'd say the Christian who is still ashamed doesn't honestly believe God has forgiven him/her. That is the whole reason for being ashamed and feeling guilt - it is an expectation of God's wrath. Because if God forgives that person, that person should be able to forgive themselves.

Refraining from sin is not legalism.

That's true. But commanding others to live by a certain standard is. I have already said in other posts that I don't believe the Bible is infallible, and I believe it's messages should be applied to today, not today applied to ancient times. The Bible endorses slavery too - should we go back to that? Preachers during the 1800s USED SCRIPTURE to support the continuation of slavery.

First of all, it irritates me to see the sensational and often inaccurate spin the press puts on a marriage research article like this.

Well, conservative researchers and media (yes, there is conservative media. Plenty of it. Fox News for example) will put the spin on their studies and articles to promote their views. An unbiased news article or study: all I can say is happy hunting.

I don't want to pay Wiley any money to read the article.

Well, that's fine, but realize that you're not making an informed rebuttal about the study if you don't look it it in it's entirety. If you referenced a conservative-finding study, and I said "Eh, I'm not going to pay" you'd probably accuse me of not investigating the matter, and not caring about the study at all.

But the abstract doesn't mention virginity or prior sexual partners, so your research doesn't address the same research question.

Well, it is assumed that people who live together have sex, so yes, in a way it does.

He abstract says, " In comparisons standardized by age at coresidence, the difference in risk of marital dissolution between premarital cohabitors and those who married without prior cohabitation (“direct marriers”) was much smaller than in comparisons standardized by age at marriage, and in some models this difference was not significant. Selection into direct marriage and premarital cohabitation was also examined."

Which means in some of the author's statistical models, there WAS a significant difference in marriage dissolutions between cohabitors and those who married without cohabiting prior to marriage. It sounds likely the Huffington Post title is a big lie. (No big surprise there, that that rag would contain lies.) Age was just a better variable.

When you conduct a study, you're likely not going to find the same results every time. It would depend on the samples. Again, without looking at the study in it's entirety, you're not making an informed rebuttal.

Also, the research question is different. Let suppose they take 3000 women who did not cohabitate with their spouses before marriage. About 3% of of them are virgins. The other 97% had hooked up with 10 or 20 different guys. They compare this group with a group who had cohabitated with one, two, or three guys each. The cohabitors had lower divorce rates than the mixed group of minority virgins and non-virgin non-cohabitators. My guess is the sample didn't look like that, but a woman who'd done long-term cohabitation may have bad less sexual partners than a woman who hadn't if the other other woman were a one-night-stand kind of girl instead of a shacking up kind of girl.

Yes, let's suppose. In other words, let's not research it. Let's just take the conservative Christian's word for it.

Yes, your guess. In other words, you don't really know what you're arguing against.

Or the young person can do like the young man that Proverbs was addressed to and listen to the wisdom of the wise, and not be enticed by the wayword woman.

The enticement of the wayword woman symbolized temptations for foolish decisions, sexual or otherwise. The whole adultery scene is not meant to be read literally.

I doubt scientists have agreed on a scientific defition of 'falling in love.' Can they identify those situations where someone says, "I thought I was in love, but I guess I wasn't. He/she left me for someone else. I feel so stupid." If they can' catch the fake falling in love before it happens, that would save people a lot of grief.
If they mean 'falling in love' is some sort of infatuation, that's one thing. But especially 'falling in love' in a relationship is a result of choices. Even infatuation is-- choosing to look and choosing to think. The reason for seven times is our culture and choices individuals make. Our culture pushes children to date long before we expect them to marry, and then accepts break ups and heartbreaks as normal and a part of growing up. Why is that? Why not let people grow up and get ready to marry before pursuing this sort of thing? It has worked well in some culture including our ancestors'.

It working well in the past probably had to do with societal stigma. People didn't divorce when they were unhappy, because they would be rejected and made a mockery by society.

I agree that we push kids to get romantically involved with each other WAY too early. But what do you mean by "grow up?" The mother of Jesus is thought to have been 14 or 16 when she wed Joseph. But that's a different society, different culture, and because we live in a country where it's relatively easy to get fed and have a roof, maturity is delayed.

Dating around is the best way to select a partner. Having a serious relationship with someone else before marriage is pretty beneficial. In fact, I've had my friend (devout Christian) post a piece of advice on Facebook to young women not to date a man who is 26 years or older that hasn't had a serious relationship that lasted at least two years... because he will not have had the training in caring for a woman long term, and be ill-prepared for marriage. And this girl is conservative in her theology, and she knows people and how they behave very well.

You learn how to treat someone on the dating scene. Again, we are in a different culture than long ago. As a people, we have different values and viewpoints and different stereotypes. Marrying the first person you date would not be wise IN THE MINDSET/CONTEXT of THIS culture. This culture impresses ideals that are far above what we'll find in a mate - that's true. But for the person who marries the first person they meet, they will likely hold those expectations and ideals as a standard, and will not have built the experiences necessary to sustain a relationship. Presidente, you can't vouch personally that I'm wrong - you've had girls that you dated in the past. Also, I challenge you to show me three examples of people WHO HAVE. Two people, who were each other's first boyfriend/girlfriend, waited to have sex, and lived (happily) together until one of them died. Happy hunting.

It does happen, marrying first love AND it lasting a life-time, happily. It is VERY rare, and anyone who expects that in life and aims for that doesn't want to face reality - and may miss that special someone because they were shooting for an ideal.

Probably 200 years ago, Americans and the English would have had a different opinion about kissing and a man's intentions.

Well guess what? This is NOT 200 years ago. People change. Cultures change. I'm glad we don't live in that society anymore, with the humiliation of the Scarlet Letter, and the cruel things the colonists did to one another who sinned. Jesus never made a public example of people like that. Sure, He criticized, but He didn't command the sinner be placed in the stocks all day.

Colonial Punishments

^^ Yes, let's go back to that. Those were the good old days. People who made mistakes were publicly humiliated rather than taught the Gospel.

This is what happens when a society at a whole believes in a strict, black and white standard of living. They start punishing people or even killing them. History has taught us this TIME AND TIME again. When ONLY ONE perspective is embraced, it breeds violence. You know why? Because we're all different. We all have unique, individual working minds, and no two minds work exactly alike.

Yes, let's go back to that society, where young girls who made a mistake would poison themselves when they find out they were pregnant, because they know the child as well as herself wouldn't be accepted by society. In that time, illegitimate children who did nothing wrong were stigmatized and punished for the sins of their parents... and because of that, would probably have a harder time finding a suitable mate, because they have been marked.

Do you really think the world is more evil today than it ever has been? Just one look at all the wars and disputes through mankind would testify differently. Sure, men may have married a wife and stayed with her the whole life through, yet behind closed doors he would beat her, or lock her in a closet. And he'd have a mistress on the side. Was more common than you think. And that was known to be happening yet NOT frowned upon, because women were viewed differently then. This was England, not even four centuries ago. Thank heavens for Mary Wollenstonecraft.

People who don't want to embrace change often look at history selectively. A elderly white man would talk about the "good old days" while a black man of the same age would have a different sentiment, wishing he had been born a few decades later. All about perspective.

If you really love someone with the right kind of love, why would you entice that person to sin against the Lord?

Again, I agree, and SAID JUST THAT in my last post, in other words.

If you really love someone, you can put up with some pretty extreme stuff. And someone holding off for the first kiss should explain why. I didn't have the same mindset as my future wife, but I definitely wasn't going to leave her over something like that.

She is addressing the daughters of Jerusalem.

True.

I believe one of the reasons sex before marriage is so common is that it is so widely accepted that the youth will have sex before marriage. Our society promotes it. Your own posts about it don't do anything to help, and promote the idea that the youth are likely to mess up. I've lived in a country where virginity before marriage was the norm. Parents expected it. Society expected it. I really believe most people are virgins before marriage there, or were when I lived there, though certainly not all.

Societal stigma will make people hide their sins in a closet. Maybe most of them held out, maybe they didn't. Where are you talking about?

I have known a few Christian couples through my life that had waited for one another. They were self-righteous, and snooty. They obeyed the Lord and like the praying Pharisee of Luke 18, was proud of it. And they spent a good portion of their time throwing stones at those who failed to live up to their standard. Again, this is not absolute - I'm sure there are Christians who waited for each other who are humble. However, in my experience, the people who made the most grave mistakes, who were the worst sinners... were some of the most compassionate and caring people I have ever met. You can't judge someone's heart by their actions. If that were the case, Jesus would've blessed the Pharisee and cursed the prostitute and tax collector. Again, nothing is absolute in terms of the condition of the heart.

 

[jamie26301]

Forgot to respond to this:

If you really love someone, you can put up with some pretty extreme stuff. And someone holding off for the first kiss should explain why. I didn't have the same mindset as my future wife, but I definitely wasn't going to leave her over something like that.

Well, that's good for you. A majority of men (including Christians) would have. I mean, just think about it. Someone says to you "I'm attracted to you, but I don't want to kiss you." In this society, a kiss is usually the validation for attraction. Most men (including Christians) would probably think "Well, if she doesn't want to kiss me, she must not find me very attractive."

All I'm saying is that it's not the norm, so you'll be very hard-pressed to find someone who wants to wait for the kiss on the wedding day. Even waiting for marriage to have sex would be more readily accepted and embraced than that. Who hasn't heard that perspective and standard? And judging by this thread, many (maybe not relative to society as a whole, but it's still a large number) of people agree that one should wait. YOU didn't think when you were young that holding out on kissing was a good idea, did you? Probably because you wanted your girl to know you loved her. Probably because you're human, and wanted to show her that you're interested in her in a way more than just being friends. Actions speak louder than words. Most people probably won't believe someone is attracted to them unless that person proves it with a kiss.

If you're going to exclude kissing, why not go the whole nine yards? Don't hold hands. Don't hug. Because physical contact is something that's for marriage. We must sit at least three feet apart at all times. That is about how silly saving a kiss for marriage will sound to most people - good, moral, upstanding people.

Haven't we all shrunk away from someone because we thought there was something "weird" about them? I can vouch that a good number of dates won't come out and say they're not interested because their girl/boyfriend won't kiss them - because we also live in a society to hails politeness over honesty.

I'm just saying, if someone wants to hold the kiss for marriage, that's fine - but the odds are stacked against that person. Extreme odds. And there's not even a Bible verse to justify waiting. And it's one thing to have faith in God to bring the right person, it's entirely another to expect God to hand you the ideal, when we are all clearly sinners and make mistakes. What we think is best for us isn't always God's best. Sometimes God's best is wrapped up in someone who has a tainted past. And if a Christian can't accept and embrace that, I question his/her genuine love for his/her fellow human being.

If I had waited for marriage, and I met my husband - who had sex before - and I reject him just for that, I shudder at the sheer foolishness of giving up such a great man - who is affectionate, and supportive, who accepts me as I am and finds me attractive, intelligent and spiritual, handsome, helps cook and clean, just THE WHOLE PACKAGE - because I just have to have a virgin when this combination of qualities in a man is so hard to find. I shudder to think of all the happiness that I just throw away, based on something that doesn't even matter to God anymore, because He's forgiven it. It's an absolutely dreadful thought. But hey, that's just me.

 

[presidente]

Are people lacking in comprehension skills these days? No wonder my English professor said that the English is getting to be a desired major - we're becoming a society that can't comprehend words and people in companies will be looking for the reading skills for jobs that require such abilities.

I think I read your post very well, looking back at it. The theme I see in your posts in this thread is something like this, "Yes, premarital sex is a sin, but... here are all these good things that can happen to you if you do it anyway.... and here are all the disadvantages if you don't." Those aren't your words, but it seems to be the general theme. Message 57 and the messages that follow show the impact your type of posts can have on teens.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already reintegrated many times. That's the problem with anyone, Christian or not, that has a narrow, hyper worldview and perspective. Even a HINT at something that's contrary to their sentiments, they take as a personal attack or corruption of youth, even though that in the CONTEXT of what is being said, the message is entirely different - it just has a WIDER view of things, a BIG PICTURE look at the situation.

Why are you posting on the teen forums? I don't usually because it is for teens. But I did this time because I wanted to share my testimony to encourage others not to fall into the sin of fornication. What is your purpose? To tell teens its not so bad to have sex? Or do you just post because you feel like it without considering the ramificatoins? If you are going to take a big picture look at things, take a big picture look at your motivations for posting and the effect your posts could have.

Thank you... which means your whole original comparison made no sense in the context of your argument.

My argument makes sense. You might call it a 'lesser to greater' argument. If you don't judge someone for having a small silly criteria for marriage-- only wanting to marry a redhead--then you should judge someone (assume he is proud) for something more important, like only marrying a virgin.

Someone who wants to marry a redhead is severely limiting his options. But there could be someone out there who is only attracted to a redheads. Btw, I don't think they are all married out. It isn't easy to get rid of recessive genes and if there are still a lot of Irish concentrated in Ireland, there will probably continue to be redheads for a long time. Red hair hasn't been ilimited from mainland Europe or the Americas over the past few hundred years in spite of all the intermarriage among people groups.

Yup, but the difference is that it is in the control of the individual, where as the gene of hair color is not.

Which makes it an even better criteria.

Tell me, what if a virgin was raped? Would you advocate Christians not dating her because she's not a virgin? (I mean those Christians who want the ideal of virginity?)

A rape victim who lost her (or his?) virginity through rape did not choose to fornicate, so it is different. It makes sense to discose the fact before marriage, and before engagement if possible. I am not saying it is forbidden to date a nonvirgin. But it is good to marry a virgin.

And I'm sorry, but if a Christian man puts on his Christian Singles profile "Redheads only," I think most critically thinking women would roll their eyes and keep browsing - even the redheads. The first thought would be "SHALLOW. SUPERFICIAL. I guess he would want me to be a certain weight as well. Maybe I have to be short enough for him too... NEXT."

I guess the singles profile online is pretty normal for dating these days. i got married before that really took off. If a man put, "I find redheads attractive" he might not repel the redheads. If he is only attracted to redheads, he might not want to put that on his profile. But this is hypothetical. I know there are men who like women with red hair, but I don't know of any who only are attracted to redheads. Maybe there are women who really like red hair on men. I just can't recall anyone saying that.

You said the magic word: DISCUSSION. In other words, throwing around ideas - even the ones not commonly accepted. Boy, would this be one heck of a boring world if everyone thought the same way. There would be NO NEED for discussion, because everyone would be on the same page.

There are other places on the forum to discuss these ideas you hold to without the potential to do as much damage.

I'd say since Paul emphasizes being free from sin in this chapter, that he is not saying that we should be ashamed of our past wrongs.

But he actually said it, "What fruit had we then in those things of which we are now ashamed."

Notice he is SPEAKING TO THE ROMANS who are feeling the emotion. He is showing that he understands how they feel. When you validate someone else for feeling rage over their credit cards being stolen, you're just saying "I understand why you feel that way" and not "You SHOULD feel that way, and if you don't, you're not a moral Christian."

I don't think Paul is saying they are in severe emotional pain over past sin. But I sure get the impresson from his writings that Paul had some shame over persecuting the church. He was forgiven, but he still had regret over doing it. If a Christian has fornicated in the past and repented, his attitude should be one of regret over past sin, not "Hey, kids, here are all the advantages to not keeping your virginity... and here are some of the bad things that can happen if you do. And, oh yeah, it's a sin to fornicate, but let's get back to those advantages."

And since Paul also talked a bit about being FREE FROM GUILT, I would imagine the truly forgiven Christian is no longer ashamed, because the SIN IS NO LONGER THERE - IT WAS WASHED AWAY.

The Bible talks about having a clean conscience. And guilt and shame are not the same thing.

Why be ashamed of something that doesn't exist? This is the MOST BASIC fundamental Christian theology! The forgiveness and God's forgetfulness of sin! Removing it as far as the east is from the west! But boy, when we go prooftexting and isolating verses, we lose sight of the big picture.

Paul still remembered that he had persecuted the church. He spoke of being ashamed of past sin to Roman Christians. God forgave the guilt of David's iniquity, and after that told him the bad things that would befall his house because of his sin.

I'd say the Christian who is still ashamed doesn't honestly believe God has forgiven him/her.

So should I believe that you are a true Christian, but that Paul and Romans weren't?

Well, that's fine, but realize that you're not making an informed rebuttal about the study if you don't look it it in it's entirety. If you referenced a conservative-finding study, and I said "Eh, I'm not going to pay" you'd probably accuse me of not investigating the matter, and not caring about the study at all.

I'm in grad school and there is no money in the budget for such things. I've managed to get this far in papers and dissertations without having to pay Wiley just for a .pdf of a paper. I've got library access for most of these kind of things. Fortunately, none of the high ranked journals are inaccessible Wiley journals. I think that journal is a good one for that field, but it's not my field.

Have YOU bothered to buy the journal? I quoted from the abstract which indicated that there WERE models that showed statistical significance that living together led to marriage dissolutoin. The abstract shows us that age is a stronger predicter variable, not that living together is not a predicter. That's how I interpret the abstract at least. If you have a differing opinion of the abstract or you've actually read the article, you can share that. Otherwise, I dont' see why you'd disagree. in general, news people know little about research methods or interpreting research, and grossly overstating results of articles like this is a common problem. But Huffington post seems to be about 80 to 95% editorial and opinion even in the parts that are supposed to be news, anyway.

Yes, let's suppose. In other words, let's not research it. Let's just take the conservative Christian's word for it.

Neither the Huffington Post nor the abstract of the article said anything about the issue we were discussing-- whether virgins have lower divorce rates. A lot of women who don't shack up before getting married may have hooked up without shacking up. If the study doesn't address this issue, it is irrelevant to the point you were making by citing the study in the first place. Do you have any evidence that the researcher dealt with this variable in her study.

The enticement of the wayword woman symbolized temptations for foolish decisions, sexual or otherwise. The whole adultery scene is not meant to be read literally.

Sure it is. It applies quite literally. You can apply it to a variety of other situations, but that doesn't mean the author isn't warning the young man about the dangers of the adulteress.

It working well in the past probably had to do with societal stigma. People didn't divorce when they were unhappy, because they would be rejected and made a mockery by society.

We need to get some social mores back about divorce. People think it is okay to divorce if they are unhappy. So let's say the wife gets unhappy in her marriage. she divorces to go find someone who will make her happy. So now, a bit more wrinkly and several pounds heavier than when she first married, with a couple of kids she and the court system tore out of her husband's life, she lives in near poverty on child support while her ex-husband lives in his dad's basement. She tries to find happiness with other men, who are the are the type who are happy to sleep with her for a night or two. She can't seem to attract the type to 'man up' and marry her and help her raise her and her ex-husband's children, after she has shown disdain for the covenant of marriage. She finally find someone who doesn't think that deeply about the pros and cons of he situation and repeats the same relationship problems that she had with her ex which were her reasons for that divorce. You can reverse the genders if you like. Jesus did not teach couples to divorce if they were not happy.

I agree that we push kids to get romantically involved with each other WAY too early. But what do you mean by "grow up?" The mother of Jesus is thought to have been 14 or 16 when she wed Joseph. But that's a different society, different culture, and because we live in a country where it's relatively easy to get fed and have a roof, maturity is delayed.

One reason people don't marry young in this culture is because it is hard for the young to earn a living. Compared to his parents, a 17 year old raised on a farm may have earn a relatively decent living farming on his own a couple of hundred years ago. But with our modern way of life and fnanical standards, it doesn't make sense. And a combination of factors, maybe video games, child labor laws, the educational system, approaches to parenting, etc., has led to what some have called 'delayed adolescense.'

Dating around is the best way to select a partner. Having a serious relationship with someone else before marriage is pretty beneficial.

it's just the way modern western society does it. When I lived in Korea, they said the arranged marriages had lower divorce rates. Their method of arranged marriage at the time involved the bride and groom getting to know each other with family input. Those who dated were often set up by a slightly older young person on various dates (meetings) until they found someone they liked. There is also courtship, like our country and the English had 150 years ago.

I don't think the young person who just has a lot of friendships and gets to know people well without dating all throughout the teen years and into his or her 20's is at a disadvantage for not having made out with a string of people of the opposite sex, and for not having a broken heart.

In fact, I've had my friend (devout Christian) post a piece of advice on Facebook to young women not to date a man who is 26 years or older that hasn't had a serious relationship that lasted at least two years... because he will not have had the training in caring for a woman long term, and be ill-prepared for marriage.

I'm curious to know if your friend is married yet. I would disagree with your friend. The shy types who have not dated, but have good character, can make good spouses. Is it better to marry someone who is in the habit of having 'serious relationships' and leaving after two years? Doesn't that train people for divorce, instead of life-long marriage?

You learn how to treat someone on the dating scene. Again, we are in a different culture than long ago. As a people, we have different values and viewpoints and different stereotypes. Marrying the first person you date would not be wise IN THE MINDSET/CONTEXT of THIS culture.

It makes a lot of sense if the first person you date is a really good catch. Someone looking to marry can get input from parents, other relatives, friends, pastors, etc., and of course pray and seek the mind of the Lord.

Is it really ethical to go into a serious relationship like that with a mindset that says, "I am absolutely sure I am not going to marry you since you are my first serious bf/gf. I am just going to use you for experience so I will know how to choose a spouse later on. So let's make out for a while so I can make you more attached to me before I dash your heart into a million pieces."

Marriage is on the decline. The divorce rates are high. The way our society does these things is messed up.

Also, I challenge you to show me three examples of people WHO HAVE. Two people, who were each other's first boyfriend/girlfriend, waited to have sex, and lived (happily) together until one of them died. Happy hunting.

I could probably find some church friends and some of my wife's cousins in her country that I know to fit your examples if I really wanted to research it. But I don't feel like asking my cousin-in-laws personal questions about their sex lives before they got married, especially since the ones I'm thinking of are female. Dating multiple partners isn't as accepted there.

Besides, I'm not arguing that you can't date some before you get married. I don't think a Christian should date someone-- a romantic or 'serious relationship' sort of thing-- if he or she knows he or she isn't going to marry that person.

I'm not saying if you ask someone to go get a cup of coffee that you are committing to marry that person.

Well guess what? This is NOT 200 years ago. People change. Cultures change. I'm glad we don't live in that society anymore, with the humiliation of the Scarlet Letter, and the cruel things the colonists did to one another who sinned.

That was a fictional novel, wasn't it? Btw, that was a rather mild punishment considering the alternatives.

I was talking about 200 years ago, the time of Jane Austen novels, and you are thinking about 400 years ago in New England.

This is what happens when a society at a whole believes in a strict, black and white standard of living. They start punishing people or even killing them. History has taught us this TIME AND TIME again. When ONLY ONE perspective is embraced, it breeds violence. You know why? Because we're all different. We all have unique, individual working minds, and no two minds work exactly alike.

You are the one bringing up Puritan laws in New England.

Do you really think the world is more evil today than it ever has been? Just one look at all the wars and disputes through mankind would testify differently. Sure, men may have married a wife and stayed with her the whole life through, yet behind closed doors he would beat her, or lock her in a closet. And he'd have a mistress on the side. Was more common than you think. And that was known to be happening yet NOT frowned upon, because women were viewed differently then. This was England, not even four centuries ago. Thank heavens for Mary Wollenstonecraft.

It's funny the extreme stuff in the movies is seen as typical of the way people lived in past centuries. I remember talking to someone in Korea who thought American was a very dangerous place. It makes sense. He'd probably seen a lot of movies where the police have funfights on the streets with criminals, and destroy 20 or 30 cars in car chases trying to catch a thief.

I was talking about marriage and dating customs 200 years ago, btw, not Puritan stocks from the 1600s or mistresses from the middle ages.

I have known a few Christian couples through my life that had waited for one another. They were self-righteous, and snooty. They obeyed the Lord and like the praying Pharisee of Luke 18, was proud of it. And they spent a good portion of their time throwing stones at those who failed to live up to their standard. Again, this is not absolute - I'm sure there are Christians who waited for each other who are humble. However, in my experience, the people who made the most grave mistakes, who were the worst sinners... were some of the most compassionate and caring people I have ever met. You can't judge someone's heart by their actions. If that were the case, Jesus would've blessed the Pharisee and cursed the prostitute and tax collector. Again, nothing is absolute in terms of the condition of the heart.

Someone can be forgiven and made righteous before God. But we shouldn't encourage people to commit any sin, whether it is pride or fornication. Maybe you don't mean to do that, but reading your posts, it sure seems like you share a lot of 'advantages' to fornication. You also seem to be creating a false dichotomy. If someone remains a virgin before marriage, that doesn't mean that person is proud and condemning of others. And a lot of people who marry as virgins don't go around saying, "I am a virgin!" or "I was a virgin!" I don't go around telling everyone that. I mentioned it on this thread because someone had posted the thread, and I wanted to encourage young people that it is very possible to remain a virgin until their wedding. It's also not inherently proud to want ot marry a virgin, either, and those who wished to do so do not deserve to be judged as proud for it.

 

[hadaza]

Yes, I see your point. The case could be made that having protection opens the door for temptation. You're alone with someone and think "Hey, I've got a condom, why not?" However, temptation could come and overpower someone, and there could be consequences that otherwise wouldn't exist. I think that being on the pill (some women use it for OTHER things than protection against pregnancy - I used it a long time for acne) or carrying condoms is a conscious issue, since there's no clear Scripture on either of those things. I think a young person should act according to their conscious - if they think it's sin, then they shouldn't do it. However, it would be smart to have those things if the young person has a strong sex drive and struggles immensely with sexual desire. Some people struggle with it more than others, would just be more prone to giving in.



"TO HIM," in other words, some things that are "right" or "wrong" is relative to the individual.

I do agree that keeping our eyes focused on Jesus is the greatest way to overcome temptation. I'm in 100% agreement with ya, girl!

my position in this would be bases in this: Ephesians 5:3 "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual inmorality, or any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people". 11 and 12 "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret".

Sexual inmorality of course includes fornication so if God says not even mention it way less to carry protection or something like that.

 

[jamie26301]

I think I read your post very well, looking back at it. The theme I see in your posts in this thread is something like this, "Yes, premarital sex is a sin, but... here are all these good things that can happen to you if you do it anyway.... and here are all the disadvantages if you don't." Those aren't your words, but it seems to be the general theme. Message 57 and the messages that follow show the impact your type of posts can have on teens.

Yes, that's right. What's wrong with that? What wrong with looking at the bright side of things? Because everyone wants a negative, melancholy Scrooge with a chip on his shoulder. I am only saying that if you sin, it is not the end of the world, and God can use it. What's wrong with looking at all the pros and cons of one's decision?

Why are you posting on the teen forums? I don't usually because it is for teens. But I did this time because I wanted to share my testimony to encourage others not to fall into the sin of fornication. What is your purpose? To tell teens its not so bad to have sex? Or do you just post because you feel like it without considering the ramificatoins? If you are going to take a big picture look at things, take a big picture look at your motivations for posting and the effect your posts could have.

Well, I usually don't post here unless I think I could impart some advice and direction, for the same reason you posted. And what we're having a really good discussion, by the way. And if Christian Chat was dogmatic about ONLY TEENS posting here, then I would've been moderated.

My motivation is to reassure young Christians that Christianity is NOT about not having sex, not getting drunk, or not killing someone. You can find that in Islam. You can find that in Judaism. Living the right way in accordance to God's word means nothing if you don't have faith and an emphasis in Jesus Christ and His work. And belief in God, love for Him and who He is should be included. Faith is a genuine interest in knowing the mind of God, a trust in Him, and the willingness to learn and be corrected. Faith is being humble enough to realize there is always more to learn from God and others. Faith is knowing that God will provide what you NEED; not necessarily what you WANT. A Christian facing death at the hands of Muslims may THINK they need to be delivered - but what God gives them is strength, not a way out. Because that death was a witness to Him. Faith is walking in a direction that you may want to go (college, trade school, straight to work) but realizing that what you want or think is best might not be what God has in store for you. Faith is not only saying "I believe You'll bless my life" but ALSO saying "I believe You'll carry me WHEN (NOT if) You chastise me, or when trouble comes in my life."

There's a lot of emphasis on not having sex or pleasure so that you can avoid pain. The Christian with real faith knows that suffering is how God molds us, and transforms us. I am not saying we should sin because God uses it, but the reason for NOT sinning shouldn't be to avoid pain. In the Christian perspective, pain is actually a good thing, and is to be received with joy. If the reason for NOT sinning is to avoid pain, then what profit is there for someone who stands up for Christ in a country that's hostile to Christians? The result is pain, which a lot of Christians emphasize is a bad thing (when it fits their agenda, of course). And then they turn right around and say that being uncomfortable and ridiculed is a GOOD thing, if you're doing something in obedient to God. So, is suffering good or not?

I think the only ramifications is a teen walking away realizing there are different perspectives out there. I see a teen who is not FLOORED when they get to college and hear the same ideas, because they've already been exposed to it. Yes, what I say may influence them, but I'm not MAKING or FORCING them to do anything. How they process my words is their affair, and their business, not mine.

A rape victim who lost her (or his?) virginity through rape did not choose to fornicate, so it is different. It makes sense to discose the fact before marriage, and before engagement if possible. I am not saying it is forbidden to date a nonvirgin. But it is good to marry a virgin.

Ok, that's cool. I agree it would be ideal and good to marry a virgin, but a young Christian should realize the limitations of narrowing the pool in such a fashion.

There are other places on the forum to discuss these ideas you hold to without the potential to do as much damage.

Such as? What damage? Am I twisting anyone's arm?

I don't think Paul is saying they are in severe emotional pain over past sin. But I sure get the impresson from his writings that Paul had some shame over persecuting the church. He was forgiven, but he still had regret over doing it. If a Christian has fornicated in the past and repented, his attitude should be one of regret over past sin, not "Hey, kids, here are all the advantages to not keeping your virginity... and here are some of the bad things that can happen if you do. And, oh yeah, it's a sin to fornicate, but let's get back to those advantages."

Of course he regretted it once in a while. That's called reflecting on the past, and the human tendency to get depressed when something goes wrong. One thing goes wrong, they start thinking about other things that went wrong. That's perfectly natural, but unhealthy to be in perpetually.

The Bible talks about having a clean conscience. And guilt and shame are not the same thing.

How do you have a clean conscience when you're feeling regret over something? And I'd would like you to tell me what the distinction is between the two, I'm ignorant on that.

Paul still remembered that he had persecuted the church. He spoke of being ashamed of past sin to Roman Christians. God forgave the guilt of David's iniquity, and after that told him the bad things that would befall his house because of his sin.

I'm sure Paul wanted the Roman Christians to know that he knows what he did was wrong, and that his remorse is justification as to why they should consider what he has to say. It doesn't necessarily mean he was emotionally gripped as he wrote. If you did something wrong to someone, would you write a letter of advice without offering some sort of apology? Of course not!

Sometimes the bad things that fall is our own emotional prisons. God doesn't chastise exactly the same way for every person.

So should I believe that you are a true Christian, but that Paul and Romans weren't?

I believe that it is human nature to look back sometimes and think "Wow... why did I do that?" But I don't believe Paul focused his sin, because he scarcely mentions it (in the detail of persecuting the church) through all his letters. He poured his energies into ministering, not feeling sorry for himself and beating himself up.

I'm in grad school

Congratulation! What for?

Have YOU bothered to buy the journal?

Honestly, no I haven't. Like you, my husband and I have a tight budget. I have a $500 hospital bill to pay, we have monthly bills coming up, and I'm still looking for a job. But you have a good point, it is hypocritical to ask someone to rebut a study that you haven't read yourself.

Neither the Huffington Post nor the abstract of the article said anything about the issue we were discussing-- whether virgins have lower divorce rates. A lot of women who don't shack up before getting married may have hooked up without shacking up. If the study doesn't address this issue, it is irrelevant to the point you were making by citing the study in the first place. Do you have any evidence that the researcher dealt with this variable in her study.

Yes, according to the abstract, that's true. And no, I don't have any evidence.

Sure it is. It applies quite literally. You can apply it to a variety of other situations, but that doesn't mean the author isn't warning the young man about the dangers of the adulteress.

Well, yes, the surface meaning is there. But it's largely an analogy, I believe. I suppose you could quote it to condemn sexual sin, but that's limiting/narrowing what the text is really teaching.

We need to get some social mores back about divorce. People think it is okay to divorce if they are unhappy. So let's say the wife gets unhappy in her marriage. she divorces to go find someone who will make her happy. So now, a bit more wrinkly and several pounds heavier than when she first married, with a couple of kids she and the court system tore out of her husband's life, she lives in near poverty on child support while her ex-husband lives in his dad's basement. She tries to find happiness with other men, who are the are the type who are happy to sleep with her for a night or two. She can't seem to attract the type to 'man up' and marry her and help her raise her and her ex-husband's children, after she has shown disdain for the covenant of marriage. She finally find someone who doesn't think that deeply about the pros and cons of he situation and repeats the same relationship problems that she had with her ex which were her reasons for that divorce. You can reverse the genders if you like. Jesus did not teach couples to divorce if they were not happy.

Agreed 110%. One of the many reasons I latched onto my husband was his conviction that divorce is wrong. His parents were together until his father died in 2011. So he has that point of reference, that background and model for having a successful marriage.

People get unhappy in marriage, I think largely for one of three broad reasons: 1) they stopped putting work in the relationship, and 2) they rushed into the relationship or were badly mismatched to begin with, and 3) They didn't take time to know themselves and what they want out of life before pursing someone.

One reason people don't marry young in this culture is because it is hard for the young to earn a living. Compared to his parents, a 17 year old raised on a farm may have earn a relatively decent living farming on his own a couple of hundred years ago. But with our modern way of life and fnanical standards, it doesn't make sense. And a combination of factors, maybe video games, child labor laws, the educational system, approaches to parenting, etc., has led to what some have called 'delayed adolescense.'

Yup, good point.

it's just the way modern western society does it. When I lived in Korea, they said the arranged marriages had lower divorce rates. Their method of arranged marriage at the time involved the bride and groom getting to know each other with family input. Those who dated were often set up by a slightly older young person on various dates (meetings) until they found someone they liked. There is also courtship, like our country and the English had 150 years ago.

And I'm not really dissing that. The thing is, WE are not in that society. And the problem with failed marriages has to do with unrealistic expectations, lack of effort, both spouses working and not having much time for each other, differences in raising children and disagreements about the bedroom - there is a TON of possible issues that would need to be addressed in a struggling marriage. I think one of the biggest culprits of a failed marriage is not knowing your boy/grilfriend well before you get married. That can take different time spans for different people. But really connecting with someone is key.

I don't think the young person who just has a lot of friendships and gets to know people well without dating all throughout the teen years and into his or her 20's is at a disadvantage for not having made out with a string of people of the opposite sex, and for not having a broken heart.

This is just my bias, but someone who has never had their heart broken does not appreciate their future spouse (when they marry him/her) nearly to the degree of someone who has their heart broken. You don't know what a treasure someone is, unless you've been with "trash" or less than up to par partners in the past (not talking about sex, but relationships). If you don't have someone who has broken your heart in the past to compare your spouse to, you really don't know how good you've got it, from experience. You may know with your head, you may know logically, but your heart really doesn't compute just how blessed you really are - because you haven't known anything else.

I'm curious to know if your friend is married yet. I would disagree with your friend. The shy types who have not dated, but have good character, can make good spouses. Is it better to marry someone who is in the habit of having 'serious relationships' and leaving after two years? Doesn't that train people for divorce, instead of life-long marriage?

No, she's not. She's opened a bridal shop though, so she talks with lots of women about relationships. She's not really talking about shy men, but immature men. And there's no absolute in what she's saying - it's just advice. People who haven't had a serious relationship prior to marriage may be prone to feel much more overwhelmed with the responsibilities that comes with marriage, because they have no prior experience - only now their marriage, and a vow they made before God and witnesses, is riding on them figuring it out without hurting the other person is such a way to make them want to leave.

Is it really ethical to go into a serious relationship like that with a mindset that says, "I am absolutely sure I am not going to marry you since you are my first serious bf/gf. I am just going to use you for experience so I will know how to choose a spouse later on. So let's make out for a while so I can make you more attached to me before I dash your heart into a million pieces."

Well, it's not unethnical to start dating someone with no intentions of marrying - because BEFORE you can have intentions of marrying, you have to KNOW the person.

My first boyfriend was a guy named Mike. It was primarily a phone relationship, even though we lived in the same town. I was really shy when I went to his relatives with him one day. He broke up with me the next day. I had never held his hand, or kissed him - but my heart was shattered. So don't try to make out like not kissing is going to make someone immune to heartbreak. Rejection hurts. Period.

Marriage is on the decline. The divorce rates are high. The way our society does these things is messed up.

Yup.

I could probably find some church friends and some of my wife's cousins in her country that I know to fit your examples if I really wanted to research it. But I don't feel like asking my cousin-in-laws personal questions about their sex lives before they got married, especially since the ones I'm thinking of are female. Dating multiple partners isn't as accepted there.

Well, I can respect that, but ultimately what that means is you can't show me that this ideal you say we should shoot for is a probable, likely thing that the young Christian will stumble across and experience.

Besides, I'm not arguing that you can't date some before you get married. I don't think a Christian should date someone-- a romantic or 'serious relationship' sort of thing-- if he or she knows he or she isn't going to marry that person.

I'm not saying if you ask someone to go get a cup of coffee that you are committing to marry that person.

What do you think getting coffee is? It's a date! Going to the movies: a date! Going to a Christian rock concert: a date! A date is when two people go alone to some kind of social setting to get to know one another. At least, that's what I've always understood it to be.

I was talking about 200 years ago, the time of Jane Austen novels, and you are thinking about 400 years ago in New England.

Well, I was referring to the Victorian Era in England (Britain, not America). I made TWO references to different points in history where an extreme, narrow standard was embraced. As far as 400 years... I think my math was off a bit, lol

It's funny the extreme stuff in the movies is seen as typical of the way people lived in past centuries. I remember talking to someone in Korea who thought American was a very dangerous place. It makes sense. He'd probably seen a lot of movies where the police have funfights on the streets with criminals, and destroy 20 or 30 cars in car chases trying to catch a thief.

Yes, Hollywood is notorious for screwing up the facts.

I was talking about marriage and dating customs 200 years ago, btw, not Puritan stocks from the 1600s or mistresses from the middle ages.

Ok, but like I said, customs change, cultures change, and instead of focusing on what it USED to be like, you focus on making the best of what is here NOW. In other words, you live in the present.

If someone remains a virgin before marriage, that doesn't mean that person is proud and condemning of others.

Yes, I said that.

It's also not inherently proud to want ot marry a virgin, either, and those who wished to do so do not deserve to be judged as proud for it.

No, but to reject someone because of it (key difference between wanting something and rejecting because of its lack), I would have a hard time believing there isn't some pride/judgement lurking somewhere in the rejection. Maybe those things aren't there in the rejection - but, I would have a hard time believing it.

 

[jamie26301]

my position in this would be bases in this: Ephesians 5:3 "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual inmorality, or any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people". 11 and 12 "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret".

Sexual inmorality of course includes fornication so if God says not even mention it way less to carry protection or something like that.

1Therefore be imitators of God as dear children.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.

[SUP]3 [/SUP]But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; [SUP]
4 [/SUP]neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. [SUP]
7 [/SUP]Therefore do not be partakers with them.

Well, I read it a bit differently. I think when Paul says "named," he means "accusation." Don't do things that would induce others into believing that you are sinning in this fashion. Don't do things that would make someone say "Boy, that person has fornicated." (And no man young man or girl has to shout from the rooftops that they are carrying protection. It is possible to be discreet about that, to prevent the weaker Christian from stumbling.) However, to be sure, we would need to investigate the Greek. This is an example of how two people can read an identical verse, and come to different understandings of that verse.


I'll come back later with what I found in the Greek. God bless.

 

[Jda016]

Jamie, I thought you told me that you think fornication isn't wrong.

With every argument you make, you seem to be in favor of sex before marriage. You don't believe the Bible is infalliable, you believe Some of Jesus' words are up for interpretation, you believe in "some form of reincarnation" so that everyone can eventually get saved (universalism)[around post 99].

You are giving the kids here advise based from worldly studies and your own secular experience. You are not giving them advice based on God's word.

You may or may not choose to argue with me, but I will stand on the foundation of the Lord's words and the words of his apostles.

Any argument for sex before marriage is wrong, no matter how practical you may try to make it out to be.

 

[Animus]

My motivation is to reassure young Christians that Christianity is NOT about not having sex, not getting drunk, or not killing someone.... Living the right way in accordance to God's word means nothing if you don't have faith and an emphasis in Jesus Christ and His work.

But Christianity is about those thing (sanctification). Just because it is not only about those things (apart from faith) does not mean they are not a part of Christianity. It is like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is more important. Having faith means nothing without living the right way in accordance to God's word, because if your so called "faith" allows you to go on fornicating and getting drunk then that faith is a lie. Jesus isn't offering a get out of jail free card. Repentance is about trying as hard as you can and trusting that God will see that you become free. It is the sincere effort that God cares about. For most people that sincere effort is something they would like to avoid more than anything.

Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." He also said, "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Are we really to believe that He believes in compromise or "being reasonable" in accordance with the ways of the world?

I have a friend that claimed to be a Christian for years with the mentality that sex outside of marriage was natural and fine. I, at the time, didn't have the good sense to argue with him, and the time finally came where he ended up in a sexual relationship that effectively destroyed whatever faith he had. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."

Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers" In regards to the pharisees he said "so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice". This idea that prayer and going to church and reading your bible is the only important thing is wrong.

G.K. Chesterton said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." But we have been watering it down as if sanctification is optional. It is not.

 

[Elizabeth619]

proverbs 17:15
He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.