Would you...

[DailyBlessings]

From the 5th chapter of Matthew's Gospel:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

 

[Niels]

That attitude that says 'oh she HAD sex, I only thought about it' is so pharaseeical, and is EXACTLY what Jesus was trying to combat.

Pharisees were the powerful, highly educated, and politically influential religious leaders (like Paul, before his conversion). Does this really apply to our friend? I doubt it.

I don't want to be TOO harsh on you, but you basically told God He was a liar with your words that 'there is a big difference between having an impure thought, and actually acting out those thoughts with someone else', because he says it is EXACTLY the same.

What you're saying has some truth to it... yes, the thought and the action are equally worthy of separation from God. However, in terms of dealing with earthly consequences, sins are clearly not equal. For example: would it be right to say bad things about other people whenever we think something negative of them? After all, the thought and the deed are equal in God's eyes!

Ivanisivich is free to decide what he's looking for in a girl. To call someone "damaged goods" is unfair, but it's not unfair for him to look for a woman who shares a similar outlook and level of experience to his own.

 

[ivanisavich]

Aie yay aie.....

Actually it is God HIMSELF who said there was NO difference between the thought and the deed - remember that whole spiel about 'whoever thinks about a woman lustfully'.

Of course there is a difference! That's like saying there's no difference between what imagining what a roller-coaster is like, and actually riding one.

Jesus was simply getting at the fact that we shouldn't entertain lustful thoughts because they are sinful (just like the actual act)....but he certainly wasn't saying that thinking lustful thoughts is no different then acting on those thoughts...hence "...has committed adultery with her in his heart", as opposed to "has committed adultery with her in real life"

That attitude that says 'oh she HAD sex, I only thought about it' is so pharaseeical, and is EXACTLY what Jesus was trying to combat.

I reallly hope you're either joking or being sarcastic.

This issue is NOT about "me thinking I'm better than someone"...what it is about, is me holding a high standard for my future wife's and the lifestyle she lived/lives. Just as you should be holding a high standard for your future husband! (I'm not sure if you're married already though...I didn't check)

but you basically told God He was a liar with your words that 'there is a big difference between having an impure thought, and actually acting out those thoughts with someone else', because he says it is EXACTLY the same.

Uhhh...no...FAR from it. You were simply reading between the lines

And I am NOT damaged goods. I am a wonderful, blameless, spotless Bride of Jesus Christ - and He sees me as perfect.

You've completely missed the point. That's ok though

Remember, God may forgive someone, and that's great! But that doesn't mean the person didn't commit whatever sin it was in the first place. I want to marry someone sexually pure (in the physical sense...since we ALL entertain lustful thoughts throughout our lives at some point), and whether or not they are "forgiven"...if they had sex before marriage...they are no longer a virgin! They shared a part of themselves with someone else, and just like an apple at the grocery store that someone else has already picked up and left fingerprints on...they are "used", and I would not want to enter into a marital relationship with them. That being said....the "used" factor might not bother other people (like yourself, clearly)....and if it doesn't...more power to them!

By the way....by "used" (or damaged) I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way....ALL I'm saying is that they've "opened" a "gift" with someone else that should have been left "unopened" until marriage....I have a feeling this whole discussion started simply because I used the word "damaged"...when all I meant was that "they have shared a part of themselves with someone else that they will never and can never get back".

I hope that makes my thoughts a little more clear I did not mean to offend...I was just simply trying to explain why I woulnd't want to date someone who is not a virigin

 

[Shannonkish]

It is sad that this has to be addressed... since the church has presented those that are not virgins as if they are less of a person because of it.

 

[septemberskies]

Its ok to have a preference (no one is saying for you to marry a person whose once been sexually active ivanisavich) but to call our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ "used" or "damaged goods" is just low. They are not any less of a person and they deserve respect... that statement is degrading and disrespectful to them and there is no way to play down what was said.

Probably has something to do with being a new creature in Christ, WASHED CLEAN. Just my guess.

In His love,
Tink

Amen... my point exactly.

Damaged goods?

*joins the eye rolling*


Unless you can honestly claim that you have never had an impure thought, you've no right to call someone else damaged goods. We're all in the same boat, and we'd do well to cut each other a bit of slack.

I don't believe in some mystical holy state of virginity. What are we, in the Middle Ages or something? It's just a physical fact, and it doesn't necessarily reflect on someone's current spiritual condition.

DailyBlessings said it all.

You know its just one of those things I trust God will open your eyes. God can show you things better then anyone in this world can.

Sascha and Shannonkish also made great post. Lots of love to you both

 

[ivanisavich]

but to call our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ "used" or "damaged goods" is just low. They are not any less of a person and they deserve respect... that statement is degrading and disrespectful to them and there is no way to play down what was said.

Lol! Are you people not reading my posts??

 

[septemberskies]

Lol! Are you people not reading my posts??

You mean this:

By the way....by "used" (or damaged) I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way....ALL I'm saying is that they've "opened" a "gift" with someone else that should have been left "unopened" until marriage....I have a feeling this whole discussion started simply because I used the word "damaged"...when all I meant was that "they have shared a part of themselves with someone else that they will never and can never get back".

Sure i read it... didn't see the reason to repeat it. Why? because its just covering up wrongful words. Used and damage means that something has lowered in value. So i stand by what i said when i meant that it was disrespectful and degrading to our brothers and sisters in Christ.... i don't see how those two words could be misinterpreted.

dictionary.com says the following:

dam·age 1. Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness.

and webster.com says the following:

use 1 : employed in accomplishing something
2 : that has endured use; specifically : [size=-1]SECONDHAND[/size] <a used car>



Our words are like bullets... careful what you say because you cannot take them back. Someone reading this (a person abused that already thinks less of themselves, raped, struggling with abstinence, faith, or maybe just someone reading our post on this site looking to see what being an accepted christian is all about while trying to decide whether they should join the christian faith) could have been truly hurt as being referred to as "damage goods" and even with your explanation it didn't justify what was said.

 

[ivanisavich]

Dang! I typed a big long response out but my browser deleted it

Anyways...I'll try to sum up more quickly what I said:

because its just covering up wrongful words.

They certainly are not "wrongful words". If a person has sex before marriage, they have damaged the state of their "sexual purity". If a person has sex before marriage, they have allowed themselves to become "used" and are no longer pure for their future spouse.

and damage means that something has lowered in value.

Once a person does lose their virginity before marriage, the "value" of their "purity" does lower, because they are no longer pure. To say otherwise is simply beating around the bush.

The problem with your logic is that you are somehow connecting my statements that their sexual purity becomes lowered/damaged/non-existent/whatever to the idea that they as a person become damaged/lowered-in-value etc etc when that's not what I'm saying at all. But since so far this thread seems to have deteriorated to a "team up on ivanisavish" thread, you've ignored what I'm actually getting at so you can make me out to be some thought-less "degrader". In reality, I'm just simply one of the rare few who hold pre-marital sexual purity in high regard.

So i stand by what i said when i meant that it was disrespectful and degrading to our brothers and sisters in Christ.... i don't see how those two words could be misinterpreted.

They're not being misinterpreted.

If a person loses their viriginity before marriage, they have damaged their own sexual purity.

If a person loses their virginity before marriage, they have allowed themselves to become used by another person in acts that are not condoned in the Bible (until marriage of course)

Once again, I'm only stating the obvious....if that's "degrading" to anyone, then we need to have a lesson on the importance of sexual purity and the importance of self-accountability and responsibility for our own actions! Only when people act out on their temptations do they degrade themselves.

Our words are like bullets... careful what you say because you cannot take them back.

Amen! I agree with you. But the same is true for our sexual purity. If you lose your virginity before marriage, that is something you can NEVER get back either.

Someone reading this (a person abused that already thinks less of themselves, raped,

I already addressed these issues in my original post....stating that of course if someone was forced into a sexual act then they are not responsible/accountable for it. Those who are struggling with past abuse/rape should find joy in the fact that they are still pure. You only lose your purity once you yourself make the conscious choice to follow-up on sexual temptations with sexual acts (before marriage).

struggling with abstinence, faith, or maybe just someone reading our post on this site looking to see what being an accepted christian is all about while trying to decide whether they should join the christian faith

Once again, we ALL struggle with abstinence (well...at least us single folk)....but that doesn't mean we won't reap the consequences of our actions. I'll say it again and I'll say it a thousand times: if a person chooses to lose their virginity before marriage, they also choose to forsake their sexual purity and will never be able to take that part of themselves back. That's why we should be teaching and affirming the importance of maintaining sexual purity before marriage...instead of all this beating around the bush that some people seem to be doing here.

could have been truly hurt as being referred to as "damage goods" and even with your explanation it didn't justify what was said.

I hope I've made myself a little more clearer now. I don't need to "justify" what I said either...I simply stated the obvious. If a person loses their virginity in a way that is not condoned by the Bible, they have forsaken/damaged their sexual purity.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned....but with the lax attitudes I see many people having here about the importance of sexual purity and the importance of finding a partner who also is sexually pure...I sure hope I stay old-fashioned!

 

[Shannonkish]

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned....but with the lax attitudes I see many people having here about the importance of sexual purity and the importance of finding a partner who also is sexually pure...I sure hope I stay old-fashioned!

I haven't seen anyone with a lax attitude towards sexual purity. I have seen however, some people who are intolerant of others.

According to your logic and beliefs, someone that struggled with lust in any form has damaged their sexual purity... I would love to meet a person who has NEVER lusted, or damaged their sexual purity... unfortunately, there is not a single person that this would apply to.

 

[ivanisavich]

I haven't seen anyone with a lax attitude towards sexual purity. I have seen however, some people who are intolerant of others.

Well...the first dozen or so posters didn't care whether or not their future partner had past sexual relations. That seems to me to be a pretty lax attitude towards the importance of sexual purity for both partners!

According to your logic and beliefs, someone that struggled with lust in any form has damaged their sexual purity... I would love to meet a person who has NEVER lusted, or damaged their sexual purity... unfortunately, there is not a single person that this would apply to.

I'd like a quote from where I stated that please. We already went through the whole schpiel about the difference between lust and action. The two are not synonymous.

By the way.....our sexual thoughts do contribute to our overall purity on some levels as well...so that's why we should be striving for a pure/clean thought life too! Now it seems that you're saying we shouldn't be held accountable for our thoughts or our actions since "...we all struggle real bad!"

Remember...we are called to "take every thought captive", and we should hold our Christian brothers and sisters to do the same (not judge them of course, but urge them to stay pure in all areas of their lives). I wouldn't date someone who had a past sex life any more than I'd date someone who entertains a wealth of sinful thoughts/desires. We should be looking at every area of our lives and our future spouse's life...to make sure that we are both striving for righteousness overall.

 

[Shannonkish]

Well...the first dozen or so posters didn't care whether or not their future partner had past sexual relations. That seems to me to be a pretty lax attitude towards the importance of sexual purity for both partners!

And this, therefore, means they are lax... because they don't judge a person for their past mistakes? If every Christian required their future spouse to be a virgin, there would be a lot of unmarried Christians.

I'd like a quote from where I stated that please. We already went through the whole schpiel about the difference between lust and action. The two are not synonymous.

You didn't say it... but I used your logic to come to the conclusion.. which according to the statement you made following this, I was correct.

Now it seems that you're saying we shouldn't be held accountable for our thoughts or our actions "since we all struggle real bad!"

I'd definitely love to know how you arrived at this from my post. I never indicated anything of the sort. I was simply stating that using your logic, we are all "used" and "damaged."

I wouldn't date someone who had a past sex life any more than I'd date someone who entertains a wealth of sinful thoughts/desires. We should be looking at every area of our lives and our future spouse's life...to make sure that we are both striving for righteousness overall.

So, basically, what you are saying is this---

You meet a wnderful, amazing woman who is passionately and actively pursuing Christ. You started dating... it got serious... to the point that you asked her to marry you... During premarital counseling, your fiance admits that prior to being a christian she lived a promisiquious life. Because of this, you would end the relationship because she has had a "past sex life.

So how does that work with being a Christian... and seeking God? If I remember correctly, Jesus said to the harlot at the well... "Go and Sin no more." He didn't judge her, or tell her that she was a harlot... He loved her unconditionally.. and forgave her because she didn't know what she was doing.

 

[ivanisavich]

By the way...I'd like to re-iterate something that I've been thinking out, before I go to bed:

Every choice we make (whether we like to admit it or not) affects us in some way. If we make positive choices, they will affect us in a positive way....the same is true for negative choice (they will affect us in a negative way). To state that our choices don't affect us (ie...that sinful choices don't affect us negatively, or vice-versa when it comes to positive choices) is straight-out denial of the completely obvious (and is once again denial of the fact that we are fully accountable for our actions).

Believing the opposite is a slippery slope that leads to tolerance and a lack of desire to live righteously.

 

[Shannonkish]

By the way...I'd like to re-iterate something that I've been thinking out, before I go to bed:

Every choice we make (whether we like to admit it or not) affects us in some way. If we make positive choices, they will affect us in a positive way....the same is true for negative choice (they will affect us in a negative way). To state that our choices don't affect us (ie...that sinful choices don't affect us negatively, or vice-versa when it comes to positive choices) is straight-out denial of the completely obvious (and is once again denial of the fact that we are fully accountable for our actions).

Believing the opposite is a slippery slope that leads to tolerance and a lack of desire to live righteously.

Did anyone state anything different?

 

[ivanisavich]

Ah....hehe....you replied before I left...ah well...I'll respond now anywho....

And this, therefore, means they are lax... because they don't judge a person for their past mistakes? If every Christian required their future spouse to be a virgin, there would be a lot of unmarried Christians.

Well once again, I'm sorry you have such a lower regard for sexual purity, that you consider it "judgemental" when I simply want to marry someone who hasn't already ruined the God-given gift of marriage-only sex.

You didn't say it... but I used your logic to come to the conclusion.. which according to the statement you made following this, I was correct.

Once again, you've twisted my words simply because you're angry with me (at least you seem to be). I stated that sexual thoughts and actions are two different things, and that we all (sometime in our single lives) entertain sexual thoughts...but we don't all lose our virginity during that time of singleness. The damage done to one's "purity" by dwelling on sexual thoughts is much different than that done by commiting sexual acts. In your statement, you conjoined the two into one...and tried to make me out to be some legalistic fill-in-the-blank by stating that I think someone is "used" simply because they've had impure thoughts (when that's not what I said at all).

I'd definitely love to know how you arrived at this from my post. I never indicated anything of the sort. I was simply stating that using your logic, we are all "used" and "damaged."

We are all to some degree. Hence the fact that we are also all sinners and are all imperfect. But there's a big difference between the damage done to one's purity because of sexual thoughts, and the damage done to one's purity because of sexual acts....unless you intend to make a case for the idea that we can lose our virginity with a sexual thought!

You meet a wnderful, amazing woman who is passionately and actively pursuing Christ. You started dating... it got serious... to the point that you asked her to marry you... During premarital counseling, your fiance admits that prior to being a christian she lived a promisiquious life. Because of this, you would end the relationship because she has had a "past sex life.

It would be foolish to get engaged to someone without knowing their history. I would find out whether or not the girl was a virgin long before asking her to marry me, and I would hope she would hold me to the same high standards (ie....find out my past history to make sure I'm a guy who meets her standards).

In the end, even if I didn't break off a relationship based on past-sex-history, I'd still be lowering my standards to do so, since I've set out to find a girl who is all of the above PLUS a virgin.

So how does that work with being a Christian... and seeking God? If I remember correctly, Jesus said to the harlot at the well... "Go and Sin no more." He didn't judge her, or tell her that she was a harlot... He loved her unconditionally.. and forgave her because she didn't know what she was doing.

There's a big difference between accepting a person as a forgiven Christian....and marrying them! Why do you not like the fact that I have some standards that I have set for my future spouse? Should I just go and marry any random Christian simply because they have been forgiven by Christ? Of course not. That's foolish talk.

Sex is one of the biggest changes between married life and single life (for a Christian at least)....so why are you not holding it (and sexual purity) in high regard?

 

[ivanisavich]

Did anyone state anything different?

Yes. People have been arguing that sinful sexual choices/acts don't actually affect the person negatively in any way.

The fact that you agreed with me right there only reveals your own concession on that matter.

 

[Shannonkish]

Well once again, I'm sorry you have such a lower regard for sexual purity, that you consider it "judgemental" when I simply want to marry someone who hasn't already ruined the God-given gift of marriage-only sex.

How can you write this, yet still think you are not being judgemental? Also, please do not assume anything about me, such as the fact that you believe I have a "lower regard.. " You know nothing about me, my circumstances, etc. So let's just stick to the issue at hand.

Once again, you've twisted my words simply because you're angry with me (at least you seem to be). I stated that sexual thoughts and actions are two different things, and that we all (sometime in our single lives) entertain sexual thoughts...but we don't all lose our virginity during that time of singleness. The damage done to one's "purity" by dwelling on sexual thoughts is much different than that done by commiting sexual acts. In your statement, you conjoined the two into one...and tried to make me out to be some legalistic fill-in-the-blank by stating that I think someone is "used" simply because they've had impure thoughts (when that's not what I said at all).

Angry? That's funny. I am not in any way angry at anyone. I am simply responding to the posts. I didn't twist your words... I used your logic..

What is sexual purity? Is Purity defined by not having any physical intercourse? According to the Bible, purity is much more than that... Lust ruins our sexual purity...

According to you-- " If a person loses their viriginity before marriage, they have damaged their own sexual purity."

Therefore, if a person entertains lustful thoughts, they are less sexually pure than they would be had they not entertained the thoughts. Therefore, they have "damaged" their sexual purity. (According to your logic, that is.)

I didn't twist words, nor was my intent to "make you out to be a legalistic..." (I am beginning to wonder if someone is not a little sensative here.)

We are all to some degree. Hence the fact that we are also all sinners and are all imperfect. But there's a big difference between the damage done to one's purity because of sexual thoughts, and the damage done to one's purity because of sexual acts....unless you intend to make a case for the idea that we can lose our virginity with a sexual thought!

So, sin is not sin... there are levels of sins... It is a lesser sin to think lustful thoughts than to actually engage in sex? Can you provide some scriptural references for that, please? According to my Bible... Sin is Sin... if you commit one sin, you are guilty of them all.

It would be foolish to get engaged to someone without knowing their history. I would find out whether or not the girl was a virgin long before asking her to marry me, and I would hope she would hold me to the same high standards (ie....find out my past history to make sure I'm a guy who meets her standards).

So, given the same scenerio, minus the engagement portion, an amazing woman of God who is passionately seeking God but was promisquous prior to being a Christian is not worthy of being your wife? How can you hold to this, but yet still think that you aren't judging others?

Are you perfect? By your own admission, we are guilty of some sin. So why then, is a sexual sin so much more filthy and unworthy than other sins... like having lustful thoughts, lying, etc? That doesn't logically make sense.

There's a big difference between accepting a person as a forgiven Christian....and marrying them! Why do you not like the fact that I have some standards that I have set for my future spouse? Should I just go and marry any random Christian simply because they have been forgiven by Christ? Of course not. That's foolish talk.

Personally, I don't care who you marry or your standards... I just see it as illogical, and unlikely. Holding high standards is good... but it is possible to have standards that are impossible to meet.

I am not suggesting that you simply marry any female that has been forgiven... I am suggesting that you shouldn't discount a person because of past mistakes... especially since they have been forgiven of them.

If God followed your logic, then there would be no grace at all.

 

[Shannonkish]

The fact that you agreed with me right there only reveals your own concession on that matter.

I am learning that you read WAY too much into posts. My post made absolutely NO indication of my agreement or disagreement with your post. All it was, was a question-- nothing more, nothing less.

 

[onepair]

i would too...because underneath it all purity is in the heart !

 

[Shannonkish]

Thank you Onepair! Purity is in the heart and I am thankful that there are others such as yourself that believe this.

 

[onepair]

but once youve fallen there is forgiveness...there are reasons why God said dont and golly gee hes right...to find someone to love you is spectacular, im most determined to explain it well enough to my 14 year old daughter why you should save yourself....but still purity is in the heart