Living together before marriage - thoughts?

[LOOT]

Doesn't the Bible also say a bat is a bird? :p

[Fairlight Excalibur]

ML beat me to it, but that was my answer. The Bible tells us to question our leaders and make sure they are doing the right thing.

Ironically, a former pastor of mine once told me that if the day ever came when his leadership was not lining up with the Bible, that I should find a different church. He was kinda surprised that I actually did that about 5 years later.

Sadly, too many people rely on pastors, deacons, priests, etc. to do their thinking for them, and that results in a blind, cultlike mentality.




As for ZG's new topic fodder...

Because the Bible says so. I imagine someone could go drum up some statistics or logical arguments or practical points and try to carry on an argument based on those, but for me, it's simple obedience.

[Rainbow Dash]

and calvin says bats are bugs

e: oops that was at loot

[Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds]

to do their thinking for them, and that results in a blind, cultlike mentality

How does that differ from following the Bible directly? I'm genuinely curious how you make the differentiation.

My guess will be something to do with the Bible being the infallible word of God (which I don't trust, because it's all written THROUGH man, not written by God's own hand literally).

[Deepfake]

Well, ZG, I suppose that's the real elephant in the room. Man, I love that expression. Could you imagine ignoring an elephant?

Pre-marital sex has a lot of misconceptions associated with it, but any truth attached to the suggestion that married couples will have an easier time of it and children will have a better experience is rather illusory these days. It depends more on the commitment of the partners in marriage to succeed, and we're seeing very high rates where couples accept failure rather than live in misery.

Christian-biblical information on the subject is hazy at best and predates modern medical and chemical suppression of fertility, so it's difficult to suggest that the bible has any particular word against these modern techniques. Arguments are carry-overs at best. Does the bible strictly forbid the removal of bodily functions? Is it the knowledge that your mating will not produce a child?

Strictly speaking, the only arguments against premarital sex are like any other ideological argument: because we've been trained or decided to believe one thing or another.

I personally don't hold present-day life of any variety in high regard, it's an objective thing to me. Do children need to exist as the outcome of sex? Religions splinter on these themes. One church is not led by the same brotherhood as another. Whatever decision you make, in the end you and what made you are the hinging point for your decisions on these themes.

I say "and what made you" because people are very obviously conditioned to do one thing or another easily, we form chemical links in our minds that associate one path with another.




This is a much more direct and potentially unwelcome question, but I would like to ask ML -

ML, what does your religion say of mind-altering incidents or parasites? The neural parasite, Toxoplasma, is a parasite linked to behavior alteration. Its frequent habitat and procedure involves manipulation of rats' brains to cause them to be sexually attracted to cats' urine. In humans, it's been observed to cause those afflicted to disregard dangerous activity. Do they essentially get a free pass from guilt where they were chemically afflicted to find dangerous actions enticing?

Similarly, I have known quite a few people to be afflicted with astonishing personality changes due to incidence or medical procedure.

A friend of mine, Joe, received brain damage in a car accident which he was not responsible for, when he was a teen. His investment in life, his ability to show emotion, his ability to make judgments were all inhibited by the lack of neural connections caused by the stop sign which was embedded in his head.

On the day of my graduation ceremony, I stopped by his house to say hello and found him nursing an injured ankle. Someone had suggested to him that it would be fun to jump off the roof of his house, not knowing that he could not differentiate between actions, so he did unquestioningly.

A later car accident and brain damage as a result of his inability to judge the safety of a situation left him incapable of forming recent memories, similar to the main character of the movie Memento, sans tattoo reminders or will to take revenge. Every time I saw him, Joe would ask after my closest friend who had died after Joe's second accident.

I also now have a great aunt through my marriage to SD who unfortunately went through a successful heart-transplant. Doctors support that, because the heart contains important nervous tissue, her personality would be likely to change. By all accounts, she became a largely different person, and is only since much more aggressive and uncompromising while failing to relate to those she blames.

How do religions, which teach behavior-oriented guidance and punishment, deal with behavior alterations like these?

[CaptHayfever]

^Is that really objective to you, though? Your (lack of) regard for life is derived not from hard fact but from your life experience, just as others' regard for life is.

Perhaps we should move on to - why is pre-marital sex wrong?

A funny thing happens when Catholic schools do comprehensive sex ed: They actually answer questions like these (thank you, 2nd Vatican Council!)...
Sex is the zenith of physical pleasure (at least, if you're doing it right) & involves sharing one's body completely with another person, giving that person the most absolute physical knowledge of oneself (no, your doctor doesn't count). It then stands to reason (according to the Church) that this greatest physical connection be shared only with the person with whom one has decided to share one's greatest emotional & spiritual connections as well, a commitment made official at the beginning of the sacrament of Marriage in the wedding vows.

It's less about pre-marital sex being wrong, & more about marital sex being so very right.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Deepfake]

^Is that really objective to you, though? Your (lack of) regard for life is derived not from hard fact but from your life experience, just as others' regard for life is.

I wasn't speaking of whether or not my every-day life is fluffy and soft so much as I was saying there is nothing that clearly indicates life is important to me. How can you objectively pronounce life as more important than a rock or empty space? Importance has perhaps been assigned to life on more occasions, but who assigns importance to the assignment of importance? That is all subjective preference.

It's very inside-the-box for a living thing to proclaim its existence to hold relevance; our only consistent definition for life is an unbroken chain of repetition preserving repetition preserving repetition preserving repetition preserving repetition preserving repetition...

The words "present-day" were assigned to it as I'm aware that events are typically constrained by the linear progression of time. Perhaps something can cause any degree of existence to hold universal importance.

[Kargath]

There is not a case where I can see having pre-marital sex as a survival situation (unless we get REALLY crazy here).

It's a routine mission. Hovering at a safe height of over a thousand metres, the belly guns make short work of the hordes below. Things are going so well that you might even be back at base in time for lunch. You angle the controls to turn your ride around for another pass, and as you complete the maneuver the controls begin to shudder. Soon the craft is unresponsive, and as you look to the dials in front of you you realise the horrible truth -

The Sexcopter has run out of power.

Too much drain from the weapons? A leaky fuel cell? You've got no time to consider the reasons why as you look your co-pilot in the eye and nod.

You strip off what little uniform you are wearing and grab the emergency leads with a grim smile. This will be the first time in your life you've ever actually wished your partner was a quick shooter.

[ZeldaGirl]

Sex is the zenith of physical pleasure (at least, if you're doing it right) & involves sharing one's body completely with another person, giving that person the most absolute physical knowledge of oneself (no, your doctor doesn't count). It then stands to reason (according to the Church) that this greatest physical connection be shared only with the person with whom one has decided to share one's greatest emotional & spiritual connections as well, a commitment made official at the beginning of the sacrament of Marriage in the wedding vows.

Interesting you say that. And not that I disagree, necessarily, I just don't necessarily buy into the notion that I have to wait until after being married to get all the benefits of having an intimate relationship with my partner. But I will talk more about that later, as I have to run now. :)

[CaptHayfever]

^^^That's sorta my point, though; it's subjective from both sides. One would have to stick his head in a Total Perspective Vortex to truly have an objective view on the matter, because there is no real empirical proof for or against the significance of life.

^^THAT'S NOT TRUE! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

^An' I think we all know where you're running... ;)

I'm not sure I'm totally onboard with the required-wait-until-the-wedding-night either, since sometimes we as humans forget the significance of the ceremony, instead putting too much importance on the ceremonial actions themselves rather than what they mean.
But I am onboard with the only-the-person-you're-gonna-share-your-life-with aspect.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Bomby]

the only-the-person-you're-gonna-share-your-life-with aspect.

Except that "love" is little more than a chemical reaction in the brain. One can never know if they're going to share their life with only one person.

[Marilink]

Well, ZG, I suppose that's the real elephant in the room. Man, I love that expression. Could you imagine ignoring an elephant?

Pre-marital sex has a lot of misconceptions associated with it, but any truth attached to the suggestion that married couples will have an easier time of it and children will have a better experience is rather illusory these days. It depends more on the commitment of the partners in marriage to succeed, and we're seeing very high rates where couples accept failure rather than live in misery.

Christian-biblical information on the subject is hazy at best and predates modern medical and chemical suppression of fertility, so it's difficult to suggest that the bible has any particular word against these modern techniques. Arguments are carry-overs at best. Does the bible strictly forbid the removal of bodily functions? Is it the knowledge that your mating will not produce a child?

Strictly speaking, the only arguments against premarital sex are like any other ideological argument: because we've been trained or decided to believe one thing or another.

I personally don't hold present-day life of any variety in high regard, it's an objective thing to me. Do children need to exist as the outcome of sex? Religions splinter on these themes. One church is not led by the same brotherhood as another. Whatever decision you make, in the end you and what made you are the hinging point for your decisions on these themes.

I say "and what made you" because people are very obviously conditioned to do one thing or another easily, we form chemical links in our minds that associate one path with another.




This is a much more direct and potentially unwelcome question, but I would like to ask ML -

ML, what does your religion say of mind-altering incidents or parasites? The neural parasite, Toxoplasma, is a parasite linked to behavior alteration. Its frequent habitat and procedure involves manipulation of rats' brains to cause them to be sexually attracted to cats' urine. In humans, it's been observed to cause those afflicted to disregard dangerous activity. Do they essentially get a free pass from guilt where they were chemically afflicted to find dangerous actions enticing?

Similarly, I have known quite a few people to be afflicted with astonishing personality changes due to incidence or medical procedure.

A friend of mine, Joe, received brain damage in a car accident which he was not responsible for, when he was a teen. His investment in life, his ability to show emotion, his ability to make judgments were all inhibited by the lack of neural connections caused by the stop sign which was embedded in his head.

On the day of my graduation ceremony, I stopped by his house to say hello and found him nursing an injured ankle. Someone had suggested to him that it would be fun to jump off the roof of his house, not knowing that he could not differentiate between actions, so he did unquestioningly.

A later car accident and brain damage as a result of his inability to judge the safety of a situation left him incapable of forming recent memories, similar to the main character of the movie Memento, sans tattoo reminders or will to take revenge. Every time I saw him, Joe would ask after my closest friend who had died after Joe's second accident.

I also now have a great aunt through my marriage to SD who unfortunately went through a successful heart-transplant. Doctors support that, because the heart contains important nervous tissue, her personality would be likely to change. By all accounts, she became a largely different person, and is only since much more aggressive and uncompromising while failing to relate to those she blames.

How do religions, which teach behavior-oriented guidance and punishment, deal with behavior alterations like these?

I wouldn't say it's a free pass to sin, but religion isn't completely ignorant of chemical imbalances or alterations. If a person has faith that they're forgiven by Jesus, then they'll be forgiven by Jesus, regardless of imbalances or anything like that.

So, imbalances and parasites and whatnot definitely do happen, but the people that are afflicted by them can be forgiven for the things they do just like any other person that sins.

[ZeldaGirl]

But I am onboard with the only-the-person-you're-gonna-share-your-life-with aspect.

I get the sentiment. But the thing is, even if you are married, this is not going to be the case. My mom was married twice before - both times to ass-holes. But, at the time, she thought she was with the love of her life. When you are talking +80 years, it's hard to get it perfectly right. What's even harder is taking into consideration the concept of sexual compatibility - because if one partner isn't connecting with the other, they are not going to be able to connect spiritually through sex, either. And the thing is, that's kind of important to know before you legally commit yourself to that individual.

Whether most people realize it or not, it takes a lot to have sex - and I mean, really dedicate yourself to sex. To let go of insecurities and just lose yourself in the action. I'm more of an advocate for meaningful sex, while I don't think there's anything wrong with the pleasure of casual sex, meaningful sex with a committed partner is just so much better on every level. So, in the context of having sex with a long term partner, I think that it's actually really important to have sex before you marry, because what if you just don't connect? Or what if you realize, as your partner loses themselves in the sex, that they are not necessarily the person you thought they were? That they are too selfish, inattentive, don't respect you? Some people may try to argue that this wouldn't happen in a truly committed relationship, but it does. When it comes to sex, we are largely socialized about what to expect, and some times, one partner or the other is not fulfilled, or treated the way they should be. Having sex with someone can sway your opinion about their potential as a marriage partner.


Anyway, to go back to a point I wanted to make earlier - I've had a lot of poor luck in relationships, both romantic, and familial. As a result, I have a real difficult time trusting others. And the great thing I've found about meaningful sex is that it's a way to create trust. I know that many argue that sex should be the culmination after the marriage ceremony, and I disagree, because I believe it should be part of an active process that drives a couple towards marriage. For me, sex was a necessary process to allow me to build my relationship with my boyfriend. And, I would also say it's allowed me to kind of heal from past relationships. I absolutely believe that this was a necessary step to prepare me for wanting to be married.

Now, not everyone is like this, I understand that. And some people will choose to wait. But I hope they are choosing for the right reasons for them, not because they feel pressured by others one way or the other. What works for me won't work for everyone, but if it will, don't let other reasons (for the purposes of this example, religion) hold you back. I truly believe that I have grown, mentally, emotionally, even spiritually, because of the relationship I've had.

And honestly, I disagree with the notion that I should wait until I'm married to undergo this process of healing, growth, and development. Because I need all those things now.

[Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds]

That's the best and most well-written explanation I've seen for all the same things I feel, ZG. <3

[Deepfake]

^^^That's sorta my point, though; it's subjective from both sides. One would have to stick his head in a Total Perspective Vortex to truly have an objective view on the matter, because there is no real empirical proof for or against the significance of life.

I get what you're trying to say, but I don't believe you require disproof to default to lack of significance. Insignificance isn't a value so much as lack of a significance; you require proof of significance, not proof of insignificance. How glorious life could be if I could genuinely find pocket lint enthralling until I've born witness to its insignificance.

I wouldn't say it's a free pass to sin, but religion isn't completely ignorant of chemical imbalances or alterations. If a person has faith that they're forgiven by Jesus, then they'll be forgiven by Jesus, regardless of imbalances or anything like that.

So, imbalances and parasites and whatnot definitely do happen, but the people that are afflicted by them can be forgiven for the things they do just like any other person that sins.

Well you get the gist of it, but let's suggest the chemical imbalance prevents the person from choosing to accept the forgiveness of Jesus. Do they still have to accept something they are incapable of accepting? In Joe's instance, I don't think he ever truly agreed to anything so much as he never considered anything enough to disagree. In his current state, would he have to agree to accept Christ every time he forgets he did? Because that would be about every 20 minutes to 2 hours.

[CaptHayfever]

^^^And that's why I personally have a hard time speaking in absolutes about these matters. You have outstanding reasons for making the choices you've made, & those choices have helped enrich both your life & your boyfriend's life. I cannot in good conscience condemn that just because it's not the same thing I plan to do. Your story is touching & beautiful, & truth be told, I think as long as you make each other happy without hurting anyone else (Kate & Petruchio, I'm looking at you), I'm happy for you too. :)

^But choosing to stick with the default is sort of subjective, too, without any outside perspective. Taking any view that isn't self-evident/verifiable fact or sound argument is subjective to me. That isn't a bad thing. It's just a thing. (My neutral opinion regarding the subjectivity of this matter: Also subjective.)

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds]

Precisely what I've been getting at, Capt (what you said to ZG, that is). You can be happy for others making their own positive choices. So should everyone else. There isn't one right thing for everyone to do, no matter what some people would like you to believe.

[Marilink]

Well you get the gist of it, but let's suggest the chemical imbalance prevents the person from choosing to accept the forgiveness of Jesus. Do they still have to accept something they are incapable of accepting? In Joe's instance, I don't think he ever truly agreed to anything so much as he never considered anything enough to disagree. In his current state, would he have to agree to accept Christ every time he forgets he did? Because that would be about every 20 minutes to 2 hours.

That's always a tough one. The most concise answer is that we don't know how God works and you just pray he's merciful. You said "incapable of accepting the forgiveness of Jesus," but the thing there is that nobody actively accepts the forgiveness of Jesus, but rather it's given to us by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in the case of Joe, I would have no problem assuring him and his family of his forgiveness, no matter how often he might forget.

And ZG, I gotta say, that was very clear and well said. I might disagree with you at the heart of the matter, but if you have that much confidence in your own choices and decisions and if they're bringing you that much peace, I think it'd be wrong of me to refute you.

[Crazyswordsman]

I never answered this topic, but here's my two cents.

I would NEVER marry someone UNTIL I live with them for at least a year. If we can't stand living together what's the point of marriage? Better make sure it works out. :) -CSM

[Deepfake]

^But choosing to stick with the default is sort of subjective, too, without any outside perspective. Taking any view that isn't self-evident/verifiable fact or sound argument is subjective to me. That isn't a bad thing. It's just a thing. (My neutral opinion regarding the subjectivity of this matter: Also subjective.)

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Yes, it's certainly a preferential thing to start from the default, as having any analysis is bound to be some instance of preference to judge, but it's not harmful. Just as there's positive significance, there's easily negative significance - the "set it on fire before it ruins everything" sort of significance. Generally, I think life isn't hurting anything that is of any significant value, either, so I don't think it would be right to end things that exist. The more that can coexist in any semblance of harmony, I think the more there is to subjectively appreciate and that I can easily get behind.

Life, however, is constantly failing and clearly more of an exceptional instance than anything, so it's difficult for me to invest any special interest in the preservation of life as an accessible goal.

That's always a tough one. The most concise answer is that we don't know how God works and you just pray he's merciful. You said "incapable of accepting the forgiveness of Jesus," but the thing there is that nobody actively accepts the forgiveness of Jesus, but rather it's given to us by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in the case of Joe, I would have no problem assuring him and his family of his forgiveness, no matter how often he might forget.

Thanks for answering. I have a hard time following you when you're saying that "as long as they have faith in Jesus' forgiveness" yet now you're saying something to me that seems to contradict that. I may have misspoke, but I was using "acceptance of forgiveness" interchangeably with "faith in forgiveness". I'm sure your answer remains the same, though, and that you would only explain in more detail, so unless you're feeling game you can leave it at that.

It's interesting to me to hear how different religions might handle this situation. I understand especially how many people would feel compelled to share their empathy, and how it might be difficult to explain when their religion contradicts this. It's not really a hinging point for me, although it seems rather strange to think some people might say a little boy who's always done what his parents ask of him could be suffering eternally for not being dipped in some e-coli-laden holy water.