New Study about Virginity Pledges

[PiCO]

When you live together, you're living together. When you are married, however, there is more responsibility and a longer commitment. . . We all changed after we were married. Learning to depend on someone, learning to truly rely on them, to trust them implicity, is not something that is done when you're only living together.

 

Obviously the living together experience is different for different couples. I lived with dh for 2 years before we were married. Everyone said "things will chenge when you're married!" and nothing changed at all. We were "Learning to depend on someone, learning to truly rely on them, to trust them implicity" while we were living together.

 

I did live with a boyfriend previous to dh, and it was quickly obvious that we were not compatible room-mates. I never would have known he was the wrong man for me if we had not lived together. I shudder to think what my life would have been like had I married him without co-habiting first.

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm no theologian, but I believe this is scripturally incorrect. Isn't the unforgivable line blaspheming against the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost?

 

Didn't Peter reject Jesus? Wasn't he forgiven?

 

One of the scripturally well-versed will hopefully help on this one, but I have some confidence I've got this correct*

 

Anyway, violating an oath to God seems like a pretty bad thing in my personal religion.

 

Bill

 

* risk nothing on my so-so :D

 

Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is the literal reading of the Bible on what the unforgivable sin is, but my understanding is that that means repeatedly and willfully denying known leading by the Holy Spirit to faith in Jesus, and that it is unforgivable unless and until it stops and repentance occurs. Meaning that you're willfully denying the relationship with God, and while that is the case, you are not in a state of forgiveness. With other sinfulness, you're still in relationship with God, but acting weakly, resisting temptation to a lessor extent then you should, but still fundamentally connected. Peter didn't reject Jesus' salvation. In a moment of weakness, he denied knowing Him, and repented immediately. (The Bible says that he went out and wept bitterly--although he did not then go back in and fess up to the servant girl who precipitated his denial.) He never fell out of relationship with Him. It's subtle, but that's the difference.

 

WRT the question of the oath, IMV violating an oath to God is extremely serious. It makes one no more liable to God than any other failure, but it has a worse effect and is more serious than many other moral failures would be. (I'm trying to think of a good analogy--here's one. Jesus says that if you hate your brother you're in danger of hellfire. Seeming to equate hatred with murder. So. Both hatred and murder make you immoral, and God wants you to be perfect, so you need Christ's redemption for that. In that sense hatred and murder are equal. But, murder causes more harm--has a worse effect--than hatred does. So in that sense they are not equal. They equally make you need Christ, but are not equal in their fallout. That's how I see violating an oath to God compared to other sins--equally making you need Christ, but more serious in effect than many other sins.)

 

I hope that that is clear.

 

BTW, I don't mean "you" when I say "you" above, but saying "one" sounds pretentious in someone, like me, who is not British. But that is really what I mean. "One" or "someone". I don't mean to direct this at you or anyone else in particular.

Edited December 30, 2008 by Carol in Cal.

[lionfamily1999]

From my vantage point (outside this faith) it seems the belief in a God of loving forgiveness is one end of a spectrum that runs on the other end to a belief in a God with a wrathful and avenging nature and a God fully capable of meeting out condemnation and punishment.

 

The "emphasis" on these two poles of God's nature varies greatly from denomination, and from person to person, but it seems to way to simplistic to me to try to say what all Christians believe. It's far too complex and beliefs are too varied.

 

Not to niggle, but many would argue we have already been condemned at birth not by our own actions, but by the actions of a distant ancestor. And that has nothing to do with our own choices.

 

Here I'm not entirely certain what "repent" means. Because I imagine if I lied to a God I believed it I would feel very ashamed of myself and want to be forgiven. Perhaps a God of mercy could/would forgive me, but could I forgive myself? I tend to think such self-forgiveness would be difficult (understatement). Maybe it's my own personality, but I can't imagine that breaking an oath to my God is something I'd get over.

 

I totally get this. And I think if I shared your faith I'd ask "Abba" to help give me the strength to follow his path, and admit when I felt weak and in need, and do my best to please him. And I would not make the kind of oaths he has told me in scripture I ought not make. Especially if I had the slightest doubt I couldn't keep my bond.

 

This is what I have a problem with. Folks decry the lack of respect people have in their word these days, yet it's OK to break ones trust with God and have it be dismissed with an "eye-roll"?

 

I'm finding it difficult to fathom that it's the non-believer in the crowd who's got the problem with this configuration, but I do.

 

Bill

Bill, I'm a Christian from in the somewhere-in-between spectrum. I hardly know what KIND of Christian I am, but I was raised non-denominational, if that helps ;)

 

I do believe that having kids and adults take oaths that could so easily be broken, especially for arguers of semantics, is wrong and is what has led to this completely dishonorable take on the oaths themselves.

 

At the same time, God created us. He knew we would fall, He knew what we were capable of, both the good and bad. He gave us rules and laws to guide us to paths that would keep us from harm and from harming each other. As much as He expects goodness, He knows us. I'm not sure that God ever 'rolls his eyes,' something I've said many times, I'm not even sure that He has eyes to roll. I'm sure, though, that our actions, both good and bad, are never a surprise.

 

All the same, I believe the 'sin' implied by premarital sex is more due to the possible damage to our inner selves and our physical bodies. It is mankind that has decided to shun each other. Mankind that has decided to enforce morals and put 'punish thy neighbor' above loving them. We've also twisted love to make it equal to sex, something that I believe has done much more damage than anything else the sexual revolution has given us.

 

The polarization all around us, from athiests to diests and beyond, makes me think more on the Tower of Babel than anything else. Moderation is preached and ignored. The idea of a wide avenue, rather than a straight and narrow; of a God that loves us and wants us to succeed, rather than a tyrant; of moderation rather than any extreme; is one I find easy to grasp, but is out of reach of many. I don't believe this disability is faith based, but self-induced on individual levels and I do not believe the 'blame' lays at the feet of God or any religion in and of itself. As usual, the blame lays upon the heads of the people that would use the words given as guides and twist them into cages.

[lionfamily1999]

Obviously the living together experience is different for different couples. I lived with dh for 2 years before we were married. Everyone said "things will chenge when you're married!" and nothing changed at all. We were "Learning to depend on someone, learning to truly rely on them, to trust them implicity" while we were living together.

 

I did live with a boyfriend previous to dh, and it was quickly obvious that we were not compatible room-mates. I never would have known he was the wrong man for me if we had not lived together. I shudder to think what my life would have been like had I married him without co-habiting first.

I think you must be more trusting than me... I fear for you ;)

 

I could not trust, depend or rely on my husband, whole heartedly, until we were married, and even then that level of trust took additional time to build.

 

I did add the disclaimer though, it was a hypocritical statement, seeing as I DID live with DH for six whole months.

[lionfamily1999]

WRT the question of the oath, IMV violating an oath to God is extremely serious. It makes one no more liable to God than any other failure, but it has a worse effect and is more serious than many other moral failures would be. (I'm trying to think of a good analogy--here's one. Jesus says that if you hate your brother you're in danger of hellfire. Seeming to equate hatred with murder. So. Both hatred and murder make you immoral, and God wants you to be perfect, so you need Christ's redemption for that. In that sense hatred and murder are equal. But, murder causes more harm--has a worse effect--than hatred does. So in that sense they are not equal. They equally make you need Christ, but are not equal in their fallout. That's how I see violating an oath to God compared to other sins--equally making you need Christ, but more serious in effect than many other sins.)

 

 

BTW, I don't mean "you" when I say "you" above, but saying "one" sounds pretentious in someone, like me, who is not British. But that is really what I mean. "One" or "someone". I don't mean to direct this at you or anyone else in particular.

First of all, may I put your disclaimer into my signature?

 

Second! Okay, when asked what was the most important commandment, Jesus put 'love thy neighbor' above all the rest. Why? Because if you love them, then the rest fall into place. When it comes time to count damage, weigh sins, and everything, I believe they are all judged equally. Why? Because when you hate someone, hypothetically speaking, you are 'murdering' them in your mind. Your hate translates to those around you. If you have a single friend in the world, or someone else sees that hate, or even the brunt of that hate is aware of it, you cause damage to them. All of the ten commandments can lead to irreperable harm being done. That, I believe, is why they are all considered equal. In the end, every one of them is the result of not loving your neighbor.

 

It's like the classrooms where the rules consist of A. Respect yourself B. Respect others. At first it seems easy, woohoo two rules, then you realize how many rules are covered in those two.

[Jenny in Atl]

Obviously the living together experience is different for different couples. I lived with dh for 2 years before we were married. Everyone said "things will chenge when you're married!" and nothing changed at all. We were "Learning to depend on someone, learning to truly rely on them, to trust them implicity" while we were living together.

 

I did live with a boyfriend previous to dh, and it was quickly obvious that we were not compatible room-mates. I never would have known he was the wrong man for me if we had not lived together. I shudder to think what my life would have been like had I married him without co-habiting first.

 

I always get a kick out of the fact that dh and I lived together for a number of years before getting married. We just celebrated 25 years together this last November. He is my best friend, my life. Living with him before making it kosher did nothing to diminish or lesson the amazing experience I have had with him. I only hope that I can live another 25 years, to share with him.

[Spy Car]

Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is the literal reading of the Bible on what the unforgivable sin is, but my understanding is that that mean repeatedly and willfully denying known leading by the Holy Spirit to faith in Jesus, and that it is unforgivable unless and until it stops and repentance occurs.

 

This doesn't seem to me (no expert) a plain text reading of Matthew 12 (KJV) which reads in part:

 

"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

 

Any this is a bit far afield (mea culpa) of the discussion at hand.

 

WRT the question of the oath, IMV violating an oath to God is extremely serious. It makes one no more liable to God than any other failure, but it has a worse effect and is more serious than many other moral failures would be. (I'm trying to think of a good analogy--here's one. Jesus says that if you hate your brother you're in danger of hellfire. Seeming to equate hatred with murder. So. Both hatred and murder make you immoral, and God wants you to be perfect, so you need Christ's redemption for that. In that sense hatred and murder are equal. But, murder causes more harm--has a worse effect--than hatred does. So in that sense they are not equal. They equally make you need Christ, but are not equal in their fallout. That's how I see violating an oath to God compared to other sins--equally making you need Christ, but more serious in effect than many other sins.)

 

I hope that that is clear.

 

It's clear to me. I feel a bit "funny" saying that's the way I'd see it were I a member of the faith (since I'm not). So I'll leave it at that.

 

BTW, I don't mean "you" when I say "you" above, but saying "one" sounds pretentious in someone, like me, who is not British. But that is really what I mean. "One" or "someone". I don't mean to direct this at you or anyone else in particular.

 

Gosh, I say (and write) "one" all the time. And come to think of it I've often been asked if I'm British...are people really trying to say they think I'm pretentious? :tongue_smilie::lol:

 

Bill (who does not require an answer to the last question :D )

[beansprouts]

I'd be quite surprised if you were, to be honest.

 

 

 

Cindy, it would seem to me to be a great error to over-generalize about what Christians believe on this front.

 

From my vantage point (outside this faith) it seems the belief in a God of loving forgiveness is one end of a spectrum that runs on the other end to a belief in a God with a wrathful and avenging nature and a God fully capable of meeting out condemnation and punishment.

 

The "emphasis" on these two poles of God's nature varies greatly from denomination, and from person to person, but it seems to way to simplistic to me to try to say what all Christians believe. It's far too complex and beliefs are too varied.

 

God is all of these things. Different denominations emphasize different qualities of God. He is just too big for humanity to understand. Think of the "Three Blind Men and the Elephant".

 

For the same reason, we can come to a false understanding of God. The "Daddy-God" can easily become a Santa Claus in the sky, and the Holy God can be seen as cold and aloof. The truth is somewhere inthe middle. God is both a Holy God and a God who wants to be in relationship with us.

 

Not to niggle, but many would argue we have already been condemned at birth not by our own actions, but by the actions of a distant ancestor. And that has nothing to do with our own choices.

 

 

We have a choice. We can either choose God or not. In not choosing God, we condemn ourselves to be without Him. He will not force Himself on us.

 

Here I'm not entirely certain what "repent" means. Because I imagine if I lied to a God I believed it I would feel very ashamed of myself and want to be forgiven. Perhaps a God of mercy could/would forgive me, but could I forgive myself? I tend to think such self-forgiveness would be difficult (understatement). Maybe it's my own personality, but I can't imagine that breaking an oath to my God is something I'd get over.

 

Repent means simply to turn and recognize the wrongness of our actions, ask forgiveness, and try not to repeat the offense. It isn't as easy as it sounds. You remember the story: Adam sinned, then he hid from God. Our children do wrong, then they try to cover it up and hope nobody finds out. It is human nature. Except that we forget God already knows...

 

This is what I have a problem with. Folks decry the lack of respect people have in their word these days, yet it's OK to break ones trust with God and have it be dismissed with an "eye-roll"?

 

Personally, I would rather God see me as His faithful and trusted servant. I would hate to think He rolls his eyes at me as if I am a preschooler trying to negotiate another chocolate bar.

[beansprouts]

I'm no theologian, but I believe this is scripturally incorrect. Isn't the unforgivable line blaspheming against the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost?

 

Didn't Peter reject Jesus? Wasn't he forgiven?

 

One of the scripturally well-versed will hopefully help on this one, but I have some confidence I've got this correct*

 

Anyway, violating an oath to God seems like a pretty bad thing in my personal religion.

 

Bill

 

* risk nothing on my so-so :D

 

Peter was a courageous man became who prideful and fell to cowardace. When the heat was on he swore he didn't know Christ. Jesus told him it would happen, and told him in advance that he would be forgiven and that He had a job for Peter when he returned ;)

 

That is not what Peek is talking about.

 

What she is talking about is rejecting the forgiveness offered by Christ. If we reject the means for our salvation, we choose not to be saved. God won't force Himself on us.

[beansprouts]

Second! Okay, when asked what was the most important commandment, Jesus put 'love thy neighbor' above all the rest.

 

...actually that is the second most important commandment.....

 

:D

[lionfamily1999]

...actually that is the second most important commandment.....

 

:D

(lifting one eyebrow, because there is no smiley for that)

quoi?

[beansprouts]

(lifting one eyebrow, because there is no smiley for that)

quoi?

 

From Matthew 22:

 

The Greatest Commandment

 

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

 

[lionfamily1999]

From Matthew 22:

 

 

Right on, sometimes I'm such a dink I surprise myself.

 

I KNEW that.

 

Point for you......

[PiCO]

I think you must be more trusting than me... I fear for you ;)

 

It's not that I'm so trusting. It's just that even before we were married, I couldn't image ever not living with dh. It wasn't like Romeo and Juliet or anything, and it wasn't perfect harmony, it was just right. I'm not sure I would have recognized that if I hadn't had my previous unhealthy relationship.

 

I could not trust, depend or rely on my husband, whole heartedly, until we were married, and even then that level of trust took additional time to build.

 

This statement makes me sad for you.

[lionfamily1999]

It's not that I'm so trusting. It's just that even before we were married, I couldn't image ever not living with dh. It wasn't like Romeo and Juliet or anything, and it wasn't perfect harmony, it was just right. I'm not sure I would have recognized that if I hadn't had my previous unhealthy relationship.

 

 

 

This statement makes me sad for you.

I was kidding about the fearing for you, ergo the ;)

 

I don't know why you would be sad for me. I could not imagine bareing (bearing?) my soul to someone without knowing (KNOWING) that they would always be there. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. But then, I've always been that way.

[Spy Car]

God is all of these things. Different denominations emphasize different qualities of God. He is just too big for humanity to understand. Think of the "Three Blind Men and the Elephant".

 

For the same reason, we can come to a false understanding of God. The "Daddy-God" can easily become a Santa Claus in the sky, and the Holy God can be seen as cold and aloof. The truth is somewhere inthe middle.

 

I understand that the "nature" of God is complex in Christian thought, and I didn't want you to think I was under any misapprehension to the contrary.

 

We have a choice. We can either choose God or not. In not choosing God, we condemn ourselves to be without Him. He will not force Himself on us.

 

You are no doubt aware that some of your co-religionists (for lack of a better term) might take issue with this point. From my limited understanding the "Dark Siders" believe we (being totally depraved beings) can't choose God, God must choose us.

 

I'll stay out of that theological argument, but again there is "complexity" here in what Christians (or certain sects of Christians) profess as theological truth. It ain't simple.

 

Repent means simply to turn and recognize the wrongness of our actions, ask forgiveness, and try not to repeat the offense. It isn't as easy as it sounds. You remember the story: Adam sinned, then he hid from God. Our children do wrong, then they try to cover it up and hope nobody finds out. It is human nature. Except that we forget God already knows...

 

A the risk of taking us down another rabbit hole, I'll repeat my objection to the idea Adam could have "sinned" if he lacked the capacity to tell "good from evil."

 

But playing along for a moment, I don't remember Adam and Eve being "forgiven" in the story. Rather (at least according to mainstream Christian teaching) they and all their descendants were cursed in various forms including mortality, pain, and inescapable sinfulness. That's the God from the hard side of the spectrum.

 

Personally, I would rather God see me as His faithful and trusted servant. I would hate to think He rolls his eyes at me as if I am a preschooler trying to negotiate another chocolate bar.

 

The "eye-rolling" thing was your phraseology borrowed.

 

Being a faithful and trusted servant seems like a reasonable role, but there really isn't a need for faithful and trusted servants to take "oaths" is there? And if they do take oaths and then they break them then they couldn't possibly deserve the adjectives "faithful" or "trusted" could they?

 

Bill

[lionfamily1999]

Once Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge, he knew good from evil, so I guess at some point, during the act, he became aware of his sinfulness.

 

My understanding is that they were no longer pure and could not stay in the garden because of that. They were removed from God's presence by that act. The birth pains and everything went along with it. God did forgive them, but they had to face the consequences of their actions regardless.

 

If you sin, your path in life is altered. Glory and good works that were once set aside for you, are no longer attainable by you because of that sin. God will forgive you, but you cannot backtrack to that path.

[newlifemom]

Whew! 22 pages but I did it! Read 'em all.:svengo:

[Haiku]

Learning to depend on someone, learning to truly rely on them, to trust them implicity, is not something that is done when you're only living together.

 

I don't think that's true. My husband and I lived together for four months before we got married. We had been engaged for four months already, my lease was up, and due to my work situation, it wasn't feasible to move in with either of my parents for the next four months before I married my husband.

 

As soon as my husband proposed to me, I felt that we were married. Indeed, we chose to postpone an immediate (within two weeks of proposal) wedding only because we wanted our wedding anniversary to coincide with his parents'.

 

Perhaps it is different if people live together with no intention of marrying or with no plans for the foreseeable future (or perhaps it's not, I have not done either), but a blanket "Living together precludes a marital type of trust and reliance" statement isn't true of my situation. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I don't view marriage as a religious thing and my husband and I were married in a civil ceremony.

 

Tara

[lionfamily1999]

Whew! 22 pages but I did it! Read 'em all.:svengo:

:w00t::hurray:

[lionfamily1999]

I don't think that's true. My husband and I lived together for four months before we got married. We had been engaged for four months already, my lease was up, and due to my work situation, it wasn't feasible to move in with either of my parents for the next four months before I married my husband.

 

As soon as my husband proposed to me, I felt that we were married. Indeed, we chose to postpone an immediate (within two weeks of proposal) wedding only because we wanted our wedding anniversary to coincide with his parents'.

 

Perhaps it is different if people live together with no intention of marrying or with no plans for the foreseeable future (or perhaps it's not, I have not done either), but a blanket "Living together precludes a marital type of trust and reliance" statement isn't true of my situation. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I don't view marriage as a religious thing and my husband and I were married in a civil ceremony.

 

Tara

I was wrong then. I just can't imagine someone being able to bare their soul without a concrete commitment.

 

We lived together, that was mentioned earlier, for six months before our wedding, but I would have to say that while I trusted him beyond all others, there were things I could not have shared with him before we had built that segment of our relationship on marraige.

[Haiku]

I was wrong then. I just can't imagine someone being able to bare their soul without a concrete commitment.

 

 

I guess I look at it from the other end: I wouldn't have agreed to share my life with someone who wouldn't bare his soul to me and with whom I didn't feel comfortable baring my soul. And I felt that my husband's word (his proposal) was indeed a concrete commitment. :)

 

Tara

[beansprouts]

You are no doubt aware that some of your co-religionists (for lack of a better term) might take issue with this point. From my limited understanding the "Dark Siders" believe we (being totally depraved beings) can't choose God, God must choose us.

 

I respect the Dark Siders, I think they make some excellent points. I certainly lean more towards their line of thinking than the one that promotes a "works based" salvation.

 

Anything I can say about God would be a simplification. I know you understand this.

 

I'll stay out of that theological argument, but again there is "complexity" here in what Christians (or certain sects of Christians) profess as theological truth. It ain't simple.

 

A the risk of taking us down another rabbit hole, I'll repeat my objection to the idea Adam could have "sinned" if he lacked the capacity to tell "good from evil."

 

 

Part of your problem is that you don't accept that Adam was "fully human" when he was created. God gave him one rule, and he broke it. He brought sin and death into the world and all of creation was cursed as a result of it.

 

But playing along for a moment, I don't remember Adam and Eve being "forgiven" in the story. Rather (at least according to mainstream Christian teaching) they and all their descendants were cursed in various forms including mortality, pain, and inescapable sinfulness. That's the God from the hard side of the spectrum.

 

God told Adam and Eve that there would be redemption by way of "The Seed of the Woman".

 

Being a faithful and trusted servant seems like a reasonable role, but there really isn't a need for faithful and trusted servants to take "oaths" is there? And if they do take oaths and then they break them then they couldn't possibly deserve the adjectives "faithful" or "trusted" could they?

 

Exactly.

 

But the other thing to remember is that God isn't surprised when we break our oaths. He knows before we do that we will break them, and knows the exact time and place.

Edited December 31, 2008 by beansprouts

[beansprouts]

Right on, sometimes I'm such a dink I surprise myself.

 

I KNEW that.

 

Point for you......

 

It is an important distinction. The two great commandments are a summary of the Ten. The first four commandments tell us how to love God, and the next six tell us how to love our neighbor. It is not by chance that they are in that order.

[beansprouts]

Whew! 22 pages but I did it! Read 'em all.:svengo:

 

 

23 now.

 

I don't think I know what the thread was about anymore... :lol:

[lionfamily1999]

The origin of man, right? lol

[5kidsforME]

Once Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge, he knew good from evil, so I guess at some point, during the act, he became aware of his sinfulness.

 

My understanding is that they were no longer pure and could not stay in the garden because of that. They were removed from God's presence by that act. The birth pains and everything went along with it. God did forgive them, but they had to face the consequences of their actions regardless.

 

If you sin, your path in life is altered. Glory and good works that were once set aside for you, are no longer attainable by you because of that sin. God will forgive you, but you cannot backtrack to that path.

 

Because of Adam and Eve all of our lives were altered. Ultimately they made that decision for the rest of us. The decision isn't made by each person.

[Spy Car]

I respect the Dark Siders, I think they make some excellent points. I certainly lean more towards their line of thinking than the one that promotes a "works based" salvation.

 

You would have to admit the Dark Side theology on salvation directly contradicts the assertion you made that "we" choose God and God doesn't choose us. I'm open to a certain amount of complexity, but on this point the two positions are completely incompatible.

 

Anything I can say about God would be a simplification. I know you understand this.

 

Ditto for me :001_smile:

 

Part of your problem is that you don't accept that Adam was "fully human" when he was created.

 

How's that a problem? It's a plain reading of the text. Man's nature in the story clearly changed upon gaining the knowledge of good and evil. Man becomes more "god-like", God says that himself.

 

God gave him one rule, and he broke it. He brought sin and death into the world and all of creation was cursed as a result of it.

 

"Disobedience" of orders by beings lacking the ability to reason right from wrong has no moral value, and can't be considered "sin".

 

And to curse future generations for the morally-neutral disobedience of an ancestors who actions they had nothing what-so-ever to do with is unjust in the extreme.

 

But the other thing to remember is that God isn't surprised when we break our oaths. He knows before we do that we will break them, and knows the exact time and place.

 

I'm surprised a just God doesn't just smote people who break their sacred oaths to him/her right on the spot. :lol:

 

Bill

[Rich with Kids]

23 now.

 

I don't think I know what the thread was about anymore... :lol:

 

 

It's about teA! *crickets chirping*

 

Doh!...wrong thread...:leaving:

[5kidsforME]

I was wrong then. I just can't imagine someone being able to bare their soul without a concrete commitment.

 

We lived together, that was mentioned earlier, for six months before our wedding, but I would have to say that while I trusted him beyond all others, there were things I could not have shared with him before we had built that segment of our relationship on marraige.

 

 

Dh and I both bared our souls to one another before we were married and we never lived together or had sex before marriage.

[Nicole M]

It's astonishing to me that we've gotten through twenty-some pages without talking about the fact that (female) virginity is pretty doggone important in the Christian tradition. You know, the whole Virgin Birth thing....

 

When are we going to get to that, huh, kids?

 

Or maybe I missed it?

[beansprouts]

You would have to admit the Dark Side theology on salvation directly contradicts the assertion you made that "we" choose God and God doesn't choose us. I'm open to a certain amount of complexity, but on this point the two positions are completely incompatible.

 

 

I think both sides are right about some points, and wrong about others. My opinion is that if are drowning, and someone reaches a hand out to you. You can choose to take hold of that hand, or drown. (Which really isn't much of a choice at all, is it?) If you accept the hand and allow yourself to be pulled to safety, you can't say that you "saved yourself". But how do we know we are drowning to begin with? The God's sovreignty vs. free will debate is ancient and complicated and nobody really understands it.

 

I'm surprised a just God doesn't just smote people who break their sacred oaths to him/her right on the spot. :lol:

 

 

And that is why we are all glad that you are not God :D

[beansprouts]

It's astonishing to me that we've gotten through twenty-some pages without talking about the fact that (female) virginity is pretty doggone important in the Christian tradition. You know, the whole Virgin Birth thing....

 

When are we going to get to that, huh, kids?

 

Or maybe I missed it?

 

 

Nope. We were waiting for you ;)

[tibbyl]

I always get a kick out of the fact that dh and I lived together for a number of years before getting married. We just celebrated 25 years together this last November. He is my best friend, my life. Living with him before making it kosher did nothing to diminish or lesson the amazing experience I have had with him. I only hope that I can live another 25 years, to share with him.

 

Our experience here parallels that of you and your husband, Jenny. We celebrate 30 years of togetherness next May. We were so sure that we were right for each other that we moved in together about a month after meeting for first time. It helped that both of us had the life experience that enabled us to not confuse lust with overall compatibility. Nor do I feel that our union is tainted, regretful, or any less special for having lived together prior to marriage. In fact, when I think about our ultimate deaths, I sometimes wish we could go together.

[lionfamily1999]

Because of Adam and Eve all of our lives were altered. Ultimately they made that decision for the rest of us. The decision isn't made by each person.

 

Dh and I both bared our souls to one another before we were married and we never lived together or had sex before marriage.

I'm sorry, I'm getting sleepy and I can't see where the first statement is coming from... I agree that the action of Adam & Eve affected the rest of us.

 

Again, I just couldn't imagine doing that at that stage.

Edited December 31, 2008 by lionfamily1999

[newlifemom]

In fact, when I think about our ultimate deaths, I sometimes wish we could go together.

 

 

You should read A Severe Mercy by Shelden Van Auken (not sure on the last name) Although unabashedly Christian, (they don't start out that way) it touches on the theme of love as a shining barrier that only death could break. I won't say anymore 'cause I wouldn't want to spoil it. Oh, and CS Lewis is a prominent player in this true story. Man, I need to read it again.

[beansprouts]

It's about teA! *crickets chirping*

 

Doh!...wrong thread...:leaving:

 

Please check that number again...

 

:lol:

[lionfamily1999]

It's about teA! *crickets chirping*

 

Doh!...wrong thread...:leaving:

:smilielol5: I get it ;)

[newlifemom]

Bill,

 

May I just comment that I love your participation in these conversations. You always make me think. Of course, now my head hurts.:tongue_smilie:

[Happy]

Dh and I both bared our souls to one another before we were married and we never lived together or had sex before marriage.

 

Same here.

 

We dated (and worked together) for two full years before getting married. We knew each other's families, religious beliefs, work ethic, and hobbies. We'd seen each other happy and sad. We'd seen each other puking our guts out. There was not much we hadn't shared together.

 

The important thing we knew about each other was that we loved God and each other. No matter what life has thrown at us those remain our guiding principles.

 

I'm more than delighted that the only man I've ever had s*x with is my husband and he with me. We've been married 31 years and counting....

 

I want that same specialness for my sons with their wives.

[Peek a Boo]

it would seem to me to be a great error to over-generalize about what Christians believe on this front.

 

and THAT's why i said "in a nutshell" lol. everyone has a slightly different interpretation of how they perceive God. I'm not God, so I'm not going to elaborate for each person.

 

I'm no theologian, but I believe this is scripturally incorrect. Isn't the unforgivable line blaspheming against the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost?

 

What's the general concept behind the Trinity? 3 in 1 ;)

 

Didn't Peter reject Jesus? Wasn't he forgiven?

 

I think beans got this one pretty well covered. deny temporarily vs reject whole-heartedly. And Christ Knows our Hearts.

 

Anyway, violating an oath to God seems like a pretty bad thing in my personal religion.

 

yeah, here too. But no worse than any other sin we are prone to.

 

 

The "emphasis" on these two poles of God's nature varies greatly from denomination, and from person to person, but it seems to way to simplistic to me to try to say what all Christians believe. It's far too complex and beliefs are too varied.

 

yes, it is way too simplistic to really delve into in this thread. Even lifelong theologians don't agree. :D

 

 

 

Perhaps a God of mercy could/would forgive me, but could I forgive myself? I tend to think such self-forgiveness would be difficult (understatement). Maybe it's my own personality, but I can't imagine that breaking an oath to my God is something I'd get over.

 

that's a question a lot of people can't answer. Thankfully I am not The One in charge of forgiveness. ;)

 

Maybe it's my own personality, but I can't imagine that breaking an oath to my God is something I'd get over.

And I would not make the kind of oaths he has told me in scripture I ought not make.

 

again, i'm not much of an oath person, but a lot of this depends on how the oath is phrased.

He tells us in Scripture to not make oaths about trying to do our best?

 

Ecclesiastes 5

4 When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. 5 It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. 6 Do not let your mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the temple messenger, "My vow was a mistake." Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands?

 

i think we could do a huge study on this one, but it is not a condemnation on all oaths --only a reminder to fulfill them to the best of our sinful nature.

 

Matthew 5:37

37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

 

James 5:12

12Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.

 

since these are both about the same thing, the second one clarifies that this is about bringing in an entity --which is why many Christians won't swear on a Bible. Looking at it in context of the OT, a vow itself isn't an issue.

 

 

I'm finding it difficult to fathom that it's the non-believer in the crowd who's got the problem with this configuration, but I do.

 

 

maybe that's because you're looking at the situation through the lens of man's idea of legalistic wisdom instead of the cover of God's perfection and grace ;)

 

You would have to admit the Dark Side theology on salvation directly contradicts the assertion you made that "we" choose God and God doesn't choose us. I'm open to a certain amount of complexity, but on this point the two positions are completely incompatible.

 

You can still be a Christian and have a wrong understanding of certain points of scripture. I'm open to either interpretation, actually. I tend to side w/ "God chooses all of us, but some run far away, and God lets them."

 

good discussion :)

[beansprouts]

I'm more than delighted that the only man I've ever had s*x with is my husband and he with me. We've been married 31 years and counting....

 

I want that same specialness for my sons with their wives.

 

I do envy that, Happy. I pray that one day my children will be able to say this.

 

:grouphug:

[Peek a Boo]

I think the DARE program fails for the same reason that many church run abstinence programs fail. They lie. Masturbation does not cause blindness or any disturbances in the mind. Pot will not make you crazy. Perhaps if there was more honesty and less fear, kids would be less tempted.

 

I heard plenty of honesty when we were exposed to the DARE program. And abstinence programs. I don't think the DARE program fails because of the program, i think it fails because of the reason it was needed in the first place: an abundance of drugs and a lack of solid parental/authoritarian relationships. Ditto w/ abstinence programs.

 

Apparently, traditional sex ed programs 'fail' too --teen pregnancies and STD's are still too numerous to point to a huge success rate. And that's just the ones that are reported. Back to my original post about the word of a bunch of teens when it comes to sex. "Pick a study- any study" ;)

 

 

It seems like most forbidden fruit ends up as a regular on the diets of teens and young adults. If you have sex, outside of marraige, and God allows you to live, then you have to wonder if it's so bad after all. If you know people that do drugs and they aren't crack head crazies, then you begin to wonder if anything they taught you in DARE is true.

 

 

it sounds like you have heard a different version of DARE/ abstinence programs than i have. I'm sure there's just as much variance in the effectiveness of sex ed programs too.....

[Catherine]

I definitely fall into the category of people who are grateful they did not "wait". If I had married young, I would never have met my wonderful dh, my soulmate. I just can't at all agree that marriage young, courting, and in all cases foregoing premarital sex are a formula for happiness. I think happiness and misery are so much more related to other factors, in a marriage and in life.

 

I want to direct anyone who is interested to a book and some research done that addresses the topic of teenage sex, pre-marital sex, purity pledges and social\cultural\religious factors. Mark Regnerus is a researcher at University of Texas who has written a book about his work in this area. I confess I did not (yet) read it, but read excerpt after reading about his research in The New Yorker in a fascinating article called "Red Sex Blue Sex"-you can google any of these and easily find them. The gist of the New Yorker article is that teen pregnancy rates are high, surprisingly high, amongst "evangelical" teens, and this social group has the second highest rate of early sexual activity of the groups he examined. One of his conclusions is that purity pledges work best when the kids are surrounded by others who have NOT pledged-their conviction seems to sometimes stem from feeling they are an embattled minority. So if all of their friends pledge, it doesn't seem to protect any of them nearly so well. I suspect the families I've seen described in this thread who don't talk much are likely to have less favorable outcome. Interesting stuff.

[Zelda]

 

I want to direct anyone who is interested to a book and some research done that addresses the topic of teenage sex, pre-marital sex, purity pledges and social\cultural\religious factors. Mark Regnerus is a researcher at University of Texas who has written a book about his work in this area. I confess I did not (yet) read it, but read excerpt after reading about his research in The New Yorker in a fascinating article called "Red Sex Blue Sex"

 

I would be very inclined to doubt the neutrality of this article and any research that was involved.

[sunshine]

Originally Posted by Spy Car

You would have to admit the Dark Side theology on salvation directly contradicts the assertion you made that "we" choose God and God doesn't choose us. I'm open to a certain amount of complexity, but on this point the two positions are completely incompatible.

 

 

 

I am glad that you are reading the Dark Side. BUt I wouldn't try to understand with Man's understanding. A Preacher who was in his 70"s told me that The Doctrine of Election (which is what the Dark Side believes) was for the mature believer. You have to be a Believer first then the understanding comes because

 

1 Corinthians 1:18

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

and

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

The strength of the Believer does not come from his own belief but from a supernatural belief that is given at the time of salvation. That is why it is so baffling to the unbeliever, they cannot understand why we would believe in an Invisible God. God gives us the belief, he gives us faith

 

Ephesians 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

 

and

Romans 10:17

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

 

So Faith is a gift, Belief is a gift, both are supernatural, and neither one does the unbeliever have. But they can pray for it.

Edited December 31, 2008 by sunshine
spelling is my bane

[Peek a Boo]

I would be very inclined to doubt the neutrality of this article and any research that was involved.

 

ya think?!! lol......

[sunshine]

I hope I sounded nice in that last reply. I just got home, got the kids to bed, have to go ice skating tomorrow ( and don't want to), had a migraine last night, had a demerol hangover today, so I may sound grumpy. So I am going to say one thing and go to bed...

 

Regarding the Doctrine of Election, the way that I see it most clearly is that Man, dead in his sins, could not reach out to a Sovereign, Loving God, because

Dead men cannot do anything to help themselves. They are dead, and that indicates lifelessness and unable to reach out.

So a loving God reached down and pulled us from death, brought us to life, washed us from our sins (which no man is sinless and if you say you have never sinned lied, lusted, coveted, anger etc...as named in the Bible as sins, then you are a liar and the truth is not in you.)

and after washing us from our sins, presents us to Himself (Triune God), as blameless and Holy. Pretty simple.

 

I do believe this. Completely. Without doubt and with full knowledge that this is true. But I understand why the unbeliever does not. And I will not mock him/her. But I know I will be mocked for my belief and that is okay. Just not on this board okay? This is my safe place:D

[Spy Car]

I'm not God, so I'm not going to elaborate for each person.

 

I'm not God either, but this formatting thing does give me a certain sense of power :D

 

What's the general concept behind the Trinity? 3 in 1 ;)

 

Don't ask me, I'm still trying to figure it out. Jesus seems to be saying it's OK to blaspheme his part of the triune god-head, but not the spirit part, but if they are all one then....it all seems like dangerous ground to me.

 

deny temporarily vs reject whole-heartedly.

 

What's the difference? Time issue?

 

yeah, here too. But no worse than any other sin we are prone to.

 

Breaking a oath to God seems like a bad one to me, but maybe I'm funny that way.

 

Even lifelong theologians don't agree. :D

 

Is this the fault of the theologians?

 

maybe that's because you're looking at the situation through the lens of man's idea of legalistic wisdom instead of the cover of God's perfection and grace ;)

 

You hit the nail on head here Peep :D

 

You can still be a Christian and have a wrong understanding of certain points of scripture.

 

I just never knew how wide the depurates were between the numerous streams of the faith, the WTM board has been a education for unschooled me.

 

good discussion :)

 

Always Peep, always.

 

Bill

[Nicole M]

I would be very inclined to doubt the neutrality of this article and any research that was involved.

 

Why? I just read the whole article and it's fascinating. And part are downright funny. About the pledge movements:

 

"Bearman and Brückner have also identified a peculiar dilemma: in some schools, if too many teens pledge, the effort basically collapses. Pledgers apparently gather strength from the sense that they are an embattled minority; once their numbers exceed thirty per cent, and proclaimed chastity becomes the norm, that special identity is lost. With such a fragile formula, it’s hard to imagine how educators can ever get it right: once the self-proclaimed virgin clique hits the thirty-one-per-cent mark, suddenly it’s Sodom and Gomorrah."

 

These men are doing their research using credible sources of information and they are being published in peer-reviewed journals, not just The New Yorker.

 

Thank you Catherine, for bringing this up.