[Paco500]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Religious organization is a human invention.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That's one view.

It seems to me only logical that at worst this view is completely accurate with the possible exception of ONE religion. If one is divine, the rest must be rubbish. At least if they profess any kind of absolute truth in conflict with the one true religion.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Makes sense.

Oh and Spheric, I was pulling your leg with the gay marriage argument

I should've guessed.

Your spelling, grammar and punctuation was too good for an argument that asinine.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

I should've guessed.

Your spelling, grammar and punctuation was too good for an argument that asinine.

The fact that he's gay didn't give it away?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

Slight quibble.

I think "new" would be more accurately phrased as "risen to prominence".

For those on the lowest rungs of society (IOW, those lacking money or sociopolitical status) people would marry for love. It was one of the few, umm... advantages?

Even at the lowest rungs of society, marriage for love has historically been very rare. A dirt-poor farmer would marry off his daughters for dowry and alliance with other farmers, and his sons would marry daughters of other farmers for alliances. Perhaps only the very, very lowest rungs would have enough freedom from social structure to do as they pleased, but they would also have other encumbrances, such as the availability of suitable potential mates with whom to fall in love...

It's been there forever, of course, but history is really full of "forced to marry X in spite of being in love with Y" stories, and documented marriages over the ages bear this out. It's only been in this past century that conditions have allowed individuals to choose their own marriage partners, beginning of course at the top socioeconomic levels and percolating downward as lower SE strata gained sufficient individual independence.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Actually, I've heard these arguments many times before.

I guess my life experience and Biblical teachings are completely different from yours.

My wife and I are extremely evangelical conservative Christians and attend a conservative Baptist Church. I have NEVER in all my life heard most of what you are saying from any conservative Christian church I have attended.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Want to have sex? Get married, because sex outside of marriage is inherently sinful, while sex within the bounds of marriage is inherently okay.

Very true. This is correct biblical teaching, kind of. It is not "inherently okay", it is holy, just, loving, and commanded of us to be treated correctly.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This completely ignores the fact that sex inside marriage can still be perverted into a purely selfish act of self-gratification and abuse, and sex outside of marriage can be a physical union between two committed individuals.

How are those two even related?!? You're basically saying that sex outside of marriage is basically completely perfect and that sex inside of marriage is completely messed up. I assure you, sex outside of marriage can be VERY twisted and abusive and that sex inside of marriage can be holy, loving, deeply intimate, God glorifying, energizing, and richly satisfying.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Want to get married? You'd better plan on procreating, because God designed sex first and foremost for procreation.

This is another argument I've heard from many people (coming from many different denominations and theological backgrounds), the justification being that if you take away the procreative purpose of intercourse, there is no justifiable reason why any sex is wrong (bestiality, incest, polygamy, homosexual sex, premarital sex, extramarital sex, orgies, etc.). The problem is that many people simply shouldn't be parents, and insisting that God made sex for procreation is a poor way to go about handling the issue.

God did not. Adam and Eve were naked and unable to have kids until being kicked out of the garden. It is assumed they were having sex. Song of Songs is all about sex without any mention of procreation. Paul talks about needing to have sex because people are burning with passion and never mentions procreation. Just because you've heard arguments doesn't mean that they are accurate biblical teaching. You take away procreation and you still have many biblical reasons for having sex.

Actually, I have attended many different churches and the few times I have heard some one speak about sex it was not about procreating. It was about showing love.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Want to make a lifelong commitment to someone? Get married!

...except that legal marriage does not necessarily mean a lifelong commitment.

There is not a single biblical topic regarding this. Actually, the Bible makes mentions of when divorce is allowable.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm not, but thanks for making that assumption. My "generalizations" about Christians come from spending my entire childhood and early adulthood around Christians of all backgrounds. I went to church twice a week, I attended a non-denominational Christian school from kindergarten through high school, and I didn't actually personally know any non-Christians until I was 17.

Christians are indeed obsessed with sex. They also have a rather odd view of marriage, that it's somehow a magic band-aid that will legitimize an otherwise inexplicably illegitimate relationship, and that it will unequivocally keep a relationship going. That kind of attitude is exactly why so many young Christian adults are getting married too soon and ending up in divorce five or six years later.

I make those assumptions based upon what you say here. My wife and I are Christians, most of my friends are Christians, and none of us is obsessed with sex or hold the same beliefs you claim Christian have. Therefore your generalizations are completely wrong.

Your black and white way of seeing this makes it difficult to discuss the issue logically with you.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

[SNIP]...

sex to be this amazing, beautiful, holy, spiritual experience, when in reality it's messy, noisy, and pretty damn gross when you think about the mechanics of it.

Sorry about your luck, but my wife and I have enjoyed the former many times a week. Maybe you're doing it wrong.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm sorry for the rant, but this is something that frustrates the hell out of me. I agree with most conservative Christian viewpoints on life, but it's completely ridiculous and naive to continue to treat sex this way.

I am sorry about your prejudicial views and your ignorance. Since you live in Lafayette, I HIGHLY suggest you visit Faith Baptist Church in Lafayette and met some Christians who have their attitudes and beliefs correct in the area of marriage and sex. They even offer the best counseling I have ever heard of. Their pre-marital counseling has no peer. Or, just attend Sunday School and worship services there. You'll learn a lot and put your false prejudices behind you.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Even at the lowest rungs of society, marriage for love has historically been very rare. A dirt-poor farmer would marry off his daughters for dowry and alliance with other farmers, and his sons would marry daughters of other farmers for alliances. Perhaps only the very, very lowest rungs would have enough freedom from social structure to do as they pleased, but they would also have other encumbrances, such as the availability of suitable potential mates with whom to fall in love...

It's been there forever, of course, but history is really full of "forced to marry X in spite of being in love with Y" stories, and documented marriages over the ages bear this out. It's only been in this past century that conditions have allowed individuals to choose their own marriage partners, beginning of course at the top socioeconomic levels and percolating downward as lower SE strata gained sufficient individual independence.

Farmers (land owners) were not on the lowest rungs of society. And only the oldest son of a farmer (land owner) was married for any benefit. The younger sons had to fend for themselves.

[sockpuppet]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Fantastic addition to the thread. MacNN thanks you.

Your comment fills me with joy and validation.

Much like marriage.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Very true. This is correct biblical teaching, kind of. It is not "inherently okay", it is holy, just, loving, and commanded of us to be treated correctly.

Really? I mean, I can accept that sex within a committed relationship is correct while casual sex isn't (at least, from a biblical perspective), but perhaps you can provide some biblical citation for the argument that a legal, government-recognized marriage is required in order for sex to be morally acceptable. And no, don't just say "go read a Bible sometime" - give some actual references.

How are those two even related?!? You're basically saying that sex outside of marriage is basically completely perfect and that sex inside of marriage is completely messed up. I assure you, sex outside of marriage can be VERY twisted and abusive and that sex inside of marriage can be holy, loving, deeply intimate, God glorifying, energizing, and richly satisfying.

You're kidding, right? How in the world did you infer that from what I wrote? Sure, sex outside of marriage can be abusive, and sex inside marriage can be great. However the marriage license from your local county courthouse does not suddenly make sex with your partner universally good.

This comes back to my discussion about the Christian obsession with sex. It's not really discussed, at least with young singles, that sex inside marriage can be just as twisted and abusive as sex outside of marriage. The marriage license is not a magic catch-all that makes all marital sex good. Likewise, a lack of marriage does not make all non-marital sex bad.

I've read blog postings and the like from Christians who talk about how they realized that sex outside of marriage is always 100% selfish and evil...I even read a post from one person saying that sex outside of marriage is no different than two dogs humping in the park. That kind of attitude is insane. Marriage does not suddenly make you unselfish. Sex inside marriage can be very selfish. It can also be unselfish, but the act of marriage does not suddenly make it inherently unselfish. Sex outside of marriage can be very unselfish and an act of love and commitment. The presence of a marriage license is not required for those feelings and motivations to be valid.

God did not. Adam and Eve were naked and unable to have kids until being kicked out of the garden. It is assumed they were having sex. Song of Songs is all about sex without any mention of procreation. Paul talks about needing to have sex because people are burning with passion and never mentions procreation. Just because you've heard arguments doesn't mean that they are accurate biblical teaching. You take away procreation and you still have many biblical reasons for having sex.

Actually, I have attended many different churches and the few times I have heard some one speak about sex it was not about procreating. It was about showing love.

See, I agree that sex is about showing love and not primarily about procreation - but if this is the case, then Christians need to chill out about homosexuality.

I make those assumptions based upon what you say here. My wife and I are Christians, most of my friends are Christians, and none of us is obsessed with sex or hold the same beliefs you claim Christian have. Therefore your generalizations are completely wrong.

Your black and white way of seeing this makes it difficult to discuss the issue logically with you.

I mean the Christian community as a whole, not individual Christians. My mom is theoretically a Christian, and to this day she still behaves as though sex doesn't exist and babies come from the stork. In general, particularly with the 16-26 age group, the attitude is overly obsessed with sex. What I mean is that there's constant cautioning against sexual behavior and constant talk about how girls need to be careful not to make boys stumble. It's a frequent topic of conversation or preaching in youth groups and small groups. Christians have become so concerned with promoting abstinence to teenagers and young adults that they've practically forgotten to discuss anything else before those kids go out into the world on their own.

Sorry about your luck, but my wife and I have enjoyed the former many times a week. Maybe you're doing it wrong.

You missed the point. Sex is messy, noisy, and kind of gross. It doesn't matter how great the sex is - I've had some damn amazing sex - it's still going to be messy and sweaty and lube-y and noisy.

When you and your wife had sex for the first time (assuming you were both virgins), was it an amazing, holy, spiritual, mystical experience, or was it more along the lines of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, where you came in thirty seconds and that was the end of your first time having intercourse?

Sex can indeed be fantastic and holy and all that. However, Christian teens have been given an extremely unrealistic view of what sex is like in a marriage - that marriage automatically makes it fantastic and wonderful - and it ends up being a huge let-down when you realize that sex, like any other physical behavior, takes practice and learning. I doubt most virgin-until-marriage Christian couples have had mindblowing sex from the start. I know I sure didn't, and it wasn't because I wasn't married. It was because I had no clue what I was doing.

The trouble is that when sex is put up on a pedestal throughout your teenage years, the actual experience is a letdown, and it brings frustration and unnecessary stress into the relationship.

I am sorry about your prejudicial views and your ignorance. Since you live in Lafayette, I HIGHLY suggest you visit Faith Baptist Church in Lafayette and met some Christians who have their attitudes and beliefs correct in the area of marriage and sex. They even offer the best counseling I have ever heard of. Their pre-marital counseling has no peer. Or, just attend Sunday School and worship services there. You'll learn a lot and put your false prejudices behind you.

You really need to cut it out with the attitude that your views on Biblical interpretation are the correct ones, and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You sound like my brother.

I'm not remotely prejudiced. I simply have had different experiences in life than you have. Therefore, my perspective is different. Simply because it disagrees with your perspective does not make it objectively "wrong" or "prejudiced".

[Railroader]

There are way too many strawmen in your reply for me to compose a logical reply.

I'll just leave you at this:

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You really need to cut it out with the attitude that your views on Biblical interpretation are the correct ones, and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

You have yet to express a single biblically based argument. You keep saying "All Christians this ..." and "All Christians need to ...". You are using anecdotal experience. You are ignoring the actual Bible. I gave you places to look. Song of Songs is one. I mentioned Adam and Eve, that's in Genesis 1-3. I mentioned Paul, that's from 1 Corinthians 7.

If you want to argue "interpretation", then we are simply done. You'll be able to find some source on any topic to fit just about any belief. That doesn't mean they are correct though. The Bible is not some mystical mysterious book that needs a blessed annointed person to interpret. Though, with that said, I usually view most Bible references from three or four different translations and for those I still do not understand I go to a colleague that is fluent in Greek or Hebrew.

The Bible has a lot to say concerning marriage.

Tell you what, you stop generalizing all Christians the way you currently are and I'll stop refuting you.

[shifuimam]

When you talk about Bible verses that mention the English word "husband" or "wife", though, I don't see explicit reference with those verses regarding a legally-recognized marriage.

If you are fully committed to your partner and spend the rest of your life with them, could you not consider them your husband or wife, or is a legal marriage certificate required to legitimize the marriage?

God created Eve as a partner for Adam, but since government didn't exist at the time, they weren't exactly legally married...

[PBG4 User]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So why is a lifetime commitment made when you are too young and stupid to really know what you want inherently a good thing? I mean, it CAN be sure but aren't people at some point sticking with it because they are "supposed to"?

I got married when I was 30, but thanks for the sweeping generalization though.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This comes back to my discussion about the Christian obsession with sex. It's not really discussed, at least with young singles, that sex inside marriage can be just as twisted and abusive as sex outside of marriage. The marriage license is not a magic catch-all that makes all marital sex good. Likewise, a lack of marriage does not make all non-marital sex bad.

You need to qualify this statement by making it clear that you understand that this is simply your experience and NOT universally true of all churches and denominations. The church I attended in college took a very different position from the one you're claiming. There wasn't some double standard for girls and guys - the danger of a inappropriate emotional connection was discussed. The issues of what's appropriate and what can be done to protect the hearts and minds of both women and men were discussed in depth.

Some places DO do it right, don't over-generalize.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

When you and your wife had sex for the first time (assuming you were both virgins), was it an amazing, holy, spiritual, mystical experience, or was it more along the lines of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, where you came in thirty seconds and that was the end of your first time having intercourse?

I'll let you know in four months.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

The Bible has a lot to say concerning marriage.

Except, aren't all English translations on that site based off the German Luther-Bibel of 1545? The ONLY actual reference to "HUSBAND" in that is in Deuteronomy 22:22.

EVERY other reference that your link quotes as referring to marriage simply says "Mann", which *can* mean "husband", but literally just means "man".

Nearly all references quoted as "wife" are "Weib" in the original translation, which simply means "woman".

The instances of "married" are "nahm ein Weib" - which means "took a woman".

This, of course, is an ambiguity based in the German terminology used.

Have you traced those quotes back to the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic to verify that what you think about marriage is "correct"?


Remember, the "virgin" Mary is a mistranslation that arose quite similarly. The original text spoke of a "young woman", which Luther translated as "Jungfrau" ("virgin") rather than "junge Frau".

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

When you talk about Bible verses that mention the English word "husband" or "wife", though, I don't see explicit reference with those verses regarding a legally-recognized marriage.

See above.

There ARE references to legally binding marriage, but they largely concern adultery with married women (and the resulting death penalty) and how you're legally bound to make slave women your wife if their parents or husbands die in your ownership, and such like.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Except virtually all English translations are based off the German Luther-Bibel of 1545, and the ONLY actual reference to "HUSBAND" in that is in Deuteronomy 22:22.

EVERY other reference that your link quotes as referring to marriage simply says "Mann", which *can* mean "husband", but literally just means "man".

Nearly all references quoted as "wife" are "Weib" in the original translation, which simply means "woman".

The instances of "married" are "nahm ein Weib" - which means "took a woman".

This, of course, is an ambiguity based in the German terminology used.

Have you traced those quotes back to the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic to verify that what you think about marriage is "correct"?

Remember, the "virgin" Mary is a mistranslation that arose quite similarly. The original text spoke of a "young woman", which Luther translated as "Jungfrau" ("virgin") rather than "junge Frau".

Not all English translations are based off the German Luther-Bibel of 1545. I typically read the ESV, NASB, NIV, and Holman Bibles. The ESV specifically is based off the oldest original manuscripts and that is why I prefer it. I also have a Hebrew and Greek Bible that has a word for word translation. And if I still don't think I have the gist of a passage I ask a friend who has a PHd in Biblical languages.

I should not have linked to the NIV search, but rather the ESV search results. Unfortunately the NIV was the default for that search site.

[PBG4 User]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

For me and my wife, it's the publicly declared commitment to each other. I was fine with just being together, but it was amazing how different it felt after we were formally married.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who felt/feels this way.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I wasn't obfuscating at all. I believe those teaching have no base in anything. The only common denominator is "people". It is certainly not a biblical teaching. I don't think it is Buddhist. I know some atheists who feel that way, but I don't know where they came up with their feelings on the matter.

I was being honest, and intentionally non-verbose. No need to wade through lengthly diatribes like Shif writes.

Kerrigan caught the gist of what I was looking for. Thanks anyway.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by PBG4 User 

I'm glad I'm not the only person who felt/feels this way.

Out of curiosity, did you feel different after going through graduation ceremonies, such as high school/college?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Except, aren't all English translations on that site based off the German Luther-Bibel of 1545? The ONLY actual reference to "HUSBAND" in that is in Deuteronomy 22:22.

EVERY other reference that your link quotes as referring to marriage simply says "Mann", which *can* mean "husband", but literally just means "man".

Nearly all references quoted as "wife" are "Weib" in the original translation, which simply means "woman".

The instances of "married" are "nahm ein Weib" - which means "took a woman".

This, of course, is an ambiguity based in the German terminology used.

Have you traced those quotes back to the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic to verify that what you think about marriage is "correct"?


Remember, the "virgin" Mary is a mistranslation that arose quite similarly. The original text spoke of a "young woman", which Luther translated as "Jungfrau" ("virgin") rather than "junge Frau".

Actually, the Bible is translated from Greek and Hebrew, not German. The Greek word describing Mary is parthenos, which does mean "virgin." There does appear to have been the same kind of mistranslation you're talking about, though, as the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures used that word to translate the Hebrew almah, which actually just means "young woman."

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Actually, the Bible is translated from Greek and Hebrew, not German.

You make it sound like I claimed the Bible was originally written in German.

AFAIK, the King James Bible, which is the most widespread English-language household bible(?), *is* a translation of the Luther-Bibel, and not of the original texts.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The Greek word describing Mary is parthenos, which does mean "virgin." There does appear to have been the same kind of mistranslation you're talking about, though, as the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures used that word to translate the Hebrew almah, which actually just means "young woman."

Ah, interesting. I thought it was Luther's error, but it appears to predate him by quite a few centuries, then.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Farmers (land owners) were not on the lowest rungs of society. And only the oldest son of a farmer (land owner) was married for any benefit. The younger sons had to fend for themselves.

I used "farmer" generically. Share croppers and serfs were "farmers" in the way I meant it above. It's hard to get lower than a serf, and while the term "share cropper" may sound a lot nicer, in practice, they were indeed the very lowest rung of the ladder. And THEY absolutely NEEDED those alliances and dowries for survival.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Out of curiosity, did you feel different after going through graduation ceremonies, such as high school/college?

I have. Publicly announcing "this person has moved up to a recognized social status, and we welcome him." I did not attend my BS graduation for two reasons: I was in Texas and the ceremony was in Mississippi, and it was going to be a gathering of several thousand people I never met (beyond the fact that I attended an extension campus for my entire BS). I am about to attend my MOT (Master of Occupational Therapy) graduation next month, and it will be an enormously important event for me.

If you're getting at the "public validation" issue, sure, it's there for me.

[Big Mac]

How in the world has a thread of this nature managed to escape a PWL move for so long?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I have. Publicly announcing "this person has moved up to a recognized social status, and we welcome him." I did not attend my BS graduation for two reasons: I was in Texas and the ceremony was in Mississippi, and it was going to be a gathering of several thousand people I never met (beyond the fact that I attended an extension campus for my entire BS). I am about to attend my MOT (Master of Occupational Therapy) graduation next month, and it will be an enormously important event for me.

If you're getting at the "public validation" issue, sure, it's there for me.

I don't think I'd use the term validate, as it seems somewhat condescending, but yeah, gist is you're getting a great emotional response from the event. I thought my graduation day would leave me swelling with emotion (particularly given the rocky path it took to get there) but in the end it just felt like an atypical day.

Maybe this kind of different reaction to ceremony is part of the disconnect?

It should also be noted that I'm not a fan of most holidays (including birthdays). The only ones I celebrate with true feeling are Thanksgiving and Christmas. Oddly, I get a small emotional swell ever since I stopped celebrating Easter (with the family, has nothing to do with religious reasons) too.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

How in the world has a thread of this nature managed to escape a PWL move for so long?

Because we aren't being gigantic dicks to each other... yet.

[PBG4 User]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Out of curiosity, did you feel different after going through graduation ceremonies, such as high school/college?

Not high school, but I did get uplifting feelings both times I graduated college (attended first ceremony, installed a fence with my dad during the second). Still, this was different; it was a true bonding moment in our lives, like when we recently had her mother move in with us to live out the last two months of her cancer. I don't know how to explain it; we were secure in our relationship before we got married (we'd been together over 5 years at that point) and neither of us had put pressure on each other about it, we were happily unmarried before we became happily married.

Maybe it was partially due to our change in social status? We went from single to married, my girlfriend was now my wife and took my surname. In general it was a good feeling all over and the missus said she felt the same way at the time also.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

AFAIK, the King James Bible, which is the most widespread English-language household bible(?), *is* a translation of the Luther-Bibel, and not of the original texts.

The King James Bible was created by sitting down with several popular English translations of the day and comparing them to each other and the original-language texts. None of the reference translations were directly translated from Luther's German, though I'm sure he had some influence on some of them.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'll let you know in four months.

I hope she doesn't end up being two midgets in a chick suit.

[Kerrigan]

Doofy: your comment about becoming married, in god's eyes, when you pop a girl's cherry (or things to that effect) echoes something that I've read somewhere (a theology journal I'm sure, I just can't remember which one).

So I, too, am suspicious that god is actually sitting up there checking people's paperwork to make sure they are actually married.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I hope she doesn't end up being two midgets in a chick suit.

http://www.imeem.com/mersyone/video/...ry-springer-a/

[hyteckit]

Protect the sanctity of marriage.

Ban pre-marital sex.

I guess if we ban pre-marital sex, only criminals and marry couples can have sex.

Hmm.. criminals and married couples in the same category.

I guess they both feel trap like they are in jail or something.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Doofy: your comment about becoming married, in god's eyes, when you pop a girl's cherry (or things to that effect) echoes something that I've read somewhere (a theology journal I'm sure, I just can't remember which one).

So I, too, am suspicious that god is actually sitting up there checking people's paperwork to make sure they are actually married.

Yes, according to Judaism, sex without marriage technically equals marriage, even though it's not the proper path to marriage. Imagine how many times promiscuous people have technically been married by that standard!

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You need to qualify this statement by making it clear that you understand that this is simply your experience and NOT universally true of all churches and denominations. The church I attended in college took a very different position from the one you're claiming. There wasn't some double standard for girls and guys - the danger of a inappropriate emotional connection was discussed. The issues of what's appropriate and what can be done to protect the hearts and minds of both women and men were discussed in depth.

Some places DO do it right, don't over-generalize.

Yeah, and some churches drink poison and handle lethal serpents and claim the protection of God while doing so.

I would venture to say that the majority of protestant Christian churches deal with sex in this way, particularly in the audience of teenagers and young adults. I've seen plenty of it in Bible Study materials, Christian magazines and other publications, inserts in teen-oriented study Bibles, etc.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Protect the sanctity of marriage.

Ban pre-marital sex.

I guess if we ban pre-marital sex, only criminals and marry couples can have sex.

Hmm.. criminals and married couples in the same category.

I guess they both feel trap like they are in jail or something.

I'm curious as to whether or not English is your first language.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Yeah, and some churches drink poison and handle lethal serpents and claim the protection of God while doing so.

Is this relevant?

I would venture to say that the majority of protestant Christian churches deal with sex in this way, particularly in the audience of teenagers and young adults.

Because you want your experience to be the norm? Or because you have a statistically acceptable sample size to accurately make that statement?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm curious as to whether or not English is your first language.

No, English is my fourth language.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I used "farmer" generically. Share croppers and serfs were "farmers" in the way I meant it above. It's hard to get lower than a serf, and while the term "share cropper" may sound a lot nicer, in practice, they were indeed the very lowest rung of the ladder. And THEY absolutely NEEDED those alliances and dowries for survival.

Now I get to quibble more.

You can get way lower than serf. If you were farming your lord's land, that meant you had a lord, who had a certain obligation to you even if only to continue profiting from your labor. Many serfs were more successful than the freemen who leased property from the same lord.

The phenomenon I was talking about was mainly urban. That's where the lowest rungs of society are.

At least, it sure as hell looks that way in my big book of Hogarth engravings.

[hyteckit]

Marriage - Exchange for sex and money

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501/...child_marriage

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If you have a good relationship, what exactly does marriage add to it that is so special?.

For me it meant taking the relationship to the next level. Both in the physical sort of sense but also in the emotional and financial senses as well. As a Christian like others who had posted here, both my wife (then girlfriend) and I waited until marriage before having sex. We also understood that marriage was a commitment that we took to be with each other regardless of the circumstances.

A lot of times, people who move in do, so until things get difficult, and then move out. We work hard at working out any difficulties that have come our way.

So in the end, I believe that marriage is more then just a piece of paper but a promise to my significant other that I'll be there for her, and a promise to God to take care of my wife as well.

Also as RR stated that the husband and wife/marriage is symbolic of the Christ and his church.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Is this relevant?

I think so, yes. There are offshoots and factions of the Christian church that do this or that, but that doesn't necessarily represent the mainstream viewpoints of modern Protestant Christianity (e.g. not Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc.).

Because you want your experience to be the norm? Or because you have a statistically acceptable sample size to accurately make that statement?

I think that the majority of the evangelical/Protestant Christian community (at least in the United States) has a tendency toward the attitudes regarding sex that I've previously mentioned. I've seen it in many places and from many sources, including mainstream, commonly accepted references like study bible, Christianity Today, and publications from Focus on the Family and the like.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No, English is my fourth language.

Damn. Where are you from?

At any rate, it explains a few things.

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

A lot of times, people who move in do, so until things get difficult, and then move out. We work hard at working out any difficulties that have come our way.

This is one of the big reasons why Christians talk about how detrimental cohabitation is. There is a higher frequency or tendency for cohabitators to behave in this manner, but it's not always the case. My mom wasn't happy at all when I told her boyfriend was moving in with me, but we see ourselves, for all intents and purposes, as married. It's not like one of us is going to leave if the going gets tough. We're in this for the long haul. I know you're not insinuating that everyone who cohabitates is inevitably going to behave like this, but I do think people in general put too much emphasis on the perceived correlation between cohabitation and divorce/breakup rates.

[olePigeon]

Ironic that atheists and agnostics have significantly lower divorce rate than Christians. I think it has less to do with cohabitation and more to do with silly religious requirements that add strain on a relationship.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's not like one of us is going to leave if the going gets tough. We're in this for the long haul. I know you're not insinuating that everyone who cohabitates is inevitably going to behave like this, but I do think people in general put too much emphasis on the perceived correlation between cohabitation and divorce/breakup rates.

Most married people that eventually divorce will insist the same. But the difference is that should the two of you seperate it will be a simpler (if not emotionally easier) affair. And of course you won't have the stigma of being divorced. But I wish the two of you the best in either case.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I think that the majority of the evangelical/Protestant Christian community (at least in the United States) has a tendency toward the attitudes regarding sex that I've previously mentioned. I've seen it in many places and from many sources, including mainstream, commonly accepted references like study bible, Christianity Today, and publications from Focus on the Family and the like.

Oh, so it's the first one. The one where you don't actually have any real data, but you want it to be true so you're saying that it is.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Ironic that atheists and agnostics have significantly lower divorce rate than Christians. I think it has less to do with cohabitation and more to do with silly religious requirements that add strain on a relationship.

That's weird, I couldn't find the link in your post.

[PBG4 User]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Ironic that atheists and agnostics have significantly lower divorce rate than Christians. I think it has less to do with cohabitation and more to do with silly religious requirements that add strain on a relationship.

I think it's not having sex before marriage. After all, who buys a pair of shoes without trying them on? It would suck to bring home the last pair of shoes you'll ever get to buy for the rest of your life and then find out they just don't fit at all.

[Dakar V]

The problem with many of the people who look down upon cohabitation as having "problems" is you come off as the type of people who would maintain a marriage far longer than would be healthy.

I often wonder what exactly it would take for these people to consent to a divorce. I have a feeling the answers would be amazing.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That's weird, I couldn't find the link in your post.

That's weird, didn't realize I was your errand boy. Here you go.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That's weird, didn't realize I was your errand boy. Here you go.

...is this your first discussion? Unfamiliar with the "you back up you claims" part of these debates?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

...is this your first discussion? Unfamiliar with the "you back up you claims" part of these debates?

I assumed it was common knowledge. Usually I'm pretty good at backing up claims.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by paul w 

And of course you won't have the stigma of being divorced. But I wish the two of you the best in either case.

I don't think there's a stigma of being divorced at this point, especially when the divorce rate is nearly 50% of marriages. Sure ing some circles, like conservative Christian circles it can be but even then, the divorce rate amongst Christians that consider themselves Evangelical Christian's closely mirror's society. My point is that the stigma was there back before the 1970s, now, not so much.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by PBG4 User 

I think it's not having sex before marriage. After all, who buys a pair of shoes without trying them on? It would suck to bring home the last pair of shoes you'll ever get to buy for the rest of your life and then find out they just don't fit at all.

I tend to agree.

It's not just about finding someone who's sexually compatible, either. It's about dealing with a number of drastic life changes all at once, and it puts insurmountable strain on your relationship.

Not only are you now married, but you are now living with someone. Not only are you living someone, but you are now sharing everything - including your finances. Not only are you sharing everything, but you can also have sex. It's sensory and emotional overload for most people, I think. Sure, there are people who waited until marriage to live together and/or have sex, and their marriage has thus far been successful. But you also have to look at other factors - how virginal were both people before marriage? Did either have roommates or otherwise live with others during adulthood?

Sharing my space with someone is a huge deal. I don't play well with others, especially when it comes to my home. Boyfriend moved in, and it was a very easy transition. My last ex, however...moving in would have been a disaster, which is why we never did it in the two-and-a-halfish years we were together. If you've never lived with someone, suddenly living with someone (on top which having all the romantic and sexual stuff that comes with marriage) can be an enormous burden and stress on your life and your relationship.

I don't think that a lifelong relationship is something you should dive into headfirst without any prior practice or building up to it - and I don't mean a few months of premarital counseling at your church, either. It seems to me that marriage should be treated with extra caution, and you should ease into it. If you just see marriage as license to have sex (and believe me, a lot of Christians do), you're not really ready to be married. Same goes for people who have this starry-eyed vision of how marriage is perfect and entails lifelong happiness with no hardship - I have also met people with this mentality, and they're quite obviously not remotely mature enough for marriage.

I started having sex when I was 18. I'm going to be 25 in July. So far, I've only regretted sex with a couple people (one guy 'cause he was an asshole, one guy 'cause it was possibly the worst sex on the planet), and it's not because I was "giving away something I can never get back". In my experience, it would appear that all the hype surrounding the Christian view of premarital sex has been nothing but hype and scare tactics. Maybe I just got lucky.

On the other hand, you have couples who start having sex before marriage, and end up getting married because they're plagued with guilt and feel as though they are now obliged to marry the person they're having sex with, just to legitimize that particular behavior.