Sex in MarriageSexual problems are common in many relationships. This section is for discussions about sexuality. Please limit discussions to those asking for help with a problem and those offering advice. Any other threads may be deleted.
Only God can judge. Nobody is in a position to point fingers at anyone else because we are all sinners.
I feel that Christians are held to a higher moral standard in our society. That is why so many people are bothered by the ones who are very hypocritical and duplicitous. Of course, Christians are just imperfect human beings who make mistakes.
I agree FYD. I'll go a bit further by saying something that's a bit controversial.
I lay a lot of the blame on the state of Christian churches in America (don't know how it is in other countries). So many churches imo fail to teach the basic tenants of Christianity, that many who identify themselves as Christians don't even understand the religion they follow.
I'm not personally familiar with this Barna group, but I was Googling for statistical proof of what I'm talking about. In a poll done in 2004 only 51% of US Protestant Pastors believe in a so called "Biblical Worldview" (The Barna Group - Only Half Of Protestant Pastors Have A Biblical Worldview). In the article they define "Biblical Worldview" as:
Quote:
Defining such a worldview as believing that absolute moral truth exists, that it is based upon the Bible, and having a biblical view on six core beliefs (the accuracy of biblical teaching, the sinless nature of Jesus, the literal existence of Satan, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, salvation by grace alone, and the personal responsibility to evangelize).
I'd say that definition/statement is a fairly simple and should in theory be a viewpoint that spans all major US Protestant denominations.
So it shouldn't surprise me when so many pastors in America don't hold to basic tenets of Christianity that so many Americans themselves many church goers are not well taught either.
My fear is that many Christians in America today don't really feel that deep connection to God (and the Holy Spirit). Without solid teaching it's all the more difficult IMO. Without that connection to God it's all the more difficult to steer clear of temptation (like you talked about FYD). That is individuals feel that they have to resist temptation on their own, rather than relying on God (and really knowing how to rely on God and what scripture to read to help you through specific difficulties). At times it's next to impossible to resist temptation alone given that we are all imperfect people.
Sorry that I rambled there a lot. I hope that was somewhat clear because I typed this out rather hastily.
This. People were getting married at 15 and 16 in those days. Not making excuses, but again, I don't think being a 40-year-old virgin is in God's plan for anyone.
Since I'm saying one controversial thing, I might as well say two. I may be unusual but if my children have met a great SO, are serious about marriage (both of them), have both sets of parent's blessings, and they've gone through some kick butt premartial counselling (on my dime)... then I have no problem with my kids marrying as young as 20.
I think modern society has stretched out childhood (in a sense) all the way to the mid-30's. In that you are expected to live the single life and do w/e you want... and then get serious and settle down.
It's unreasonable to expect children/young adults to stay virgins until then. Human biology is largely the same as it has been through all recorded history. When people get to their late teens early 20's their bodies are screaming at them to have sex.
So if as a Christian you are supposed to wait until marriage, I say marry younger than we have in recent Western culture. They can have your kids younger and enjoy the fact that their kids will be on their own by their mid-40's to early 50's. They'll likely have money to travel and enjoy the world... and still be young enough to really enjoy it!
Where in the Bible does it say "no sex before marriage"? And do we do everything the Bible says? (Oh, I hope not).
There are many places in the Bible that forbid fornication. Fornication is sex between unmarried, heterosexual people.
Here are a few:
In every form, fornication is sternly condemned by the Mosaic law among God's people, the Israelites (Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20-11, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16).
Fornication is also mentioned many times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).
You have every right to believe as you do.
Those who believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong have just as much right to your beliefs.
My personals beliefs are somewhere between the two. It’s not a black/white issue to me.
However, one strong argument for the idea that sex outside of marriage being forbidden is that the promiscuity in our society is leading to a huge number of social ills.
At least abstaining from sex until after marriage does not lead to things like the huge number of babies born into single parent homes in which the babies do not get adequate parenting, it does not transmit sexual deceases which are ramped in our society, and it does not lead to people being so used by multiple partners before marriage that they suffer from what can be seen as a form of stress and distrust disorders.
As we can see in the many stories here, having sex before marriage is not an indicator of what the couple's sex life will be like after marriage... not by a long shot. I can attess to that from my own life.
Living together before marriage also does not help us assess what a person will be like after marriage because people change after marriage.. most people seem to have a preset idea of what being a husband and wife is like.. and as soon as they are married they fall into that roll. And that roll is often quite differnt than the roll they were in as a live-in partner. I have read that one of the biggest indicators of whether or not a couple will get a divorce is if they lived together before marriage.
I grant that the most popular version of the New Testament (KJV) was translated from Greek, to Latin, to English.
Could you be thinking of Douay/Rheims, which was translated directly from the Vulgate?
The translators deferred to the Vulgate in multiple instances, but Jamesian English was still the target language for the KJV, although there are a number of Greek master texts that are regarded today as more authoritative than Beza and the Textus Receptus.
The Old Testament has very few translation issues. I grant that the most popular version of the New Testament (KJV) was translated from Greek, to Latin, to English. And there are some mistakes. But the mistakes tend to be fairly minor. For example, when Jesus told the adulteress to sin no more, the original Greek or Hebrew writings don't translate to "keep sinning." That would be a major change that would be relevant to this discussion. Arguing that the KJV translators missed a few commas or changed an "or" to an "and" may be academically interesting. But, it isn't really relevant.
I'd say that translations/interpretations such as "Is it 'thou shalt not kill' or 'thou shalt not commit murder?" is a bit more than a few missed commas or altered conjunctions. And, as mentioned before, factor in the agendas involved in those translations and interpretations (something not even touched upon in my letter translation example) along with later translators and interpreters themselves working from a translated interpretation and you've got a recipe for unreliability as anything other than fable and allegory.
Think of a game of "Telephone." For example, we played it at one of our high school play cast parties. There were maybe 15 of us there. What started with the first girl in the circle saying, "I like boys and Chitaquah (sp?) Lake." came back around to her as, "I like Joel and we did it in a lake." That's just 15 people, in the same room, mere feet from one another, all speaking the same language, and all supposedly with the intent of keeping the original message intact by the time it completes the circle. Now, wouldn't you agree that a two millennia long game of telephone, with transitions between languages and agendas behind reinterpreting from a previous version I any language (for instance, with the King James version you referenced, James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy), that there's a margin of error that widens each time the book is retranslated and/or reinterpreted? Posted via Mobile Device
Now, wouldn't you agree that a two millennia long game of telephone....
Well again I'm not a Christian, but the NT really is one of the best preserved pieces of ancient literature anywhere.
We have small fragments dating from within a generation of the era and papyri codices from within just a few centuries. I agree that glosses and outright errors probably occurred, but it's really not fair to characterize Bible translation as a two millennium long game of telephone.
The implication in the telephone analogy is that each iteration is a little less accurate. But translations today are fresher than translations four and five hundred years ago, because more is known about the Koine dialect today and more accurate master texts are available.
It's also a fair point that some translations lean toward the theological bias of the translators, but reputable translation committees today are intentionally composed of as diverse a group of scholars as possible to avoid that. Even Jewish scholars are included in NT revisions and translations today (!)
If my Commander dictates an order to the Lieutenant and the Lieutenant passes it to the Platoon Sergeant and I eventually get it from the Corporal, I am accountable to the Commander to obey his order as I received it. If the order was inadvertently changed a little between the CO and me, that's not my beer. Just because I didn't hear the order directly from the mouth of the CO doesn't relieve me of my duty to obey. It's not my place to speculate as to which orders the CO wants obeyed. It doesn't matter if I agree entirely with his orders or even if I completely understand his intent. He's the Commander and I'm not.
So if as a Christian you are supposed to wait until marriage, I say marry younger than we have in recent Western culture. They can have your kids younger and enjoy the fact that their kids will be on their own by their mid-40's to early 50's. They'll likely have money to travel and enjoy the world... and still be young enough to really enjoy it!
I have mixed feelings about this as well. I went to a Christian college where LOTS of my friends got married early. I have close friends who seemed happily married but then went through terrible divorces ... largely because they didn't understand what they wanted out of life when they got married, or failed to read some serious red flags because they were so geared up to get married. As far as I know, these people waited to have sex.. and it didn't seem to do them much good.
On the other hand, my brother got married at 19 and they seem to be doing well.
I was gonna leave this thread but some recent posts make me want to say:
WHY ARE PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED IF THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE FINANCIAL STABILITY, SOME IDEA ABOUT LIFE, AND ENOUGH MATURITY?
I have seen so many posts here from young people that made me want to shout. One guy was having ED and asking his FATHER to give him $ to buy Cialis. For #&^$ sake!!! Several couples did not have enough financial means and were living with parents and you can imagine all the problems. Many did not know what was going on and the relationship soured quickly.
So, to get married young, just because you need SEX, is a terrible idea to me. I would much rather have my son be in a serious relationship, live together with the person, have sex if they choose to, and eventually settle down if the person proves to be the right one. Otherwise, once you have kids, it becomes REALLY ugly when things fall apart. And it's sooooo not fair for the innocent children. Please do not get me wrong. I AM NOT SAYING ALL YOUNG MARRIAGES ARE BAD. I know may people who married out of high school. I myself married out of college. But marriage should be based on many solid grounds, not NEED FOR SEX.
I've stayed out of this thread because I find religious discussions fruitless when they move beyond the realm of discussion into debate.
But I would like to address the point above. In the vast scope of humanity, if most men and women waited until they were "financially stable", mature, and had some "idea about life", then most men and women would never have gotten married.
These are very Western, modern ideas. Marriage has traditionally been done young, and even in dowry situations the average couple went in pretty poor the world over. Two young people built a life together, not strong lives apart, and then they'd merge together. Of course there were always exceptions, but this was the general case for many millions of people.
And the marriages lasted longer. I believe we now have an entire gambit of marital, and pre-marital, "rules" and guidelines that sound perfectly logical to our Western mind, but that actually are not panning out in practice at all. Because we are collectively pushing off marriage further and further, and coming into marriages with both parties having built financial lives, and careers, and yet still those marriages too are ending in divorce.
I think we might need to face the fact that we're getting it all wrong on some level.
I've stayed out of this thread because I find religious discussions fruitless when they move beyond the realm of discussion into debate.
But I would like to address the point above. In the vast scope of humanity, if most men and women waited until they were "financially stable", mature, and had some "idea about life", then most men and women would never have gotten married.
These are very Western, modern ideas. Marriage has traditionally been done young, and even in dowry situations the average couple went in pretty poor the world over. Two young people built a life together, not strong lives apart, and then they'd merge together. Of course there were always exceptions, but this was the general case for many millions of people.
And the marriages lasted longer. I believe we now have an entire gambit of marital, and pre-marital, "rules" and guidelines that sound perfectly logical to our Western mind, but that actually are not panning out in practice at all. Because we are collectively pushing off marriage further and further, and coming into marriages with both parties having built financial lives, and careers, and yet still those marriages too are ending in divorce.
I think we might need to face the fact that we're getting it all wrong on some level.
I am not really disagreeing with this, actually I agree with the very last statement. My parents got to know each other by a "marriage arrangement". They are doing perfectly fine (with 2 big TVs on different channels). However--
It doesn't work well for many people in today's society. I pointed out some examples I saw in this forum. Again, everyone is different. Many Hispanic friends I know married in high school or right out, and it's customary to live with parents for a long time, get their help with kids, and the divorce rate in Hispanics is amazingly low....
But another cultural group would find living with parents very stressful. Since this is a sex forum, ask people here how sex life would suffer if your folks r around and a bunch would say NO WAY.
"Financial stability" to me does not me you have a house/a car/a well-stocked portfolio. It means you will not ask anyone for help and be responsible for your life. It's an attitude. I borrowed money for professional school and returned it. Otherwise, we were on our own even though it was extremely tough.
Oh, and there was at least one thread where the woman was working 2 jobs and stressed out, and probably 10 threads where the couple said THEY HAD NO MONEY TO GO FOR COUNSELING!!!
I've got to leave this thread also. This is a SEX FORUM! Sorry but the reason I shouted over this issue is I feel very strongly about people who take marriage too lightly, have kids, and end up divorcing. I work with kids, love kids, and hate it when kids suffer from these incidences. I think I have made myself very clear I did not mean all young marriages are doomed to fail.
Many Hispanic friends I know married in high school or right out, and it's customary to live with parents for a long time, get their help with kids, and the divorce rate in Hispanics is amazingly low....
I'm speaking in general terms here, but wouldn't this be because they are mostly Catholic, and don't they tend to have more infidelity than people who aren't forbidden to get divorced?
My wife's family is Hispanic.. I recently found out that her dad has a girlfriend and is completely open about it, yet there they are, still together. I don't know the whole story but I hate it for both of them; of course more for my mother inlaw. Very sad
WHY ARE PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED IF THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE FINANCIAL STABILITY, SOME IDEA ABOUT LIFE, AND ENOUGH MATURITY?
My FIL used to say: "If you wait until you can afford kids, you'll never have them".
It think that's largely true.
Fact of the matter is that these days people expect to have a lot of things people didn't in times past. Fancy vacations, new cars, cute electronic gadgets (iPhones/smart phones, etc.), cable tv, etc... All those things cost money, and you get enough of them and it all adds up. People are accustomed to so much, but frankly you don't need much to be happy.
Money does cause a lot of divorce, but when my wife and I married we just lived within our means. We drove very old beat up pieces of junk. Had no fancy electronic devices, no cable, no boat... nothing but a small apartment, clothes, a phone, and the cheapest furniture we could get (and not much of it, lol much of it was crates and other ultra cheap things). I had a hand me down bed from my mom, and we slept on that thing for another 7 years or so. We didn't go out much at all, and when we did it was on the ultra cheap. We saved our money so we could get into our first house, and even when we did get in we didn't rack up any debts other than our mortgage.
We avoided debt like the plague, and we still do. When we did borrow some money to help us get into our first home it was from my mother to help with the down payment... and we paid her back every bit and then some as soon as we could.
I think if more young couples had this attitude, there would be far fewer money related problems in their marriage.
If my Commander dictates an order to the Lieutenant and the Lieutenant passes it to the Platoon Sergeant and I eventually get it from the Corporal, I am accountable to the Commander to obey his order as I received it. If the order was inadvertently changed a little between the CO and me, that's not my beer. Just because I didn't hear the order directly from the mouth of the CO doesn't relieve me of my duty to obey. It's not my place to speculate as to which orders the CO wants obeyed. It doesn't matter if I agree entirely with his orders or even if I completely understand his intent. He's the Commander and I'm not.
If (to oversimplify a bit), the Commander's order is "Don't fire." and, in going through the chain, the order related to you by the Corporal is "Fire," and you do, did you obey the Commander's order? Posted via Mobile Device
If (to oversimplify a bit), the Commander's order is "Don't fire." and, in going through the chain, the order related to you by the Corporal is "Fire," and you do, did you obey the Commander's order? Posted via Mobile Device
Not at all. I obeyed the order as I received it. As long as the order appeared lawful to me I would be obligated to obey. If someone deliberately changed the Commander's order, that's between them and the Commander.
81Likes
Re: Gimme a break...sorry I am so not spiritual 
