stay a virgin until marriage .

[Tintin]

I think you are mistaken here, at least by my experience. Sure, you know the mechanics of it. But sex is so much more than what goes where, or even the dept of feeling you hear in love songs.

I have been intimate before my husband. But I didn't know intimacy until my husband - I mean, there were warm fuzzies before, but this is like really fluid, warm, and comforting - I feel safe and completely free to be open and myself. Not self conscious about my body, or any of that stuff.

Like I said before, sex is not sex - there IS "eh" and "that was nice" and "wow!" you know, there are distinctions between experiences. I don't suggest sampling a different guy every weekend or anything, lol, but no... as one who even engaged in intimacy, I didn't know it until my husband.


There are other ways to connect with someone on very deep levels other than physically. I don't doubt that one could feel a strong, beautiful love no matter how it comes in relationship (friend, family member, significant other), but I just feel you're over simplifying that a bit. Just my feelings.

Blessings!

Awesome, awesome, awesome!

 

[1joseph]

The following is a post from TinTin 3 weeks ago on this thread (post no. 9) which points out how our walk with God and His will for us should be.

"In all this though, I think it's important to keep Christ at the centre. Otherwise, all your good intentions and beliefs are nothing more than a different form of legalism. Look to Christ for everything. Look to Him for your identity, purpose and authority and you will obey Him out of love, rather than because He commanded it."

I think you are mistaken here, at least by my experience. Sure, you know the mechanics of it. But sex is so much more than what goes where, or even the dept of feeling you hear in love songs.

I have been intimate before my husband. But I didn't know intimacy until my husband - I mean, there were warm fuzzies before, but this is like really fluid, warm, and comforting - I feel safe and completely free to be open and myself. Not self conscious about my body, or any of that stuff.

Like I said before, sex is not sex - there IS "eh" and "that was nice" and "wow!" you know, there are distinctions between experiences. I don't suggest sampling a different guy every weekend or anything, lol, but no... as one who even engaged in intimacy, I didn't know it until my husband.


There are other ways to connect with someone on very deep levels other than intimately. I don't doubt that one could feel a strong, beautiful love no matter how it comes in relationship (friend, family member, significant other), but I just feel you're over simplifying that a bit. Just my feelings.

Blessings!

 

[1joseph]

Sorry jamie26301. I didn't mean to attach you to this post. As a matter of fact, the one I was attaching it to apparently has been removed from this thread. I quickly copied some information then jumped back and hit "Reply With Quote" on the last post without checking it's author. Someone was questioning why God would give us sexual feelings but expect us to remain virgins until marriage. Anyway...

Again, sorry.

The following is a post from TinTin 3 weeks ago on this thread (post no. 9) which points out how our walk with God and His will for us should be.

"In all this though, I think it's important to keep Christ at the centre. Otherwise, all your good intentions and beliefs are nothing more than a different form of legalism. Look to Christ for everything. Look to Him for your identity, purpose and authority and you will obey Him out of love, rather than because He commanded it."

 

[jamie26301]

Awesome, awesome, awesome!

I pray you find the same Tintin. When we meant, I was like 165 lbs, and gained 20 during our summer together (they drank whole milk and I drank 1% but I didn't decrease my consumption while there, so there ya go, lol) and when people he talked to wondered what had happened to me - because I was more attractive when I was younger - he told them life just hit me really hard - and that's true. Also struggling very much with adult acne. I didn't go out looking really ratty, but I didn't take much care unless I was meeting with someone important or an appointment.

Since we've been married, I lost 25 lbs, my face is clearing up, and groom my hair more now, and I've started wearing makeup more consistently.

I don't know about Down Under, but the stereotype here is that once a woman is married, she stops trying to impress her husband by way of looks. For me, marrying my husband has brought my pride in my appearance back, because I didn't need to impress him to begin with - I GAINED weight when we first met, lol. And when you know someone loves you so, it does make you feel better about yourself.

The last time I felt anywhere near this confident and happy was my first semester of college - 10 years ago.

 

[Tintin]

Thanks, my sister. That's wonderful! I'm truly happy for you. God bless both you and your husband.

 

[Faithful_Fay]

I think you are mistaken here, at least by my experience. Sure, you know the mechanics of it. But sex is so much more than what goes where, or even the dept of feeling you hear in love songs.

I have been intimate before my husband. But I didn't know intimacy until my husband - I mean, there were warm fuzzies before, but this is like really fluid, warm, and comforting - I feel safe and completely free to be open and myself. Not self conscious about my body, or any of that stuff.

Like I said before, sex is not sex - there IS "eh" and "that was nice" and "wow!" you know, there are distinctions between experiences. I don't suggest sampling a different guy every weekend or anything, lol, but no... as one who even engaged in intimacy, I didn't know it until my husband.


There are other ways to connect with someone on very deep levels other than physically. I don't doubt that one could feel a strong, beautiful love no matter how it comes in relationship (friend, family member, significant other), but I just feel you're over simplifying that a bit. Just my feelings.

Blessings!

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I don't equate simply understanding the biology or mechanics behind intimacy as knowing what is like to engage in it. Not at all. I'm saying that even folks who abstain are bombarded with with it. We also experience longings/desires. Pick up a romance novel, watch a movie, listen to all of your friends talking about it and you see all sorts and shades of sex. My point is that the whole "ignorance is bliss" and so a virgin truly doesn't understand how difficult it is to wait viewpoint isn't one that I necessarily agree with.

I don't pretend understand the difficulty of waiting from the perspective of someone who has experienced intimacy, so maybe I am simplifying things a bit more, but from my experience, or lack thereof, abstinence is still a challenge and commitment. I think, simply put, I'm not a fan of comparing struggles and figuring who has it tougher.

 

[jamie26301]

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I don't equate simply understanding the biology or mechanics behind intimacy as knowing what is like to engage in it. Not at all. I'm saying that even folks who abstain are bombarded with with it. We also experience longings/desires. Pick up a romance novel, watch a movie, listen to all of your friends talking about it and you see all sorts and shades of sex. My point is that the whole "ignorance is bliss" and so a virgin truly doesn't understand how difficult it is to wait viewpoint isn't one that I necessarily agree with.

Oh certainly... in fact, I didn't know people were so naive to think that virgins didn't have urges... like, no, there's no absolutes in that regard, but that's a pretty big assumption to make. In one sense, you could say virgins have it harder - the fruit on the tree still holds a mystery, and still has an appeal that to one who tasted it may not. The unknown can be more tantalizing.

I don't pretend understand the difficulty of waiting from the perspective of someone who has experienced intimacy, so maybe I am simplifying things a bit more, but from my experience, or lack thereof, abstinence is still a challenge and commitment. I think, simply put, I'm not a fan of comparing struggles and figuring who has it tougher.

Honestly, I think if everyone in the Body adopted this mindset, we'd have fewer quarrels. The term relationship with the Lord implies in the word 'relationship' that each person is going to grow, learn, and interact with Him on different levels and venues.

 

[Desdichado]

See, this is one thing that doesn't make sense to me. It something Jesus Himself said is one reason it doesn't.

I mentioned this earlier, but why would God design you such, and then expect you to suppress it? Sex for sport or money, is understandable, but why would it be suppressed for love, even outside marriage? What in the established institution of marriage in Genesis is the requirement for sex between two people?

In the dystopian book The Giver, they had a really tight family unit, and the children told their parents everything at the dinner table. Once they express strange new feelings, they are prescribed a pill to suppress urges. That was ideal, to keep the children from hurting themselves with pregnancies and such - shielding them from harm was valued more than freedom and self-discovery.

I can see there being restrictions and limits, no doubt. However, God programs us this way, and He doesn't withhold those urges until we're married. And yet, we should conquer them, the very design He put in us even as we experience them... to MAYBE experience them without restriction in the bounds of marriage. (not all have the blessing of marriage)

So, is God tempting us, with our own bodies? God does not tempt anyone, we remember, and a kingdom divided against itself doesn't stand. So, does it stand to reason that God wants to drive out God? Is that like God fighting against His own design, in such a demand?

I'm not saying that it's right per say, but what I am saying is that it doesn't seem to make sense, from that perspective for a piece of paper and a pair of rings to be the difference between do and don't. Or a ceremony, nonetheless.



Most certainly.

I happen to agree. I think a great deal of the problem though isn't what God intended, but rather what man has made of God's intentions.

 

[jamie26301]

I happen to agree. I think a great deal of the problem though isn't what God intended, but rather what man has made of God's intentions.

I'm not against waiting until marriage, but I am against sweeping it under a rug and never discussing it before hand. I am against not talking about sex, not explaining sex and not offering protection to teenagers. I am against treating the natural as if it is unnatural, but a piece of paper suddenly makes it natural. Sex, the emotional connections with it, and any preparation for it, should be as standard as guiding a girl with her first menstrual cycle and boys with their changes. You treat it as a natural part of life, that demands responsibility and pride in oneself, I think it will be handled with much more prudence by teens.

The school is not helping as it was meant to in this regard, and part of that reason is because the kids don't learn to respect authority at home. That's a very simple, base conclusion, but that is a large part of the problem with sex education - the attitudes kids bring with them to class. I've heard it proposed to pour more money into it - I'm like, "why? Have you even seen how 90% of the teens act in a sex ed class or snicker about it later? Have you seen that despite THE INTERNET and plenty of clean sources at their fingertips from medical sites that would likely pass any filters, that teens are STILL very ignorant of fundamental facts?" The argument is lack of information - my argument is lack of interest in learning, because they weren't taught what a serious issue it is at home. Hush hush.

Many of them don't take it seriously, because their parents don't teach them too. I think much of the promiscuity doesn't come from knowing about birth control and all this... much of it comes from, I think, how the parents treat or avoid the subject. "Here's a pill, now get out there and wow them boys" is just as wrong as "Don't have sex; don't read any information on sex; don't think about sex." I think the problem with the Extreme Religious Right is that they equate education and guidance with that first statement. Big problem, imo.

My approach would be "Listen, you're having these changes, they're new and exciting, however, there are grave consequences and contrary to what your friends tells you, one time CAN get you pregnant, a virgin CAN have an STD [and proceed down the list of why-are-these-things-still-going-around common myths]. And I would say that emotionally, you would feel a deeper connection with someone you establish a relationship with, and even deeper if you wait until marriage. You'll have no one to compare your spouse to." I would give what I think are pros and cons of both waiting and not. You need to give teens a choice. You need to make sure they are prepared IF they stumble. But that's my feelings - a balanced approach.

And as I said before, what is marriage? Who are we to dictate whom God has joined together? In fact, I think it was in ancient cultures that having sex MEANT marriage. So, you could argue that the qualifications are in flux, culture wise.

 

[garet82]

[h=2]Re: stay a virgin until marriage[/h]I agree with this because we cant do ''something" with someone that's not your husband and or wife coz marriages is pure and its blessing.
[h=1]Corinthians 3:16King James Version (KJV)[/h] [SUP]16 [/SUP]Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

so its really important for us to keep it till we get marry.

 

[PoetMary]

Just wanted to add, I might even have more respect for someone who came to Christ later in life and committed themselves to living His way thereafter. That sounds even harder to me, because they would be changing habits and losing friends that they were already used to, and besides... virgins don't exactly know what they're missing, you know?

To me, this thinking seems flawed in a couple of ways:

Flaw #1. The idea that someone can "not know what they're missing" if they've never experienced it. This is not a concept that people apply universally to all situations.

For example, if someone posted about being an orphan, no one would claim, they "don't know what they're missing." OF COURSE they know what they're missing. They see parents all around them interacting with children everyday. They can even experience parenting or a level of vicarious parenting by caring for children. From this, they can extrapolate what it would be like to have parents. And, they can have a sense of mourning for the absence of parents.

The same can be said of sexual experience. Sexuality is such a core part of our humanity, we've always been surrounded by it (with varying levels of explicitness depending on the culture and time in history). Apart from that, we're all wired (to varying degrees) with a libido that creates in own set of internal desires. We can see people engaging in romantic behavior (kissing in airports, holding hands, affectionate glances) and (whether or not we've had sex) we can extrapolate what that would be like for us. And this can create a variety of feelings within us--longing, wistfulness, excitement, desire, etc.

In other words, people are wired for connection with others. People are particularly wired for sexual connection. On top of that, we're acculturated to couple off (all layers of meaning intended here). So, even if it's never happened, we can know that we're missing something.

Flaw #2: That changing a sinful course is deserving of more respect than maintaining a spiritually right course.

This is prevalent throughout the church. The elevation of certain testimonies over others. That is, the drug and arms dealing, down-and-out, occasionally homeless, addict/pimp/prostitute/tyrannical world leader (fill in the dramatic blank) comes to Jesus and somehow they have more value than the person who has grown up in the church and spent a lifetime serving God and others.

Make no mistake, we ALL need a Savior.

But somehow we are more impressed by story #1 than story #2. It's the drama of it. Showing up everyday and making continual small sacrifices of self over time just doesn't have the same Hollywood appeal as an instant transformation story.

However, to imply that the drama-filled conversion somehow takes MORE internal fortitude and strength of character than showing up everyday and dying to self is just not accurate. And it's potentially spiritually dangerous.

 

[Tintin]

I understand what you're saying, but that's not what PopClick is saying.

 

[jamie26301]

However, to imply that the drama-filled conversion somehow takes MORE internal fortitude and strength of character than showing up everyday and dying to self is just not accurate. And it's potentially spiritually dangerous.

I detest overly boasting of a new walk like others. Make no mistake.

But perhaps our sympathy with the Prodigal Son has to do with this attitude. The righteous son, who was always faithful, detested that the other got a feast he felt he didn't deserve.

But his brother was hungry, homeless, beat down, ratty clothes from feeling the swine - of course in his coming back he needs some pampering. The the righteous son was resentful because he never got such material comforts - but he never needed it, either. He had always had the comforts of home and being taking care of.

And that's what he didn't understand.

 

[Misty77]

But somehow we are more impressed by story #1 than story #2. It's the drama of it. Showing up everyday and making continual small sacrifices of self over time just doesn't have the same Hollywood appeal as an instant transformation story.

It's not just the drama of it. Think of it this way: Virginity is the default setting for all humans, and it is admirable for those who remain so for years--though for some it has more to do with lack of confidence or opportunity than strength of character. Yes, it takes some work to maintain it; but it is remaining on the ground level.

Having had sexual experience, you know what you like and how you like it. You have very specific memories and there is no longer that hesitation of a boundary that has never been crossed. To remain celibate afterward is like trying to dig yourself out of a pit: you've got a harder, steeper climb to ground-level than one who has never fallen into the pit. It simply takes more work to get back to square one than to have never left in the first place.

 

[jamie26301]

--though for some it has more to do with lack of confidence or opportunity than strength of character. Yes, it takes some work to maintain it; but it is remaining on the ground level.

I don't remember who said it, but he said to measure your success not by the results, but what you had to give up. If you were never tempted, or never lost a boy/girlfriend for it, you never really gave anything up.

 

[1joseph]

Having sex before marriage is a sin in God's eyes, female or male. He can wash away any sin, and will when asked. The important thing is your relationship with Him. He is the One who will always be there, never leaving or forsaking you, no matter what.

This is the relationship He seeks with each of us, a loving, caring and tender relationship. A relationship filled with mercy and guidance, always present to talk to...about anything. He knows at any moment how you feel, what you are going through, and will help you...if you ask.

He can take a virgin who wants to be loved and fulfill their need...in His way. He can take someone who has given themselves to others in hopes of finding love and restore their dignity and purity, becoming their First True Love.

Give yourself unto this Love and your needs, desires, and hopes will be fullfiled...no matter what you have done in the past. In Him is forgiveness. In Him is newness of life. In Him is the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

 

[PoetMary]

It's not just the drama of it. Think of it this way: Virginity is the default setting for all humans, and it is admirable for those who remain so for years--though for some it has more to do with lack of confidence or opportunity than strength of character. Yes, it takes some work to maintain it; but it is remaining on the ground level.

Having had sexual experience, you know what you like and how you like it. You have very specific memories and there is no longer that hesitation of a boundary that has never been crossed. To remain celibate afterward is like trying to dig yourself out of a pit: you've got a harder, steeper climb to ground-level than one who has never fallen into the pit. It simply takes more work to get back to square one than to have never left in the first place.

And this philosophy is predicated upon the idea that YOU are doing the work and you deserve the reward.

In BOTH cases leaning into Jesus and allowing the Holy Spirit to work within you serves its purpose. Of course, it also removes our ability to pat ourselves on the back for what a good job we've done "maintaining" or "recovering."

 

[Misty77]

And this philosophy is predicated upon the idea that YOU are doing the work and you deserve the reward.

In BOTH cases leaning into Jesus and allowing the Holy Spirit to work within you serves its purpose. Of course, it also removes our ability to pat ourselves on the back for what a good job we've done "maintaining" or "recovering."

Simply because one is empowered by God doesn't mean that there isn't significant work to be done. It just means that you have God helping you with it. And it does take considerable effort with or without divine intervention. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging an achievement: Paul talks about it frequently.

 

[PoetMary]

Simply because one is empowered by God doesn't mean that there isn't significant work to be done. It just means that you have God helping you with it. And it does take considerable effort with or without divine intervention. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging an achievement: Paul talks about it frequently.

Right, so then your argument is that the one who has sinned and "gets back" had achieved more than the one who has not.

So the one who robs banks, goes to prison, and then doesn't rob banks has achieved more than the person who never robbed a bank and lived as an upright citizen.

Or the child-abusing parent who stops and treats the grandkids well has achieved more than the person who never beat their children to begin with.

etc.

 

[tourist]

Simply because one is empowered by God doesn't mean that there isn't significant work to be done. It just means that you have God helping you with it. And it does take considerable effort with or without divine intervention. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging an achievement: Paul talks about it frequently.

I agree with you about acknowledging an achievement. God may direct us and assist us but the work that we perform does take a toll on us. We get tired, hungry, hurt, marginalized, etc. When we get cut, we bleed. When we work, we sweat. When someone hurts us there are often tears, whether seen or unseen.

Nothing worthwhile comes easy. It always involves hard work, perseverance and sacrifice.