How can I be happy with someone who wants to save sex for marriage??

[pisces25]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH. Hilarious.

[misstgrl]

Actually, HIA had a link in his post stating what he meant. Go back up and click on T girl that is in blue, idiots.

Ohh wow! haha thanks for pointing that out, can't believe I missed the link. Now I feel stupid lol

[misstgrl]

OP, what was the resolution? Did you have sex, break-up, or are you still chomping on ice cubes?

No, we have not had sex and yes, we are still together. I didn't realize its been this long (2mths) since I asked this question, I guess because he's been out of town a lot recently. When he gets back I do plan on bringing up this issue, sometime soon.

[NytNrs&Mmartist]

Let me give you a basic Christian doctrine here from the bible. (I'm gonna paraphrase it)

"Fornicators...will not inherit the kingdom of heaven." (written somewhere in the bible)

Therefore the Loony Christian boyfriend is trying to inherit the kingdom of heaven and trying to be with you at the same time.
I just think that religious celibacy is a form of self torture/self abuse/cutting yourself off from enjoying a quality/fullfilling life

If you respect him then you would respect his beliefs. But if you successfully tempted him then he gave into you. (not necessarily a bad thing) but it would show that he loves you more than his god.

[NytNrs&Mmartist]

1 Corinthians 6:9 [url=http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm]1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders[/url] so you have a better understanding of why he wants to save sex for marriage

[ctr916]

Why is there any need for a guy to be abstinent in modern times with modern forms of contraception; in my opinion, persons of alleged morals are simply resorting to fallacy (a form of sin against philosophy if not religion) by claiming what they claim about sex, even if it comes from the moral absolutism of a Bible written in the Age of Iron and not an Age of Information.

Wasn't one purpose for requiring virginity from women simply to ensure a direct line of descent from the husband? Another purpose for abstinence in those days was also due to communicable diseases and out of wedlock pregnancies. Modern contraceptive methods have made those Iron Age morals obsolete in modern times. Why is it that alleged persons of morals are not focusing more on "timeless" forms of morals such as the abomination of hypocrisy instead?

Consider that if alleged persons of morals don't really care about the abomination of hypocrisy in modern times, why should anyone have any confidence in their sincerity regarding forms of moral absolutism from the Iron Age that are no longer as relevant.

[NytNrs&Mmartist]

Why is there any need for a guy to be abstinent in modern times with modern forms of contraception; in my opinion, persons of alleged morals are simply resorting to fallacy (a form of sin against philosophy if not religion) by claiming what they claim about sex, even if it comes from the moral absolutism of a Bible written in the Age of Iron and not an Age of Information.

Wasn't one purpose for requiring virginity from women simply to ensure a direct line of descent from the husband? Another purpose for abstinence in those days was also due to communicable diseases and out of wedlock pregnancies. Modern contraceptive methods have made those Iron Age morals obsolete in modern times. Why is it that alleged persons of morals are not focusing more on "timeless" forms of morals such as the abomination of hypocrisy instead?

Consider that if alleged persons of morals don't really care about the abomination of hypocrisy in modern times, why should anyone have any confidence in their sincerity regarding forms of moral absolutism from the Iron Age that are no longer as relevant.

never thought of it that way.. i just thought sex = sin, if not married. I just thought it to be somekind of sacred beliefs in christian doctrine.

[ctr916]

never thought of it that way.. i just thought sex = sin, if not married. I just thought it to be some kind of sacred beliefs in christian doctrine.

Fornication didn't make it to the Ten Commandments, false witness bearing did.

Besides that was not the message I got; the message I got is that it was only included in that "handbook" of morals because of the standard of living of that Age.

However, if we were to consider which "morals" should be kept in modern times, should the abomination of hypocrisy be more of a sin than simple fornication?

Consider that if persons of alleged morals are not serious about the abomination of hypocrisy as a greater sin, then what would prevent some persons of alleged morals from engaging in hypocrisy and writing a book of morals about it--for everyone else. Or, it could be said that after "In the Beginning", they were resorting to abomination of hypocrisy since it is less serious than practicing safe sex in modern times.

[NytNrs&Mmartist]

10 commandments = old testament

the corinthians = new testament

we are all humans and been hypocrit at 1 point in life (or more)

[ctr916]

I wasn't presenting my point of view to assign blame; we are human and loyal subjects of the animal kingdom. From my perspective, it is not so much about forgiving, but about confidence in their sincerity.

[maxmax]

We are extant taxon.