So Link - Another post of yours got me thinking

[RedPonyDriver]

There are other practical benefits. If you wanted to buy some land to build a house on, and one had been used for dumping medical wastes for thousands of people all over the place, and the other hadn't, all else being equal, which one would you pick?

Which is better, to marry someone who has been scarred emotionally by lovers who dumped him or her, or someone without such experiences?

Ahhh yes...the non-virgin being compared to waste...gotta love the purity culture baloney.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Ahhh yes...the non-virgin being compared to waste...gotta love the purity culture baloney.

Welcome to Christian Forums...

 

[mkgal1]

First of all, God's original design was that two become one flesh. Those who lose their virginity and then marry someone else fall short of that design for marriage

As with most of the Bible....that's left open to one's interpretation. It depends on what a person interprets "one flesh" to mean. I see "one flesh" as a lot more than just a physical act.

I'm struggling to come up with words in response to this whole post. To be honest......it turns my stomach to read. Ana The Ist pointed out some of the problem.....and I think another problem is that there's this theme running through a lot of your posts that leave NO room for grace and restoration. IOW......once a person deviates from the strict guidelines (ones that I presume you've followed yourself) there's NO chance of being forgiven or made "whole" again. That's not what I get from my Bible. In fact.....I see the main message of the Gospel to be about us making mistakes and learning from them (and realizing--most importantly-- that God loved us when we were imperfect).

I'm grateful we have the disciples (that never got it "all" perfect) to model for us God's grace.

This is what comes to mind:

‘Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax-collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax-collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.” 13 But the tax-collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” 14 I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.’~Luke 18:10

 

[LinkH]

I think if passing along an inheritance is a serious consideration for a marriage...then you're marrying for the entirely wrong reasons.

That was apparently a big deal in Israeli culture in Biblical times. The same God who gave the law about virginity gave the laws about inheritance.

I'm hoping that you don't really look at women this way. It's difficult for me to think of a more obscene analogy.

Unwanted reproductive material left in the hospital would be just that-- medical waste. And it doesn't have to be women. The analogy could apply to men as well.

There are tests for a handful of STDs, and a number of them that aren't regularly tested for. Some are spread by areas not covered by condoms. Getting tested for HIV and a few others doesn't guarantee that someone is 'safe.' And, in general, the more sexual partners someone has, the more likely it is that he or she has a disease.

Mkgal1 said my analogy left no room for redemption. Of course there is room for redemption. But there are still health risks. Marrying a virgin is low risk healthwise. The risks go up for someone who has been promiscuous or who had even one promiscuous partner, or one partner who had had a promiscous partner and so on.

Let's assume for starters...that the non-virgin woman we're speaking of practiced safe sex and doesn't have any diseases.

The omniscient narrator in a book gets to know if the characters have any diseases. Having always practiced safe sex doesn't guarantee that. I he or she says he or she has practiced save sex, that doesn't make it so.

I'm also wondering if we are talking about apples and oranges, one person talking about more sexual enjoyment with non-virgins, but in the context of 'safe sex', and the other talking about sex with a virgin where 'safe sex' was not a concern. 'Safe sex' and the other kind of sex are different. If two virgins get married, then they may be concerned with birth control, but not with avoiding STDs.

If that's the case, she's not medically/biologically any different than the virgin. The notion that she's somehow spoilt in some way because she had sex is archaic and baseless.

I can understand that perspective as an atheist who does not put much stock in the teaching of two being one flesh. Of course you are presuming a level of omniscience here regarding the other person being disease free. Presuming omniscience in regard to certain things is a basic tenant of atheism, after all.

Peruse these forums for a bit and what do you see? I see many many couples unprepared for marriage. Often, it's a result of this notion of marrying a virgin. Frequently it seems as if there's a general lack of understanding of mature relationships in such people and what to expect. As a result, this lack of experience leads to extreme difficulty as soon as any trouble rears its head.

I see plenty of people dealing with the baggage of partners who had past sexual relationships, or their own baggage. Having a lot of sexual experience does not prepare one for marriage or guarantee maturity. Self-control is a trait associated with maturity as well.

Maybe. In other cases, it may be a distinct disadvantage as the notion that "the grass is greener" sets in. I'm of the opinion that both partners should have at least some idea of what they want in a partner...and it's hard for me to imagine that coming from two people who have never had sex.

Are you assuming the top characteristics should be sexual? Virgin couples can still discuss sexual expectations.

I'd like to see that link. I've heard of these studies before and they often fail to control for factors like income.

You can look up Teachman 1990, I think it was a single author, Journal of Marriage and family. It's heavily cited. You should be able to find a reference to it on Google Scholar. I don't know if a copy is available without going through an academic database.

It's possible...I don't know that it's true, but it's possible. There's always a flip side to that coin though...perhaps a woman who has only known one man may be more inclined to stay in an abusive marriage since that's all she's known.

I don't know of any evidence one way or another on that. It seems like women with abusive fathers tend to marry abusive husbands, and if they divorce, pick another abusive husband. But you are a guy, so just don't be an abusive husband.

And the flip side of that may be that those who have only slept with one person will always wonder what "could have been".

"What could have been" doesn't plague me, and I've only slept with my wife. A man who'd slept with 100 women could also be plagued by 'what could have been' about the women he didn't sleep with or doesn't get to sleep with now. I suspect that's a more likely thing for men who've gone around making sexual conquests.

I'm glad you're happy Link...and I'm glad you find your relationship satisfying. That's what counts.

Thanks. I wish you the same thing.

I will say this though...I remember thinking sex was the best thing ever when I had it for the first time too. That notion lasted right up until I had sex with a woman who was much better at it. This gave me some perspective on what I actually want in such a relationship.

It sounds like you highly value exciting sexual experiences. If two virgins marry, they can try to improve and give each other exciting sexual experiences.

 

[LinkH]

As with most of the Bible....that's left open to one's interpretation. It depends on what a person interprets "one flesh" to mean. I see "one flesh" as a lot more than just a physical act.

It applies to marriage. Jesus related it, somehow, to adultery, and according to I Corinthians, the principle applies to sex with a prostitute.

and I think another problem is that there's this theme running through a lot of your posts that leave NO room for grace and restoration. IOW......once a person deviates from the strict guidelines (ones that I presume you've followed yourself) there's NO chance of being forgiven or made "whole" again. That's not what I get from my Bible. In fact.....I see the main message of the Gospel to be about us making mistakes and learning from them (and realizing--most importantly-- that God loved us when we were imperfect).

I don't believe that there is no room for grace or restoration. Maybe you take exception to the medical waste analogy. I addressed this in my last post.

It is good to realize that sin is bad. We shouldn't sugar coat how evil sin is. It is healthy for us to realize that our sin is putrid in God's eyes and to realize that sin has consequences. How are we going to appreciate grace if we sugar coat sin?

I saw a documentary on the purity movement where some school kids passed a cookie around the class, then the teacher collected it and asked who wanted to eat it and showed a clean cookie and asked which the kids wanted to eat. Then the teacher made an analogy between the cookie and someone who had been 'passed around' sexually.

I don't see a problem with that. The only concern I have with it is that some of the kids may have been raped or something like that. But if they haven't been promiscuous or if they have chosen to, it is good for them to realize that it's a bad thing. It is normal that young people who have chosen to be promiscuous would be second pick for marriage. That is a reasonable expectation in a society that has decent sexual morals. Our society is lacking in sexual morals.

My uncle said when he was in school, they separated the boys and girls and showed them pictures of private parts with STDs, boy's for the boys and girl's for the girls. That scared him out of messing around. A state legislator who stood against an agenda to promote an immoral and medically unhealthy sexuality education in school suspected they called HPV by that name instead of 'Genital Warts' is because it scared the kids less. The girls might be more scared of promiscuity if they considered that they might get warts up in there. That might scare them more than the risk of cancer decades down the line.

 

[mkgal1]

Ah....yes...the purity movement. Here's something from someone who'd lived that whole thing (and a description of what it meant for her--as far as results go):

For more than a decade, I wore my virginity like a badge of honor. My church encouraged me to do so, saying my testimony would inspire other young girls to follow suit. If the topic ever came up in conversation, I was happy to let people know that I had taken a pledge of purity.

It became my entire identity by the time I hit my teen years. When I met my then boyfriend-now husband, I told him right away that I was saving myself for marriage and he was fine with that because it was my body, my choice and he loved me.

We were together for six years before we got married. Any time we did anything remotely sexual, guilt overwhelmed me. I wondered where the line was because I was terrified to cross it.

An unhealthy mixture of pride, fear, and guilt helped me keep my pledge until we got married. In the weeks before our wedding, I often got congratulated on keeping my virginity for so long. I let them place me on the pedestal as their virginal, perfect-Christian-girl mascot.~http://thoughtcatalog.com/samantha-...ht-to-lose-my-virginity-and-i-wish-i-hadnt/2/

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to remain a virgin until marriage---but it also isn't something to use as a badge of honor (nor something to compare one's life against others). It's also (I don't think) something to parade around. If we decide to do something "righteous"......I believe it's something between us and God (Matthew 6:6)

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Its funny...in my single years I never once got a social disease or pregnant...and I most definitely was not a virgin when I got married...neither was my husband. But here we are almost 20 years later.

 

[mkgal1]

I saw a documentary on the purity movement where some school kids passed a cookie around the class, then the teacher collected it and asked who wanted to eat it and showed a clean cookie and asked which the kids wanted to eat. Then the teacher made an analogy between the cookie and someone who had been 'passed around' sexually.

I don't see a problem with that.

I do.

Here's the thing: (and the point of that analogy I take issue with)....can you "purify" that cookie? That exercise portrays things as "once soiled.....forever soiled" and I believe that's contrary to the Gospel message which is (what I learned in Sunday school as a child, anyway) "Jesus makes me white as snow".

 

[LinkH]

Ah....yes...the purity movement. Here's something from someone who'd lived that whole thing (and a description of what it meant for her--as far as results go):



I'm not saying it's a bad thing to remain a virgin until marriage---but it also isn't something to use as a badge of honor (nor something to compare one's life against others). It's also (I don't think) something to parade around. If we decide to do something "righteous"......I believe it's something between us and God (Matthew 6:6)

MkGal1, I think I may have read that article before, maybe when you posted it earlier. It seems like the girl may not have understood grace and salvation. Being a virgin isn't going to save anyone's soul, either is not shoplifting.

But the article has a terrible message. She wished she hadn't been a virgin on her wedding night. She chose sex over religion. Maybe there was something wrong with her religion. There was certainly something wrong in her thinking.

To me, it is strange to have kids to do a sexual purity pledge. Are we going to give them a ring if they make a no-shoplifting pledge? How about a ring if they promise not to kill anyone or bow to an idol? There are some things we are supposed to abstain from because they are sins. Not stealing doesn't make someone special. Not fornicating doesn't make someone special. It should just be normal not to engage in these types of behaviors.

Sixty years ago, a lot of girls knew that if they slept around, it was immoral, and it could hurt their chances of getting married or at least hurt their chances at finding a more desirable partner. It probably hurt a man's chances much less because of a double-standard, at least in the US.

When I lived in Indonesia, virginity was considered the norm for men and women before marriage. I hope that hasn't changed. I may find out if I move back there. If either male or female slept around, it could hurt his or her chances of getting married. But that is a normal expectation and a normal thing. The United State's culture has now become abnormal in this regard.

Fornicating and losing virginity before marriage is a sin, and it is also a short coming. It's a negative thing about someone, as a potential spouse, whether the other party realizes it or not.

It is strange to me that people think it is weird for singles to want to marry only virgins, as if that is an immoral and judgmental standard. But the same person, when single, would not marry a handicapped person who had no use of their body below their waste or someone whose face was severely deformed-- through no moral decisions of their own.

 

[LinkH]

I do.

Here's the thing: (and the point of that analogy I take issue with)....can you "purify" that cookie? That exercise portrays things as "once soiled.....forever soiled" and I believe that's contrary to the Gospel message which is (what I learned in Sunday school as a child, anyway) "Jesus makes me white as snow".

Jesus washes your sins away. But does He physically make someone not a virgin again. Lets say a single Christian man is looking for a wife. A promiscuous woman with four kids by four different guys, herpes, and HIV takes an interest in him. She also becomes a Christian. Her sins are forgiven, but is there anything undesirable about her as a spouse? Yes, HIV, herpes, and possibly up to four potentially jealous baby daddies in her life. Christian man is within his rights to turn that down for any of those reasons. If he chooses to overlook those things, that is still his choice.

I do believe the Lord can heal from HIV and herpes, btw, but I don't believe he makes baby daddies just because someone chooses to get married.

If someone wants to marry someone else who has slept around a lot, that's their choice. But it is reasonable to consider that an undesirable background.

 

[mkgal1]

Jesus washes your sins away. But does He physically make someone not a virgin again. Lets say a single Christian man is looking for a wife. A promiscuous woman with four kids by four different guys, herpes, and HIV takes an interest in him. She also becomes a Christian. Her sins are forgiven, but is there anything undesirable about her as a spouse? Yes, HIV, herpes, and possibly up to four potentially jealous baby daddies in her life. Christian man is within his rights to turn that down for any of those reasons. If he chooses to overlook those things, that is still his choice.

I do believe the Lord can heal from HIV and herpes, btw, but I don't believe he makes baby daddies just because someone chooses to get married.

If someone wants to marry someone else who has slept around a lot, that's their choice. But it is reasonable to consider that an undesirable background.

I doubt my words will make any impact on you.....but do you realize that you seem to have a habit of portraying a "sinner" as someone that's far different than you are (a woman.....that's been sexually promiscuous.....has a sexually transmitted disease...etc)?

That's another problem I have with that cookie exercise---it incites contempt for others (instead of the love that Jesus encouraged).

Jesus seemed to have a lot of disdain for those that looked down their noses at others (and restored the dignity of those that others despised).

Your point of virginity not being able to be restored? That's another reason why I feel it lacks compassion for those that made it "safely" to marriage (as some consider it) to remind others that didn't how "wrong" that was. Neither side of that can be changed (the virgin until marriage never has to be concerned about "losing" that status.....and the one that didn't "make it" can never change that either).

 

[mkgal1]

To me, it is strange to have kids to do a sexual purity pledge

Well....that's encouraging to read.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I'm so done with this whole "purity" thing...I haven't been a virgin since somewhere near my 17th birthday. It didn't make a darn bit of difference when I got married...I've been married exactly ONCE...for almost 20 years now. My virginity or lack thereof haven't affected my marriage in any negative way. I think it was actually a positive...I was mature enough and experienced enough to know what felt good and was fortunate enough to marry a man who cares about that even more than his own feelings...I've talked to women who were virgins when they married...and most of them feel like they are being used for nothing more than "legal touching yourself". That's an awful way to go through life...and most of those marriages don't last. They're over and done with in less than 10 years.

So...now, which is the "worse" sin...lack of virginity or divorce?

 

[ImaginaryDay]

An interesting find:

"Another limitation of prior research is that, with few exceptions, diversity in histories of premarital relationships has not been considered. Most studies of the relationship between premarital cohabitation and divorce have used a simple variable indicating whether the respondent (usually the wife) cohabited before marriage. This measurement strategy ignores with whom the cohabitation occurred (the person the respondent married or someone else); if the question about cohabitation refers specifically to the person married, it ignores previous cohabitations. The study by Kahn and London (1991) on the relationship between pre-marital intercourse and divorce also ignored diversity in patterns of premarital intercourse and used a simple dummy variable to indicate whether premarital sex occurred, ignoring with whom it occurred. The importance of making such distinctions is illustrated by research conducted by DeMaris and MacDonald (1993) and Teachman and Polonko (1990), who found that premarital cohabitation limited to one's spouse does not increase the risk of marital instability (either marital dissolution or perceived risk of marital dissolution). Only respondents who had cohabited with someone in addition to their spouse were at a higher risk of marital instability" (p. 446).

Source:
Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution among Women
Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 444-455

 

[mkgal1]

Mkgal1 said my analogy left no room for redemption. Of course there is room for redemption. But there are still health risks.

How is there room for redemption in your analogy? I used the word "restoration", actually.....because that seemed to be the point of the exercise (once you "lose" something you can't get it back. Insert fear and guilt in order to control your audience). You portrayed an illustration of "once 'soiled' always soiled". Tossing in the possibility of "health" risks" seems like grasping at straws. Like it was mentioned.....take out the possible health risks (as we are advanced enough to protect against these issues)....and what do you have?

ISTM that using "health risks" as an example of "consequences" gets really close to ALL physical changes in people and our environment soon becomes a reason to point fingers and say, "if you had only obeyed God....that wouldn't have happened".

The whole framework of shame/honor is what Jesus came to overcome (I believe). This is what I mean:

One of the best ways to study Scripture is to use the lens of cultural anthropology; in other words, to learn about the social setting in which Jesus lived and the problems with which he was dealing. What we find is that the Mediterranean culture at his time was overwhelmingly dominated by an honor/shame system largely based on externals. Actually, we still live that way in the United States and Western Europe, although we pretend we don’t!


Honor and shame are personal commodities that you can lose or gain. They’re what we would call ego possessions. You don’t have them naturally. You have to work for your honor and then show it off and protect it. You have to deny your shame, which is what we would now call the shadow self. At Jesus’ point in history, and frankly with many today, there is no inherent sense of the self. There is no natural dignity that comes from within.

Religion at its best and most mature is exactly what is needed for this problem. Without healthy religion, you have no internal or inherent source for your own dignity and positive self-image. You have to find your status and your dignity externally by what you wear, by your title, by how much money you have, by what car you drive. That’s a pretty fragile way to live. You are constantly evaluating, “How am I doing? How am I looking?” And your dignity can be taken away from you in one moment of loss of public status. This is the insecure post-modern world we live in. It is a moveable famine grounded in a sense of scarcity and “zero sum.” Only true religion inhabits the world of abundance; it even draws upon an infinite abundance.

and an hour video (if you're interested in the full context):

 

[mkgal1]

I can understand that perspective as an atheist who does not put much stock in the teaching of two being one flesh. Of course you are presuming a level of omniscience here regarding the other person being disease free. Presuming omniscience in regard to certain things is a basic tenant of atheism, after all.

Wait. What? You use hypothetical scenarios all.the.time, Link. If that's "presuming a level of omniscience" --and taking that further--that "presuming omniscience" is a basic tenet of atheism....then you also follow those tenets.

 

[mkgal1]

A Bible verse that I believe is important to keep in mind (related to this):

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Don't be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. God does not view things the way men do. People look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." ~1st Samuel 16:7

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Btw, you know there is this place called the "Health Department" where you can go to find out about diseases and all kinds of things. One does not need to "presume a level of omniscience", they just need a test. But, then, that's not a very Christian place to go...

 

[RedPonyDriver]

@mkgal1 what you quoted is what I have been saying here for a LONG time...in order to understand scripture, the intent of scripture, you have to understand the cultural/historical background. The middle east, for the most part, is STILL a culture of honor and shame, which has no place in Christianity...Jesus came to get rid of that, by saying that ALL are sinners, ALL are in need of redemption/restoration. That was the cultural change that the Pharisees were opposed to in 1st Century Israel. There are many passages, that taken on face value seem to mean a certain thing, but they don't mean that. Without an understanding of the times, especially in the epistles, wrong meanings become the "norm" in our 20th/21st century Western world, and twisted to justify hate and bigotry. It wasn't that long ago that "men" were justifying the ownership of black slaves as biblical...

 

[sdmsanjose]

Link said

If two believers are married and serving the Lord together, then there is no need for them to divorce.

First of all, God's original design was that two become one flesh. Those who lose their virginity and then marry someone else fall short of that design for marriage

Which is better, to marry someone who has been scarred emotionally by lovers who dumped him or her, or someone without such experiences?

If a man's virgin wife doesn't have some old flame to compare him to, not just physically, but in terms of personality and her past feelings, that is an advantage for both husband and wife

It is good to realize that sin is bad. We shouldn't sugar coat how evil sin is. It is healthy for us to realize that our sin is putrid in God's eyes and to realize that sin has consequences. How are we going to appreciate grace if we sugar coat sin.

Link
You make good points in the quotes above. However you have offered very little or no encouragement to those of us that did not marry as virgins. You seem to think that we sugar coat sin and you tell us that “It is healthy for us to realize that our sin is putrid in God's eyes and to realize that sin has consequences.” You may be a good cheer leader for those that that were virgins before they married but you might consider being more like Barnabas and be a bit more encouraging.

BY LINK

I have been with one woman who was a virgin my entire married life

I congratulate you on you and your wife being a virgin before marriage and being married for many years. However, in this thread I do not see you following the scripture of 1 Thessalonians 5:11

1 Thessalonians 5:11


11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

I for one do not need for you to tell me that because I lost my virginity before marriage that I fell short of God’s design for marriage. You also stated that “How are we going to appreciate grace if we sugar coat sin.” I would like to add that WE APPRECIATE GRACE WHEN WE HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN FOR OUR SINS!