A pure relationship

[Maryland Girl]

What you call "judging" and "condemning" I call simply acknowledging reality. I'm not saying someone who's been sexually active is going to hell. I'm acknowledging what the bible teaches on the subject, and the reality that STDs become an issue with someone who has had sex. May hurt someone's feelings to hear that, but we all know it's true. It's not like you have to hold their sexual past over their head, but it can be an issue.

Also, my comment about it being easier for a man to marry a virgin is absolutely true. It's not about your feelings or what you would like to hear. Again, it's about reality. There are more female virgins than there are male. Trust me, I wish the numbers were even on that one, but life has taught me otherwise.

If someone wants to marry a virgin, and that's a deal breaker for them, that's their business, and they have a right to that preference, if they themselves have waited. A person can say they only want to marry someone who's younger than them, taller than them, has long hair, short hair, etc. That's their right. They have to be attracted to that person, live with them til death do them part, be intimate with them, etc. So the variables have to work for them.

 

[MacFall]

What you call "judging" and "condemning" I call simply acknowledging reality.

Your skewed version of reality is based on judgment and condemnation.

I'm acknowledging what the bible teaches on the subject

Except for the New Testament stuff. Very inconvenient part of the Bible, that.

and the reality that STDs become an issue with someone who has had sex.

PROMISCUITY makes STDs an issue. I'm not talking about promiscuity.

Also, my comment about it being easier for a man to marry a virgin is absolutely true.

Prove it. Demonstrate from scripture that men are more likely to be promiscuous than women. Go.

It's not about your feelings or what you would like to hear. Again, it's about reality. There are more female virgins than there are male. Trust me, I wish the numbers were even on that one, but life has taught me otherwise.

Your life is a pretty darn small sample from which to make a blanket accusation against the entire male sex.

If someone wants to marry a virgin, and that's a deal breaker for them, that's their business, and they have a right to that preference

Once again, preferences are fine. Insisting on them at the expense of Grace is not ever fine.

A person can say they only want to marry someone who's younger than them, taller than them, has long hair, short hair, etc.

There's a problem with that comparison. Nobody makes moral evaluations or talks about deserving this or that when it comes to age, height, or hair. And if that was a dealbreaker for them, then that person would be horribly shallow, and God save anyone who falls for them.

 

[Maryland Girl]

Again, you are way missing the point. We're not making moral judgments. Forgiveness existed in the old testament and new testament. This is about trying to find someone that you have a good chance at having a marriage without dealing with the ramifications of past sexual choices. God has forgiven the person. I have forgiven the person. But that doesn't necessarily mean that their sexual past won't interfere with intimacy. God's forgiveness doesn't mean that they don't have an STD. You can have sex with one person, one time and get an STD. Just like a woman can have sex one time and get pregnant. So you don't have to have had multiple partners. Maybe your one partner had multiple partners. Where does that leave you and the person who marries you?

Again, I'm not condemning people. And it's obvious that within the church there are many people for who sexual past wouldn't matter, so long as the person is currently waiting. So I don't think there's an issue here. With virgins being the teeny tiny minority, what do non-virgins really have to worry about? Most people, even a lot in the church will look past it. But, we have a right to our preferences. And, it's not making a moral judgment to say you don't want to marry someone who not a virgin. It could be, if you said "virgins have better morals than those who had sex but are now abstinent. No matter how much God has forgiven you, you should know that you're a horrible person in my eyes because of your past..." But I haven't said that. The OP and I brought up practical reasons that have nothing to do with morals. You keep wanting to say people are guilty of being judgmental and focusing on the Old Testament. So, you're not actually paying attention to the issues that are really being addressed. If you want to marry a virgin or non-virgin, God bless you in your choice. Let others do what works for them. As far as I can see, you're the one spreading condemnation, not the OP.

 

[Sketcher]

Your skewed version of reality is based on judgment and condemnation.

And your view of her beliefs isn't?

Some people believe that a virgin would be best for them. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[MacFall]

God has forgiven the person. I have forgiven the person. But that doesn't necessarily mean that their sexual past won't interfere with intimacy.

That past will not necessarily interfere with intimacy. The assumption that it will is the issue.

So you don't have to have had multiple partners. Maybe your one partner had multiple partners.

Do you think that everyone who has sex before marriage will also lie about their pasts, or that anyone who marries a non-virgin will fail to inquire towards that extremely important bit of information? Communication is just as important to intimacy as sex, and communication beforehand would clear this all up. But if the knowledge that a person is not a virgin disqualifies them as a candidate for a relationship, then I guess there's no reason to get one's hands dirty with all that communication stuff. Convenient.

Sketcher: a categorical rejection of all non-virgins is a perfect example of prejudice. Which means, you know, pre-judgement. That is, judgment without knowledge. And then to follow, a rejection of a whole category of people based on that ignorant judgment—a deliberate imposition of negative consequences on those people based on one's judgment of their past actions—in a word, condemnation.

 

[Sketcher]

That past will not necessarily interfere with intimacy. The assumption that it will is the issue.

At that point you need to look at likelihood. Absent a miracle of God or an lack of ability to have intimacy in the first place, it will.

Sketcher: a categorical rejection of all non-virgins is a perfect example of prejudice. Which means, you know, pre-judgement. That is, judgment without knowledge. And then to follow, a rejection of a whole category of people based on that ignorant judgment—a deliberate imposition of negative consequences on those people based on one's judgment of their past actions—in a word, condemnation.

Likewise, prejudice constitutes a categorical judgment of people who believe that a virgin would be best for them.

I'm honestly tired of people in the church fighting each other on this. It's the opposite of what the Lord called for.

 

[Maryland Girl]

That past will not necessarily interfere with intimacy. The assumption that it will is the issue.

It's not an assumption. Many people have intimacy issues because of their own sexual past and their spouse's. So my comment is based on learning from other people's experiences.

Do you think that everyone who has sex before marriage will also lie about their pasts, or that anyone who marries a non-virgin will fail to inquire towards that extremely important bit of information?

What are you talking about? Really. I never said I think non-virgins will lie about their past. This just goes to show that you don't understand me at all.

You seem to be of the opinion that if we don't want to marry the same kind of person you do, then we're not walking in the love of Christ. How about you let people decide who's right for them, and you decide who's right for you.

 

[MacFall]

Likewise, prejudice constitutes a categorical judgment of people who believe that a virgin would be best for them.

Only if we presuppose a person with the godlike ability to accurately judge a whole category of people's compatibility without even getting to know them individually.

I'm honestly tired of people in the church fighting each other on this. It's the opposite of what the Lord called for.

I suppose what the Lord called for is for us to set up grace-free zones in our relationships.

 

[MacFall]

It's not an assumption. Many people have intimacy issues because of their own sexual past and their spouse's. So my comment is based on learning from other people's experiences.

It is an extrapolation from a few experiences to literally BILLIONS of people whom you have never met. So yes, an assumption. A flagrant and wholly uncharitable assumption. You are defining people based on what may be a single mistake when they were a completely different person.

I never said I think non-virgins will lie about their past.

One would know whether their partner had an STD unless their partner was also a liar.

You seem to be of the opinion that if we don't want to marry the same kind of person you do, then we're not walking in the love of Christ.

I'm of the opinion that if you do not follow Christ's model of forgiveness in your personal behavior then you are not following Christ in that respect. Saying you recognize that God has forgiven someone means NOTHING if you will not even deign to consider them individually as a person on the basis of a past mistake. Forgiveness itself means nothing if it is not reflected in the way you evaluate and deal with other people.

I hope that your future potential mates do not treat you according to your past mistakes. I'm sure you agree. If so, then the Golden Rule requires you to extend the same clemency to other people, including non-virgins.

How about you let people decide who's right for them, and you decide who's right for you.

They can decide. I can still speak. And I will not be silent while I watch my brothers and sisters who have made mistakes, and completely repented and been redeemed from those mistakes, be placed into a separate class from the "Pure".

 

[Sketcher]

Only if we presuppose a person with the godlike ability to accurately judge a whole category of people's compatibility without even getting to know them individually.

No, if it's prejudice one way, it's prejudice the other way.

I suppose what the Lord called for is for us to set up grace-free zones in our relationships.

Not sure where you get that idea after I've explained myself. Everyone needs grace. We don't know how much of what kind of grace we're going to get from the Lord. We get forgiveness, check. That's promised. "Revirginizing" beyond that isn't, though it is logically possible. If it's not promised or otherwise demonstrated to have taken place, I can't hang my hat on it. If I can't hang my hat on it, I have to consider that she's likely to still be one flesh with one or more people who may or may not come back into her life. Some Christian men are OK with that, other Christian men are not. Nothing morally deficient either way, Biblically speaking. If you ask me, it depends on how much of a "white knight" you consider yourself to be. And we as the church are going to be made up of both types of men, and both types of women. What is the Biblical call? To love each other.

 

[MacFall]

No, if it's prejudice one way, it's prejudice the other way.

No it is not. Prejudice is an assumption without knowledge. I KNOW that nobody but God has the omniscience that would be required to evaluate people they have never met.

Everyone needs grace.

Of what use is grace if it does not affect our treatment of people because of their past sins?

What is the Biblical call? To love each other.

Of what use is love if it permits us to exclude others based on things they did when they were different people?

 

[Sketcher]

No it is not. Prejudice is an assumption without knowledge. I KNOW that nobody but God has the omniscience that would be required to evaluate people they have never met.

And you don't KNOW that people who would like to marry virgins have a holier-than-thou attitude towards non-virgins either.

Of what use is grace if it does not affect our treatment of people because of their past sins?

Of what use is love if it permits us to exclude others based on things they did when they were different people?

As I explained previously, how someone is treated in the church is one level, and whether or not you would marry that person is at another level. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. But this does not mean that I would marry just any Christian woman out there who isn't already married. Nor does Scripture teach that I should.

Or looking at this another way, a good friend of mine got saved in jail. He was guilty of the crime he was incarcerated for. A lot of people if they knew this about him would not choose to be friends with him. I still choose to be friends with him. That's grace. There were also women who were still friends with him who knew this. That's grace. But only one of them married him. Does that demonstrate a lack of grace on the part of these other women? Not necessarily.

 

[Sir Robbins]

what the heck happened to the last few pages here? It turned into a battle... or so it seems to me... :/ Being a virgin before marrige isn't just about sex guys, it's about patience, self control and your valued self worth. These are typically other values one seeks in a person and being a virgin can speak volumes of these qualities and thus prove to be a better partner for marriage. It is character. Not saying someone who isn't a virgin doesn't posses these same qualities but I will say it is less likely based on experience (I have lived in 13 different places so don't pull the "I haven't been around enough people crap on me"). I would not date someone who wanted sex at all so if they ever had sex, it would be a turnoff for me so I have a bigger life challenge. Carry on

 

[MacFall]

And you don't KNOW that people who would like to marry virgins have a holier-than-thou attitude towards non-virgins either.

I never said they did, and once again (I think, for the sixth time in this conversation) you miss the point. Preference (what one would like to do or have) is not the issue. Preference is morally neutral. How one treats others is the issue. What we all would prefer to have in our relationships is perfection, and it is quite possible for the pursuit of that to come at the expense of Grace.

So much for preference. People in this thread have been talking about what they deserve, and I say it is quite impossible for someone not to have a holier-than-thou attitude towards non-virgins if they count a non-virgin as being less than what they deserve. At the moment when desserts comes into it, the virgin is necessarily saying that he is better than the non-virgin. If you don't agree, try any other context in which one person tells another "you deserve better than that". The subject has been the victim of abuse, neglect, or some form of mistreatment; the object is being denounced due to moral failure. No different when a virgin says to a non-virgin, "I deserve better than you."

As I explained previously, how someone is treated in the church is one level, and whether or not you would marry that person is at another level.

Marriage is a model of the Church's relationship to Christ. How can it be that we may justly exclude people from marriage over something which, as far as Christ is concerned, didn't even happen?

Or looking at this another way, a good friend of mine got saved in jail. He was guilty of the crime he was incarcerated for. A lot of people if they knew this about him would not choose to be friends with him. I still choose to be friends with him. That's grace. There were also women who were still friends with him who knew this. That's grace. But only one of them married him. Does that demonstrate a lack of grace on the part of these other women? Not necessarily.

No, not necessarily. But quite possibly, depending on their reasons for not wanting to marry him.

What if the ex-con would be the best possible husband for one of those women, and the best possible father for her children—and she never finds out because she refuses even to consider marrying him because he once went to jail?

Likewise, what if the non-virgin would be the best possible lover for a virgin spouse, completely healed of his past, utterly committed to fidelity? Then the same thing happens: the virgin never finds out how ideal he would be for her because she judges him unfit on the basis of his having had sex already. Because she made no attempt to know him before judging him, other than that one fact about his past, which would have been insignificant if only she had been willing to see him as Christ sees him.

Of course, my hypothetical is only one possibility. But one doesn't know whether a felon, a non-virgin, a former drug addict, a converted Satanist, or what have you will in fact be any less of an ideal spouse because of those historical facts. Therefore to treat them as though they would be is to judge them before knowing them. I.e., prejudice.

 

[Sketcher]

I never said they did, and once again (I think, for the sixth time in this conversation) you miss the point. Preference (what one would like to do or have) is not the issue. Preference is morally neutral. How one treats others is the issue. What we all would prefer to have in our relationships is perfection, and it is quite possible for the pursuit of that to come at the expense of Grace.

And what I'm talking about is preference, which is morally neutral. It is a preference based on the extreme likelihood that the other person is presently one flesh with someone else. Still morally neutral.

So much for preference. People in this thread have been talking about what they deserve, and I say it is quite impossible for someone not to have a holier-than-thou attitude towards non-virgins if they count a non-virgin as being less than what they deserve.

I'm not talking about being deserving or not. I'm talking about the kind of person I want to marry.

Marriage is a model of the Church's relationship to Christ. How can it be that we may justly exclude people from marriage over something which, as far as Christ is concerned, didn't even happen?

I'm not talking about excluding single people from marriage. I am only being excluding when considering who I would personally marry (which my parents, who are still together, taught me to be). People have the right to be very excluding over who they want to marry, within the will of God. And God just doesn't condemn picking someone based on their sexual history or lack thereof.

What if the ex-con would be the best possible husband for one of those women, and the best possible father for her children—and she never finds out because she refuses even to consider marrying him because he once went to jail?

1) Knowing him and knowing them, that's impossible.
2) Since I do not believe in "the one," there are likely a few others who would have filled in nicely.

Likewise, what if the non-virgin would be the best possible lover for a virgin spouse, completely healed of his past, utterly committed to fidelity? Then the same thing happens: the virgin never finds out how ideal he would be for her because she judges him unfit on the basis of his having had sex already. Because she made no attempt to know him before judging him, other than that one fact about his past, which would have been insignificant if only she had been willing to see him as Christ sees him.

I would think God, if he willed it, would have more patience than that. And perhaps he would be kind enough to show the virgin that the non-virgin was completely healed of the past.

Of course, my hypothetical is only one possibility. But one doesn't know whether a felon, a non-virgin, a former drug addict, a converted Satanist, or what have you will in fact be any less of an ideal spouse because of those historical facts. Therefore to treat them as though they would be is to judge them before knowing them. I.e., prejudice.

Again, one flesh is in the present, not the past. If it were to be 100% in the past, it would not matter to me. But it rarely is.

 

[vanillakay]

Everyone needs to stop giving the OP a hard time. Its an AMAZING thing that he wants to find and save himself fo ra virgin woman. I wish all men in the world were like him. It's his choice. Dont make him feel bad about it. Good luck to you serraphim