How to Deal With Horniness as a Christian? What to Do?

[Spazmmeetsboberry]

oh also, how do you quote things people say?

j.k i think i just figured it out

 

[Ringu]

for real love... how do i know? well i mean up until this person i have never experienced real love, ive had boyfriends which i liked very much so and loved as people. but once you are hit with love, i think you know. maybe im wrong but that seems to have been my experience.

Well see, you are talking about "being hit". That's exactly what I am talking about. Usually when you feel you are being hit all of a sudden, it's probably "being in love", temporary feeling that comes and goes.

and for how many times you can feel this love? well i think people can love more than one person in their lives... like for instance the one you love dies... perhaps larter down the line in life you find someone else you are compatible with and will love.

I don't argue this. But in my experience and in what I can see around, you don't wait till the one you love dies. Usually it's either you ditch, or you get ditched. That's how it works. But while in the middle of it, we still tend to call this "love".

when you said the bit about infatuation i got a little confused. i can understand what youre saying about mixing up love and lust, but i think that if you love the person you know that its not for lust, and if you lust for the person then you know its not for love.

How do you know that? There is never such a thin line where you can clearly define each. What I'm saying is that usually it's infatuation, not love, esp. for people your age (don't take it as insult, it's a great age ).

its like saying that eating lunch together is something the two of you share...

Wow, wow, wait a second. Is this so close that you can even parallell one with the other? I don't think so! You know, I eat with dozens of people each week, and it doesn't mean that I am united with them or anything. You know, I eat out with girls sometimes, that doesn't mean we have anything intimate between us. You just can't compare it to sex, no way. Do you say eating with a stranger is the same as having sex with a stranger?

its a piece of love. its not that sex is something that needs to happen, its just something that does if the two so wish.

Good point about wishing. See, in my opinion not all wishes are good. Some wish to kill, some to steal, some to rape. It just really depends on what line of moral law you accept.

What im trying to do is compare sex to every element to love. because put together it becomes the whole. If youre saying wait till marriage to have sex, then it could be interesting to think: what if we waited till we;re married to have lunch together.

Sex IS an element of love, true, can't argue this. But see, we here are talking not just about sex, but about sex in and outside of marriage.
Also, think about it. Sex might as well not be all about love. Too often it's only about lust, in fact. Take rape for example. It's sex, right, we can say that in a physical sence it is a sexual act. But it it out of love from both or either partner?

but if the two are ready i just dont see the reason not to. they know they love eachother.

Again, back to my question in my other post. "Feel right" and "know right" are two different things. How do you know? Are you in love enough to spend your life with this person? If not, then is this love? If yes, then why not marry?

I feel like those who have had bad experiences (everyone in the world) just need to look at it as part of life. as part of how the world works. and if they keep their chin up, theyll eventually find "the one".

See, it's not about bad sexual experiences, because probably everyone has them sometimes. It is a mistake to think that good sex makes a good marriage. It's usually the other way round.

As for secrets. it is still the secret you share with that other person. no two experperiences are shared with another person so the "secret" you shared with A will be different when shared with B. So you may love these people at different stages of your life an d you may share a specifc thing like sex with these people at different stages of your life but they will be different.

This is a joke. Did you talk with mature women about it? Secrets? Eventually there are no secrets. What happens is that you end up comparing your partners. Comparing them in different aspects, and sex is one of them. When you do that, you can't keep it secret 1) from yourself, because you have memory of "good sex" and "bad sex" and you end up carrying this burned of knowing too many secrets. Also you will share them eventually. With your girlfriends etc. No, there are not going to be many secrets left, believe me. It just seems so right to you now, these things you think, and you believe that this is how it's gonna be, but when you are there, remember what people like me told you.

all right this is getting too long and i realized i havent meantioned much about God in all of this. I guess what i really want to know is why is all of this considered wrong in His eyes. you guys have been tring to tell me... i know... but i just cant seem to agree. im trying! but i still jsut dont know!

But what kind of a knowledge are you looking for?

if i seem hostile in anything i said im really not trying to be ahhh hahaha im so confused!! well if anyone has anything to respond id appreciate it

You are cool. Don't worry. You are an interesting company for conversation.

 

[Spazmmeetsboberry]

Hey ringu thanks for responding again...

first of all a few things i said i think you interpreted a bit differently... which is fine, those things will happen when you arent talking person to person. id like to go through them at some point when i have more time to respond.

second of all im almost wondering if we're leading ourselves into a dead end. maybe im wrong and im not about to give up talking about this yet but i am wondering. it seems that when we talk about love we both have different views and im not sure if these are merely opinions that we have differently.

Maybe i am a bit nieve in the whole love area, but then again maybe im not. its very possible i think for two people to have different experiences in love, describe it differently, feel it differently, and know it differently, of course then again i could just be entering this world of love and the things you say could become true for me as well.

haha i dont have a lot of time to write right now, but i felt like i needed to say something like that... ill be back later!

 

[Ringu]

second of all im almost wondering if we're leading ourselves into a dead end. maybe im wrong and im not about to give up talking about this yet but i am wondering. it seems that when we talk about love we both have different views and im not sure if these are merely opinions that we have differently.

Well, Spazmmeetsboberry, I guess we need a third opinion here... So I will wait to hear what other people have to say about it. As for me, I think I know what love is. But I also I know that today in this world people mold definitions to fit them in their personal worldview.

 

[FaithfulServant]

I'll try to be the third opinion. I haven't read many of the posts recently in this thread, but here's the third opinion

Love is describes in the Bible by the person who knows it best. Love doesn't have to be shown physically (sex) and just because you love someone doesn't make sex right outside of marriage.

but if the two are ready i just dont see the reason not to. they know they love eachother.

The Bible never says that sex is a necessary requirement to prove or show love. Sex is ONLY something God created to multiply the earth, and it is to be shared by only two people, who are married.

The Bible describes love in one way, and the world shows it in a different way. If you look at the world, people get hurt in relationships and most often it has something to do with sex (because people try to use it to show love) - "well, he cheated with me and slept with her..." or "we broke up, but we had sex and now no one is going to want me..." or, etc. All that sex outside of marriage leads to is pain, and many Christians who have had premarital sex can tesify to that.

Waiting to have sex until marriage isn't near as troublesome as not waiting.

I hope this is clear

God Bless ,

Steffani

 

[Spazmmeetsboberry]

I'll try to be the third opinion. I haven't read many of the posts recently in this thread, but here's the third opinion

Love is describes in the Bible by the person who knows it best. Love doesn't have to be shown physically (sex) and just because you love someone doesn't make sex right outside of marriage.


The Bible never says that sex is a necessary requirement to prove or show love. Sex is ONLY something God created to multiply the earth, and it is to be shared by only two people, who are married.

thanks steffani for being thee third oppinion here! ok i just wanto to clarify that when i talk about how i think sex isnt wrong before marriage, im not saying its necessary in proving love. i guess im just trying to say that sex can be an element of love but not a necessary. i think you are very true in saying that you dont need to prove love through sex. i agree!!

but what im trying to say is that i think it isnt wrong to have it because of this reason...(my opinion )

also, ringu... nice talking to you on instant messenger!! in response to how i compared sex to eating lunch... i knew that was going to get distorted when i wrote it. haha ok i really dont mean to actually compare sex to eating lunch... i just was trying to express that i feel like sex is a something people do like i dont know how to say this haha. hmmm like an everyday thing maybe? its part of expressing love like eating lunch with your lover is. i dont mean eating lunch with any ol person is an act of love so i dont mean haveing sex with any ol person is an act of love either.

ok so this is really difficult... i cant really talk about love i suppose because i dont really know how... ive tried haha as youve seen posted, but im thinking that i just dont know how to describe it.

i really want to be able to learn my religion a bit more, but im really locked in to believing sex before marriage is ok. im really trying to be open about this, but i just cant seem to change my mind!!

do any of you think its possible to really truely believe this and still be a part of christianity? and still have a place with God??

 

[AngelusSax]

You still don't address the idea of custom conformity found in Romans 13.

In keeping with rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and rendering unto God what is God's (I know that's not how Romans 13 puts it, but it is how Jesus put it, and I look to Jesus out of force of habit), then I'll say this:

Marriage is God's institution, not the State's. Therefore, when the State gets involved, the State is overstepping.

God never said we needed a State license to be married. Today's social conservatism says we must.

And hey, I'm a pretty conservative person. Just ask the liberals that I'm sure I annoy in the political forum. But sometimes, being socially conservative gets in the way of being religiously reactionary, as Jesus was (He wanted a RETURN to God's laws over the socially conservative and religiously too-rigid Pharisees and Sadduccees [sp?] of His days as walking on Earth as a human).

In conforming with today's government, I suppose that we should just overlook abortion, divorce, and other ills. After all, we're to be subject to the governing body, right?

Obviously we're not to sleep around with anyone we want. We're to sleep with the ONE person that God gives us for life. And we don't need the State to figure that out. Judging by the divorce rates, I'd say the track record of those using the State to validate their marriage is spotty at best.

 

[Spazmmeetsboberry]

hey SAX!

i just read what you wrote about marriage licenses:

God never said we needed a State license to be married. Today's social conservatism says we must.

And i think i might just agree with you.

 

[Ringu]

hey SAX!

i just read what you wrote about marriage licenses:


And i think i might just agree with you.

Okay, wait a second. I wanted to reply to the same thing last night but somethins was with the explorer, and I was not in a good mood to try again.

On this subject. Right, Bible does not say about marriage licences. So it does not say anything about birth certificates or passports, or drivers licences. What do you think about it?

And, you (meaning SAX) never commented about giving to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar.

 

[Ringu]

And i think i might just agree with you.

Friend, before you agree, you really should think
Peace.

 

[SmEaGoL!]

If it is not appropriate, then I pray to God and ask for help with negating the negative thoughts.

 

[AngelusSax]

And, you (meaning SAX) never commented about giving to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar.

Yes I did. I'll say it again. Marriage is God's institution, not the State's.

Therefore, I render marriage to God.

So it does not say anything about birth certificates or passports, or drivers licences. What do you think about it?

These things don't use the State to implement an institution of God. Birth certificates are a nice way of keeping records. The others, really aren't institutions of God, so the State is not wrong in having those.

Adam and Eve didn't need a State license to be married. Neither did their children. Or their children's children.

Perhaps marriage licenses by the State are an invention to accomodate hardened hearts, I don't know. But I do know a State license was not needed in the beginning.

Why should two people joined by God be told they're not married because they can't afford the legalities of the State?

I realize that the social archconservatives here think the State is required to do God's will. But as for me, I prefer to believe that God is not so limited.

 

[Ringu]

Yes I did. I'll say it again. Marriage is God's institution, not the State's.

Sir, that's why Jesus used this contrast. We should meet the demands of the State unless they contradict God's law, and marriage certificate DOS NOT contradict God's law. Jesus or apostles NEVER called believers to rebel against laws and authorities.

Therefore, I render marriage to God.

It does belong to God, and it does belong to the State. Give the State what belongs to the State. Stop this meaningless discussion.

These things don't use the State to implement an institution of God. Birth certificates are a nice way of keeping records. The others, really aren't institutions of God, so the State is not wrong in having those.

Wait, MARRIAGE is God's idea but MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE is not the same as marriage. It is also a way to keep records and help marriage have legal power in the eyes of the State.

Adam and Eve didn't need a State license to be married. Neither did their children. Or their children's children.

Because there was NO state at that time. And no state institutions. No laws. Even not God's law except the some instructions we know of (i.e. be fruitful and multipy... do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil etc).

Perhaps marriage licenses by the State are an invention to accomodate hardened hearts, I don't know. But I do know a State license was not needed in the beginning.

Sir, it's your heart that's hardened.

Why should two people joined by God be told they're not married because they can't afford the legalities of the State?

Can't afford what? 40 bucks??

I realize that the social archconservatives here think the State is required to do God's will. But as for me, I prefer to believe that God is not so limited.

No, sir, State does not limit God.

 

[Ringu]

2 AngelusSax

You see, you put yourself above the State. But Bible talks a lot about authorities. The institution of authorities is God's institution. Because God is the God or order. He is not a God of chaos where each individual decides for himself.

Where the law of the State does not go against God's law, we should obey the law of the State. We should now view laws and regulations set up by the State as something necessarily contradicting God's will. Many wise people and many years of history, experiences, and cases, have lead legislation and practices to where they are now.

I believe that your goal here is to excuse yourself. Don't we want to twist the truth and fit it into our situation when we need to prove we are right? That's what's happening. You seem to completely ignore what Jesus and apostles were teaching about obeying authorities. And this rebellion is not simply against the States, this rebellion is against the order that God himself has established.

So stop this baby talk and save money for a proper marriage. If you can't do that, then I think the women who trusts you is miserable. How can you prove that you will take care of her financially if you can't pay a hundred bucks for a marriage ceremony.

 

[Ringu]

2 AngelusSax
I have one question. Offtopic, but: Is homosexuality right or wrong?

 

[AngelusSax]

Can't afford what? 40 bucks??

And the loss of all health, dental, and vision insurance. And for someone who needs contacts every 6 months, the loss of vision insurance is a scary thing.

Sir, it's your heart that's hardened.

If I wasn't so forgiving I'd resent that statement.

Because there was NO state at that time.

Thus proving God doesn't need a state to marry people. If He did, He would have created one first.

Wait, MARRIAGE is God's idea but MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE is not the same as marriage. It is also a way to keep records and help marriage have legal power in the eyes of the State.

I realize it's for legal power and records. But that doesn't mean God HAS to work through that to join two people together (and just to go ahead and answer that, that would be one woman and one man, as I do see in God's law restrictions placed on homosexuality in the OT).

It does belong to God, and it does belong to the State. Give the State what belongs to the State. Stop this meaningless discussion.

It's only meaningless if you don't like participating.

Jesus or apostles NEVER called believers to rebel against laws and authorities.

Am I calling for the end of certificates? No. Am I saying I will never, ever, ever get married in the eyes of our very very secular government? No. As soon as I can get a job that will either provide for enough money where I can afford to see, or one that provides the insurance for that, then I will be making it legal.

As for always obeying the State.... Well, people say this goes too far, but I disagree. The American Revolution was wrong. If we're to render unto Caesar, then the taxation without representation should have not been a cry used by the scandalous rebels of the time to help them go further towards the Revolution.

So stop this baby talk and save money for a proper marriage. If you can't do that, then I think the women who trusts you is miserable.

Spoken like a true person who has no idea what's going on in my life. Bravo. And I'll not stand for you talking about the woman God gave me that way.

It's not about the ceremony, as I said. It's about the insurance that there is no way either in heaven, hell, earth, purgatory (should one exist) or the stratosphere that I can afford. Now, provided I get accepted to a rostered lay position in my church, then it'll be affordable.

So before you go off spouting what I should do, next time, why don't you learn what's actually going on? It'd do a world of good and it'd probably lead to a lot less strife, especially if you can apply that principle (learning before you speak) to other people as well.

 

[FaithfulServant]

One person thinks you need a certificate, one person thinks you don't. Why bother arguing about it? Discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we argue about them we are much more likely to deter someone like Spazmmeetsboberry (who is trying so hard to understand Christianity) from understanding the Bible as truth - if y'all didn't notice she posted....

I may be a little biblically ignorant but im not a non believer. maybe i just have different beliefs... for one i appreciate the bible and enjoy the stories... but i do not necessarily take them as exact accounts. i mean the writers of the bible took matters into their own hands, just like any situation. all people have their own interpretaions of things going on in the world. these writers did too. its hard to say that everything in there actually happened or was said, as written because anything could have been slightly biased to the writer.

There is obviously a bigger problem at hand, if she is questioning if this Bible just consists of stories that some random men wrote and they are all biased. How can we being to prune the garden, if we haven't yet laid the soil (foundation)?

It's apparent she isn't sure what she believes, so as Christians our first mission is not to try to argue with each other, but minister to the uncertain/questioning/confused. I dont mean to be rude, but all you two are doing is making things more confusing, and you obviously aren't reaching any conclusions.

God Bless ,

Steffani

 

[Ringu]

And the loss of all health, dental, and vision insurance. And for someone who needs contacts every 6 months, the loss of vision insurance is a scary thing.

Where does Bible speak you should have all these cool insurances? I have no insurances whatsoever and I am fine and I know God will take care of me. And you seem to really depend on your little insurances to buy a $12 contacts every 6 months.

If I wasn't so forgiving I'd resent that statement.

No, if you WERE so forgiving, you wouldn't even mention it. But the way you really wanted to show HOW forgiving you are, this means, you still have back thoughts.

Thus proving God doesn't need a state to marry people. If He did, He would have created one first.

As well as insurance. God doesn't need to prove anything. He doesn't even need to prove that He exists. You are the one who wants to prove something and say that your CIRCUMSTANCES are above the truth, and when your circumstances change, you will maybe REALLY get married.

I realize it's for legal power and records. But that doesn't mean God HAS to work through that to join two people together (and just to go ahead and answer that, that would be one woman and one man, as I do see in God's law restrictions placed on homosexuality in the OT).

Well, true, he doesn't. But when you do it, you do it not for God but for yourself and for other people. You OBEY God kinda for God but even more for yourself, for your personal stand before God.

It's only meaningless if you don't like participating.

No, it's meaningless when all you want to do it so prove you are right and now care for what Bible says about obeying authorities.

Am I saying I will never, ever, ever get married in the eyes of our very very secular government? No. As soon as I can get a job that will either provide for enough money where I can afford to see, or one that provides the insurance for that, then I will be making it legal.

See, you yourself say that in your life application of truth depends on your life circumstances. It's being relative. And I do think that you are being relative here. Is God relative?

Spoken like a true person who has no idea what's going on in my life.

True, I don't. So what?

And I'll not stand for you talking about the woman God gave me that way.

Well I am not talking about HOW God gave her to you, because I have no idea how and I have no idea if it was God. But no questions here, it's totally up to you. You know, if you only want to prove things by saying if they are in the Bible (marriage certificates are not), then how can you know that God gave you this woman???

It's not about the ceremony, as I said. It's about the insurance that there is no way either in heaven, hell, earth, purgatory (should one exist) or the stratosphere that I can afford. Now, provided I get accepted to a rostered lay position in my church, then it'll be affordable.

Ok, you can't afford that, but you can afford sex. Cool. Having sex before you can afford it. Not fair, sir.

So before you go off spouting what I should do, next time, why don't you learn what's actually going on?

Tell us what's going on.

 

[Ringu]

So long as we argue about them we are much more likely to deter someone like Spazmmeetsboberry (who is trying so hard to understand Christianity) from understanding the Bible as truth - if y'all didn't notice she posted....

I agree with you Steph. I need to cool down and think.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

AngelusSax,

You still are appearing to make excuses.

In keeping with rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and rendering unto God what is God's (I know that's not how Romans 13 puts it, but it is how Jesus put it, and I look to Jesus out of force of habit), then I'll say this:

Marriage is God's institution, not the State's. Therefore, when the State gets involved, the State is overstepping.

Marriage certainly is God's institution, no question there. I never said it wasn't, nor did I say the "State" established it or mandate's the definition and structure of it. Obviously not, especially given today's rebellion in Mass. regarding homosexual marriage. Think about your testimony. If the State doesn't recognize you as married unless you have a license, then non-believers are going to assume you aren't married either. They are going to think you are just like them, living together or having sex without recognition, and all the while ignoring or degrading the marriage covenant. As shown in the Scriptures, marriage is a public act involving witnesses. In early Roman times, they couldn't care less if you had a license or not. The only real record of a marriage we have in the NT is the marriage at Cana which Jesus attended, also . If Jesus gave approval of this marriage (by attending, etc...) then it shows us how tradition is to be followed and cultural customs conformed to.

Please... read this article thoughtfully: http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-3thema.php

God never said we needed a State license to be married. Today's social conservatism says we must.

I never said He did, although the Bible, which is God's Word, says we must obey the governing authorities. How do you interpret that passage of Scripture? I don't think we can throw out 2,000 years of Christian tradition, theological, and ultimately Biblical support just so we can privatize everything to fit our personal desires. There is no lone-Ranger Christianity, and since God's glory is represented in marriage, I don't think it's safe to think that it can be done quietly in privacy. Our Lord didn't come down from Heaven to die for His people quietly. He didn't die for His bride in any private manner whatsoever, nor will the marriage supper of the Lamb and the uniting of the Bridegroom to His Bride be something that's "hush-hush." I think proper application of marriage as shown in the Scriptures will reveal that it isn't a private affair in any manner. If you read that article, Pastor Wilson gives excellent support to his ideas with Scripture. I think that folks such as yourself who think the celebration of a marital covenant isn't a big deal and that it's the marriage itself that counts are wrong in their thinking. I don't think it's about what the State wants or needs..., especially since Christians in early Rome married freely without any certification until it was made mandatory, and since then, we've acquired licenses by the State saying we're married, and until the State abandons this (and they may be soon in doing so...perhaps in our lifetime) I think as part of Christian testimony as well as obedience to Romans 13, we should seek out the license of the State. Again, it has nothing to do with whether the State creates the concept of marriage or even rules it.

And hey, I'm a pretty conservative person. Just ask the liberals that I'm sure I annoy in the political forum. But sometimes, being socially conservative gets in the way of being religiously reactionary, as Jesus was (He wanted a RETURN to God's laws over the socially conservative and religiously too-rigid Pharisees and Sadduccees [sp?] of His days as walking on Earth as a human).

In conforming with today's government, I suppose that we should just overlook abortion, divorce, and other ills. After all, we're to be subject to the governing body, right?

Absolutely not. Does the Bible not condemn such actions and ideas? I never said we have to be in absolute submission and support of whatever government we're under when they are violating God's Word by murdering unborn children, etc... Insofar as the government is acting justly and ruling appropriately we are to obey in those aspects, and there is nothing unlawful about a marriage certificate in the Bible. Even if the US gov't were to legalize crack cocaine tomorrow Romans was written to the Christians in Rome, especially during times of persecution in some aspects. Paul even used his Roman citizenship to appeal his imprisonment in Acts. I think we need to be in submission to God's Word first and foremost, and if the Gov't doesn't clearly violate that, we have a responsibility to Christian testimony and God Himself to submit to that.

Obviously we're not to sleep around with anyone we want. We're to sleep with the ONE person that God gives us for life. And we don't need the State to figure that out. Judging by the divorce rates, I'd say the track record of those using the State to validate their marriage is spotty at best.

I'm glad you believe we must be faithful, but who said the State helps us figure out who to marry? That's silly. The high divorce rates in Christian circles are from people who have no respect for the marriage institution who are from poor theological backgrounds and churches that don't stress the significance of marriage as a covenant. That's their fault. No one is to blame for divorce except for the individuals themselves. Not God, the State, or anyone else. That's a poor excuse. Your argument has absolutely no support. I think it's rediculous to claim that people who get marriage certificates don't last as long as those who don't. I think it's the utter opposite. Those who don't put themselves into some recognizable public commitment have the freedom to just leave without any financial or material consequence, and becuase of this, leave. There is no data to validate your position so you can't argue that way, there's no support.