How to Stay Christian in College
 

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

To each his own? I don't agree with everything the author has said because I honestly don't believe that you need to be married to have a comitted relationship. I think there are a lot more important things that make for a comitted relationship than a piece of paper.

That being said; I do believe that sex is a very important and I am not someone who wants to jump into having sex. I want to know that I am in a comitted relationship before I comitt to something like that. But, does that mean I want to wait till marriage? I am not 100% sure.

"Sixth, sex outside of marriage isn't a sign of commitment."

I found this quote interesting (although I could probably tear apart a lot of the quotes you used) because marriage doesn't necessarily show a sign of committment either. There are a number of people who get married because it is expected of them etc.

So, instead of rambling and repeating myself, I am just going to say that I don't agree with what this person says but I suppose there are christians out there who do believe that sex before marriage ruins the sacredness of marriage of all that. And, that is why I say to each his own.

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

I am a Christian, and I think it's stupid bull.

I have a stricter view on sex than some people; I believe if you're going to have sex, it needs to be in a long term committed relationship. I don't have a set amount of time that has to pass before it's okay to have sex, because it depends on the couple and where they are in the relationship. But I do believe that sex is special, and you should be sure you love someone before you do it.

That being said, the whole "living together tells you nothing" is bull. For a lot of people, living together is the relationship's big test. For some couples, cohabitation can make or break the relationship. If you find out you can't live together after you're married, you're screwed.

And no, sex outside marriage sure as hell does not decay a relationship, by any means. Sex with the one you love is an act of love and pleasure; you don't have to have a piece of paper and a ring on your finger to make it okay. My boyfriend and I are sexually active, and we have a very healthy and loving relationship that I wouldn't trade for anything.

All the religious stuff surrounding sex and marriage just doesn't make sense to me. I could seriously go on and on here, but I don't have the time or patience at this point in time.

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

I'm Mormon (and therefore Christian) and I don't see the point of that list at all.

We believe that sex is reserved for the sanctity of marriage, and to break the law of chastity has huge repercussions within the Church. The only reason I need in order to wait for marriage is my faith. I could not care less about that list and it has no impact on my decisions.

Though I'm pretty sure that whole point about living together not telling you anything about how a marriage would work out is pretty bogus.

The way I see it, the Lord has asked me to wait until marriage so I will. Does that suck sometimes? Yeah. But I'm firm enough in my faith to know that I will be blessed for doing so.

Why should I let words that are not of the Lord influence me? [regarding items of faith, etc. I don't want anyone twisting my words into something crazy like "so if a doctor tells you you have cancer but the Lord doesn't, you won't start chemo?" I feel like that always happens in religion debates...]

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

We are not of the same denomination of Christianity but I completely agree with what you said: my views exactly.

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

1. I wouldn't say marriage is the expression of love, but rather your actions of love expressing it to your spouse. That is, there are people married and the husband will beat the wife. So, then, just because he married her, means he expressed his love? I do believe, however, if you love someone, you should marry them because according the the Bible, "Love never fails." Thus, if you love someone, there SHOULD be a lasting commitment, though, I confess, this doesn't necessarily have to be marriage.

2. If this is talking about a practical standpoint, I disagree. However, now that I am married, I wish I had waited for my wife, and I wish she waited for me. Even if the sex was terrible at first.

3. I agree, but disagree. I believe living together can be a close representation of how things will be, but, my wife and I before we were married practically lived together, and, before I was a Christian, I lived with one of my exes. I will say that marriage IS different from just "living" with someone, and it makes things more difficult, especially when we fight. But, I would say living with someone would give you an idea of if you are compatible.

4. Sex inside marriage isn't necessarily romantic, either. The apostle Paul said if anyone struggles with lust, they should marry. And that he and his wife should come together for a time to fight temptation. So, according to Paul, sex was used to fight temptation. Soooooooooooooo romantic.

5. I don't see how this would be any different than in marriage, other than once the "lust" phase is gone, you are forced to stay with your partner, to a degree, if you're married. You can't just up and find a new partner (well, technically, I guess, you could).

6. Well, according to number 1, sex inside of marriage isn't the commitment, either.

7. I disagree, for a lot of people it is a need, but for others it is a want. It all comes down to the person. However, I don't believe this is a reason to be promiscuous.

8. I don't understand how this would be different from inside of marriage. The only difference I can see is that before I was married, sex was somewhat objectified in people to me. Yet, it still somewhat is. My love should go beyond sex. Again, why exactly does sex have to be your seal of love? I thought marriage was? He seems to contradict himself.

9. I would say that both get boring. That's why it has to be about more than just sex. But, to a degree, I agree with this. Promiscuity shows that you are bored.

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

I'll tackle them one at a time, as a Catholic with liberal leanings and the occasional lapse:

I'd say it's a matter of opinion whether marriage promises are "binding" or not, but in any event I wouldn't say marriage is an expression of love so much as commitment. Affection, compassion and intimacy are expressions of love. Marriage isn't a source of love so much as an affirmation of it.

Depending on how "sex outside marriage" is meant, I think there may be some merit to this (unlike the last one). If your experience of love and intimacy via sex is purely through a string of one-night-stands or a variety of hookups, with or without the influence of mind-altering substances, then I think it's fair to say your understanding of sex, love and intimacy is going to be pretty distorted. If, on the other hand, your experience of love and intimacy via sex is within a committed relationship or a series of such relationships, then that is comparable with such experiences within marriage. And to complete the set, if it means adultery then that's definitely a bad move...

First one yes (compatibility is down to much more than the erogenous zones...), second one not so much. It's not critical - my parents did not live together before marriage and they've lasted over 30 years and counting - but it can give a good guide as to how well people mesh together (and whether they can stand each other in close proximity for much of the time). My brother and his wife lived together for a few years before getting married, and for them it was a very useful experience. It all comes down to the individual.

Again, it depends on context. If we're talking about going at it like rabbits in bathroom stalls, alleyways or on the backseat of cars (to name but a few) then quite. If, however, it's done in a romantic manner in the right mindset then it could easily be classed as romantic.

50-50 on this one - it's down to the individuals involved.

This I agree with - in the sense that sex generally isn't a sign of commitment outside of more than however long the act of coitus takes. It's a sign of intimacy, yes, but nothing more.

This I also agree with. Sex isn't vital to our continued existence as individual lifeforms - it might have a negative effect on some of our emotions, but it isn't going to kill us in the same way that lack of food, water or oxygen will. When people talk about "needing" sex, it does come across somewhat as being in the same manner as a drug addiction.

I suppose it depends how you go about it really...

I think there may be some mileage in this, insofar as having a sex life consisting purely of frequent meaningless sexual encounters with people you have no intention of, or capacity for, being in anything more lasting with would get boring as much as anything else. I would suspect the novelty value wears off after a while, and once that's gone all you're left with is the sense of being devoid of lasting intimacy.

So, agree with some things, disagree with more, and generally feel the author would have a greater effect on his target audience with a little less condescension and a little more understanding.

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

If someone who isn't a Christian reads a book that is aimed at Christians, they aren't going to understand why certain things are said. Reason being, Christians have different definitions of things than everyone else does. For example, your definition of "romantic" and the bible's definition of "romantic" are not the same thing....so pre-marital sex may fit your definition of romantic and yet not fit God's definition (which is what the author of this book would be going by since he is a Christian).

It's like when there was a debate here about whether or not non-Christians were capable of love. The non-Christians and Christians were arguing based on two different definitions of love...so they weren't agreeing. Christians believe that God is love, which means you can't have love without having God. And non-Christians believe various things about love...none of which have the definition of "God". So, non-Christians might be able to love based on their definition of love, yet not based on God's definition of love.

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

What I said applies to all of them. The romance one was just an example. My point was that Christians and non-Christians have different definitions of things, which is why they disagree about whether or not certain things are "romantic" or "boring" or whatever...it's because those words don't mean the same thing to everyone.

And yes people mis-use marriage too, so unfortunately yes, cheating and STDs and abortion do happen in some marriages. I think the author is talking about a committed and Godly marriage. Which yes, even Godly people mess up, but if you marry someone who is really committed, they recognize their mistakes and fix them.

For the record, I personally don't agree with the author when he says that pre-marital sex would be boring and lack pleasure...I think it would bring worldly pleasure while it lasted, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. I think the momentary pleasure wouldn't be worth the possible long-term conciquences. I think that bringing temporary pleasure to myself is worthless if it's not for a Godly purpose and done out of love. If I had sex with a guy before I knew that I could commit to him for the rest of my life, I'd be using him for my own temporary pleasure. That's not fair to him. I'd rather wait until I'm married to the guy who I know is committed to me and only me for as long as we are both alive. It's worth waiting the few extra years.

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

that guy has no idea what is he talking about

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

Re: How to Stay Christian in College
 

I disagree with this because to me, marriage is more about being committed to a particular individual. There are plenty of couples who are married, committed to one another but their affection or love for each other changes for the better or worse.

It's a bit hard to evaluate this because it's a conclusion lacking the necessary argument context to understand it and relies on particular definitions. For the latter, having sex outside of marriage certainly increases you understanding of sexual intercourse because of more experience, however, the author seems to be using a different definition, one that is tied in with commitment and love. Unfortunately, that's still neither here nor there as it depends on the exact situation.



I agree to the first, although to me that is also common sense. If you have a one-night stand, it's the same as shaking someone's hand saying, "hello". What you learn has little to no bearing on future romantic endeavours. I have to disagree with the second because living with someone you love is very similar to marriage, only instead of introducing as husband/wife, it's boyfriend/girlfriend/fiance. The person would be the same before or after the marriage (presumably).

Quote:

Fourth, sex outside of marriage isn't romantic... it's the opposite.

Ironically, the context argument given actually weakens this conclusion. The argument relies on a bunch of "what-if" questions that are open-ended, yet the author has given black-and-white outcomes they deem truthful and applicable to all people. The same "what-if" questions can be applied to sex within marriage, yet I'm certain the author would give completely opposite answers. Overall, the argument is weak, flimsy and doesn't hold up, so neither does the quoted statement.



This statement is a bit amusing because it's somewhat ambiguous in that there are 2 relationships: sex with the person who was married to and sex with someone else. In reality, it's a 50/50 chance for each, however, the author has given < 50% chance for the within marriage sexual partner and > 50% chance for the sex outside marriage partner. I cant see how this can be supported in any way.




This statement is premised on the assumption sex within marriage is a sign of commitment/pleasure. To me, that's a pretty weak assumption.



From an evolutionary standpoint, which is the view I take for this, it's both. It's an overall need that underlies numerous interactions with anyone. It's a particular want with individuals whom one finds desirable.

I can agree with this statement a bit more than the others. Promiscuity, after a while, can become boring IF the individual begins to want a longer-lasting relationship or one of the one-night stands turns into something longer-lasting.

I'll agree so far as to say there are differing sets of definitions, however, it is still very possible for a non-Christian to indeed understand from a Christian perspective by employing the specific definitions and setting their personal ones aside. You're suggesting that such a feat is not possible for any non-Christian and presumably the same would apply for a Christian reading non-Christian material.

I find it very problematic you have to assume with uncertainty what type of relationship the author is discussing in order to understand their statements. If you're not completely sure on this, then you really have no idea what any of the statements are premised on, hence, you have no idea of the overall meanings of each statement. Unfortunately, it also means you're shutting one eye intentionally, so you could never understand when or if, the author was discussing non-godly marriages in order to advance their view on committed godly marriages. This isn't due to your religious beliefs, rather it speaks to your reasoning capabilities.