A Witty Title.

Hon, I agree with you (surprising as that may be), to a certain extent. Sex is far too important to the majority of people, christians included (possibly christians especially). A number of christians I know have rushed into marriage because they apparently found themselves incapable of controlling their sexual desires. In fact, when I told Karen that Psi and I were moving in together (when we'd been going out for about a month), her reaction was to say "Why aren't you getting married?" The general assumption seems to be that Psi and I must be having sex because we are living together (for those who are interested, we aren't because... well.. christians!), especially among our christian friends. We copped a lot of flak for living together before we were married and most of that had to do with sex stuff. Our relationship doesn't require sex to survive: we are together because we care about each other, not just to get laid.

That said, sex is still part of being in a long term, marriage-style relationship. (I feel that this can include defacto relationships as long as a promise to stay together has occured but I recognise there are many people who disagree with that.) And it isn't just about reproduction. Physical intimacy can cement a relationship and bring pleasure to both parties: in this sense, it is a celebration of the mutual love that is already in the relationship and certainly something to praise God for. It should not be the be-all and end-all, certainly but I feel strongly that it is an important part of such a relationship. In that sense, sex isn't just a 'fringe benefit' but a gift from God that helps us to feel closer to the partner he provides for us.
 

Guess it should also be added that physical intimacy too early in a relationship seems to prevent the emotional intimacy from developing properly. A lot of girls will give in to the pressure to sleep with their bf in the hope that it will make the emotional intimacy stronger, but in the absence of commitment, it doesnt work that way.
 

Amen, brother! It's such a comfort to know that there are actually guys out there who don't think that relationships are all about physical attraction!
 

Sorry Laurel-Li,
I have to disagree with you. I dont know you or Psi, so I am just commenting from what you have said.
It sounds like it's not about whether your relationship needs sex or not, it's whether you and Psi need to live together for it to survive. The bible clearly says that not only do we need to DO what is right, but we need need to be SEEN to be doing what is right as well. It is a command of Christians to be above reproach. It sounds like, from what you have said, that this is not the case. It is of course important whether you and Psi are having sex or not, but almost equally important is that you are in a situation where people can get the wrong idea.
For example, every time Christian people I know who are going out, move in together, they have been having sex (assuring me to the contrary) and broken up, regardless of promises made to each other. Now, with that in mind, how am I, or other Christians going to view the situation you are in?
I dont mean to be harsh, I just want to lay it down in a forthright and biblical way as a brother/sister in Christ.
My advice would be either marry the guy or move in with a Christian sister till you do.
Sorry this isnt really related to the post, I just find that many people seem to make exceptions for themselves in the hard 'rubber hit's the road' issues and their friends are afraid to say stuff for fear of relationship breakdown.
 

Have to say that I agree with Anonymous on this one- it is really important not only to do the right thing but also to be seen to be doing the right thing. It is also not a great situation to be in for reasons of temptation-and please do not think I am meaning to be judgemental because while I am not in your situation- I am far, far, far from perfect
 

Hm, contentious issue. Very interesting that the blog owner has kept quite quiet, wonder if he plans on commenting on his opinions re the living together issue (it is his blog and therefore his opinions we are here to read isn't it?)
 

Im actually sick as a dog.. so sick ive hardly been able to use a computer in the last few days... I read these comments and I wanted to respond... but i didnt think it was fair to do so in the state I was (and still am) in. In the meantime, please feel free to go on discussing politly you point of view and when im feeling better i'll comment.

(For those who want to know its just the worst flu ive ever had in my life.)
 

As a Christian who has done the whole 'move in with BF' thing and have it crumble, I won't be doing that again if I end up in another relationship. It's my experience that it's not a good thing and thus I care not to repeat it. But there's no way that I can declare that it won't work for other people. It certainly increases the temptation levels I would imagine. I do however tend to be cynical when it comes to Christians moving in with their partners and then declaring they're not sleeping with each other, that however is coloured by what I've gone through.

These days I'm a big fan of people either living at home (hey, it is cheaper! ;D) or in a household of people of their own gender. Besides, boys are smelly. Why would you want to live with them unless you were married? ;)
 

I just want to point out 1 Cor 7:9: "But if [unmarrieds and widows] cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Importantly, this is a command that comes from a practicality, not an ideal. It is certainly a concession (see the context) but it is nevertheless it highlights a theological point: that godliness is better than singleness, or perhaps, sinfulness (and perhaps excessive temptation) is worse than singleness.

Also, a point you may want to think about is romance, which is also an issue which can...cloud...your thinking. It definitely makes it harder to put God at the centre of your relationship and keep things like prayer a priority.
 

It seems this has been hijacked from the original topic (Matt's topic, that is) by something I was purely intending as an example. (Sorry Matt.)

On the other hand, regarding living with one's girlfriend/boyfriend prior to marriage, this question only arises with my christian friends. It seems to me, when it comes to being "seen to do right", we could only be seen to do wrong if people are assuming we are without any experience of the situation. Nothing that Psi and I do in public (or indeed otherwise) could be seen as doing wrong. It seems then that it other people's sinful natures that are assuming that we are doing the wrong thing. Thing's are not the same across the board and just because one person struggles with a particular sin does not mean that another individual will find the same thing to be a problem. Similarly, there is nothing biblical that people have shown me or that I have personally found, that indicate my actions to be against God's will.

I feel, however, that this is not the right place to dicuss such a thing and I think it unlikely that an agreement will be reached. I will, however, be having something to say about this in my own blog if people do wish to discuss it.
 

Ok feeling well enough to comment on this now...

A few things

Laurel-Li

"In that sense, sex isn't just a 'fringe benefit' but a gift from God that helps us to feel closer to the partner he provides for us."

Yes I agree. I never said it was a fringe benefit (Actually the origional draft of this did) I said "By Comparison" I still think its not the most important part of the relationship. Its exact place im not really sure of, but I will admit that it definatly has one.

Lara : There are a few of us who think with the brain between our ears. Some of the time.

Anonymous : I actually agree with you, As a close friend of both Laurel-Li and Psi before they got together I advised them against moving in together. I let them know why I though it was wrong. They chose to ignore my advice. My experience in situations like this is that people are far to willing to say stuff when they dont have the relationship to do so (that wasnt a barb at you by the way) At the time people who had no right to do so were leacturing them on how wrong their decision was.

Dont get me wrong. LL bought the topic up, im not blaming you for your response, but just responding to your "friends are afraid to say stuff for fear of relationship breakdown."

Secondarily, I have an issue with you psoting something like that as anonymous. I left Anonymous posting enabled on this blog because I felt people might like to share things they didnt feel comfortable admiting to. I feel if you are going to condemn someones actions, at least be willing to put your name to that condemnation... or at least an internet tag.

Matt
 

Saru: Would you point your finger at the physical side of the relation when you moved in with your BF and say, "That's what caused it to crumble" ?
 

Three things, natch.

1. Anonymous(es) - would you be quite so prone to premptorious judgement if you didn't have a mask of anonymity? If people knew who you were and where you're coming from (if you know the situation personally), then suddenly your words lose weight and meaning?

2. Moving in before marriage, sex before marriage, etc... to summarise something my wife said: "I'd never have kissed you if I wasn't going to spend my entire life with you."

A fair few people, no offense, are too hung up on the public declaration of marriage, much in the same way that I've noticed a lot are too hung up on the public declaration of baptism. While I've had this argument with Matt before (to no satisfactory conclusion, because, dammit, my aramaic copies are no longer in the next room, they're three suburbs away), show me how the term marriage interprets in the bible. Show me where it recites the ritual, the shibboleths you have to go through before you're allowed to get your knickers off. You'll see some old testament stuff - things about marrying your brother's wife if your brother's rude enough to die on her - but by and large, there's no actual formal occasion outlined in the bible.

In which case, all that a wedding brings to the relationship is the fairly obvious 'Hey, we're staying together'. The promise is important, and that really only needs to be between the two people and, oh, who was it now... oh, yeah, GOD. Geeze.

Even then, Ll's detractors haven't got a leg to stand on because their entire argument - after the revelation of something that isn't their business anyway - is that 'it looks bad'.

3. 'It looks bad'? Geeze, and Jesus never, say, ate dinner with tax collectors and rejects, did he? Or travel with a bunch of nobodies in the important circles? Or go through a place of business and ruin the whole thing? Sure, they're all justified, but they didn't look good, did they?

I've been involved in independent baptist churches, people. Let me tell you what happens when appearances become as important as actions. A commonly used phrase was 'don't tie your shoes in your neighbour's watermelon patch'. To wit, avoid the appearance of evil. Good, sound advice. But the extremes to which it was taken... Males wouldn't go near females without two or three other guys as backup, to ensure that 'nothing untoward happened'. Music had to be no faster than a heartbeat, because if it was like rock music, it was clearly evil, right?

If you can't trust your friends, christian friends, then I hazard the issue isn't about 'appearances', it's about what you. If a young, stupid couple sees LL and Psi's actions and think it's okay to go do something stupid, whose fault is it? It's not LL and Psi's fault that there are idiots in the world, or people who will go off and do things half-cocked, or those who will observe a situation, judge pre-emptively, and assume they know everything

Sorry for the fire, Matt. I doubt this is what you wanted.
 

I would like to draw contention with this idiotic notion that a man and a woman cannot apparently exist in the same house and just be friends. Not specifically referring to Laurel-li and Psi, since they are "together" but abstaining - but in general, since appraently being seen to live with somebody of the opposite gender is sinful. What is /wrong/ with you people? Have you never had a close friend of the opposite gender with whom you didn't want to get it on? If so, you need to maybe diversify a little. If a male and a female sharing a house is automatically seen to be wrong by most Christians, then most Christians need a freaking wakeup call.

"saru", you in particular. "Boys are smelly"? What are you, a sixth-grader? People like you make me want to stop showering on principle.

I have had almost nothing but male friends since high school, right up until the point where Laurel-li and another female friend came into the group a few years back - I've just always fit in better with guys, possibly because I'm a shameless geek. Some of these male friends have been extremely close - but you know, I've never once had the urge to mack onto any of them (no offense lads!), apparently because I can divide people into "friends" and "love prospects" without using gender as the defining line.

Just for the record, the only guy I /did/ have the urge to "mack onto" is the one I'm married to. Because it relates to the original topic - yes, we had sex before we were ever /officially/ married. But if you think that the important part of marriage is having a ceremony and a certificate, rather than having a sincere promise of love and commitment that you are willing to hold to forever (which we certainly had before we ever had sex!), then you have a problem. Tragically, I can't recall all of my wedding vow, since I only wrote it the night beforehand, when the emotions were right. But I do remember that the key part was something to the effect of "I don't even need to hear any promise from you now, because what we say here is nothing more than the same promise you have made to me every day since we met". And /that/ is what marriage should be about.

Anyway, to get back to the original post, I personally feel that using at marriage as a justification to act upon one's desires, rather than learning to control them, is disgusting. I don't know what the bible says about marriage without love (anybody can feel free to chime in and site), but I reckon it's got to be a lot worse than love without marriage. Just look at the divorce statistics.
 

Fox Lee,
One thing against what you have said. I believe that there is a definite distinction between living in the same share house as a person of the opposite sex and living in the same house with boy/girl friend with noone else around.
And Laurel-Li
It's the beyond reproach that we are commanded to be. Just like anonymous said.
1 Tim 3:10 says: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, ...". This passage is focusing on overseers and deacons but as Christians we are all called to live holy lives.
1 Peter 2 says: "Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us."
These 2 verses say basically 'dont put yourself in a situation in which people can get the wrong idea about what you are doing'.
I believe that living in the same house as a boy/girlfriend is one of these things. If you live in the same share house as a member of the opposite sex and you start going out, the smart and Godly option would be to have one of you move out to avoid temptation.
I think we underestimate our sinfulness often. We think 'we arent that bad'. And that thinking is bad. Read Romans 2 about who is righteous or I think the Psalms say "The heart of man is decietful above all things, who can understand it?".
 

Talen : Sorry for the fire, Matt. I doubt this is what you wanted.

Actually... it is 8-)


When I started this blog one of my aims was to kick off some discussions on controversial topics.

Ok.. there's a lot to say here and little time to say it.. So first things first.. i'm going to quote.. From my very first post to this blog...

I like to think I'm a person who doesn't set out to be rude, to say offensive things, to hurt people. If something I have written reads that way, then I would hope the most likely interpretation would be some combination of me not writing what I am trying to say, and you not reading what I am trying to say. The internet is an incredible source of misunderstanding, misinterpretation and confusion. Please. Please. PLEASE. If something I write offends you, do the following.


Think about something else for a few minutes and the read it again.

Try not to be offended, and try to work out what I MEANT by the statement... even if it is not what the statement appears to say.

Send me an email, or a private message, or have a private conversation with me about the comment. Get me to explain what I meant by the comment.


Do me a favor guys.. and apply this to what the person(s) you disagree with are saying. Go read it again.. (No not now.. after you finish reading this)... think about what they mean.

Cause I know every person who's commented here so far (Except Anonymous and lara) irl. And none of you are setting out to offend the others. None of you are trying to hurt the others. We're ALL just trying to express our views.

I'm not asking you to agree. Just accept and hear what is meant, not what we first read in the worst light. Accept that this is their opinion.

Also to the Christians... keep in mind some people here aren't.

Both sides in this discussion have made a strong case... and honestly, at the moment I'm not sure where I come down... My instincts and years as an Anglican have me on the conservative side, but the biblical arguments do seem to come down very much based on perception... And neither of these verses directly addresses the matter they are trying to be used for. Step back from your own conviction that you are right, and look to see how someone who disagrees with you will read these verses, and I think you'll be surprises at the difference perspective makes.

Do people get so up-in-arms about ripping a CD to your computer.. which is technically illegal in Australia. No? Whats the difference? Is there one.. from the perspective of perceptions... I would postulate that living together is actually the one perceived to be less "wrong" from a non-christian point of view. People accept ripping a CD is illegal.. they just don't care, where as most Australian's wouldn't see living together as doing anything 'wrong'

Whats my point with the last sentence... only that this is an inflammatory topic. Please try to think before you react.

Or to put it more poetically (Puhlllleeeasse No, I hear you cry)

Dont react in a burst of anger. React in a burst of awe-inspiring logic. It's far more satisfying

And keep discussing.

Matt
 

Fox : "saru", you in particular. "Boys are smelly"? What are you, a sixth-grader? People like you make me want to stop showering on principle

Fox, Knowing saru, that was just a joke (scarily in almost the exact same style as I often make about girls and get in troubble off you for)
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

'1 Peter 2 says: "Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us."'

*Pauses for breath*

Not meaning to be inflammatory in any way but Matt really has a point in this: I personally feel that both of these verses (1 Tim 3:10 too) have been taken out of context and forced to back a point that is not their own. That from 1 Timothy deals with teachers being called to a higher standard than other people because they are in a position of authority over other christians and are therefore also highly prominent in the community in general. It is, however, the 2nd verse (the one quoted above) that I would particularly like to deal with.

This verse does not deal with appearances. It deals with actualities. It doesn't say "Make people think you are living a good life," or "Appear to be doing right". It calls us to actually DO right. It is about living a right life, a life pleasing to God, irrespective of how other people perceive that life. Peter is saying that we shouldn't live like non-christians but live as God chooses for us to live, bearing witness to Him in our lives so that those who do not know Him will see Him in the way we live.

Now, considering the fact that all of my non-Christian friends know that (A) Psi and I are both christians and (B) that we have chosen, because of that faith, to live a certain way, it appears to me that we are living our lives as a testiment to God, in accordance with his word, to the best of our abilities. I'm not claiming to be free of sin; I am as sinful as the next person. (Hands? Anyone?) I just feel that I am not disobeying God's will in living with Psi before we get married; indeed, in making this decision I made a concerted effort to make sure I did not fail to do his will, by reading his Word, praying, talking to Christian friends, returning to His Word, praying and all the while talking things over with Psi. This was our choice, one made with as much consideration for God's will we were capable of giving. I am very thankful for the concerns of those friends who spoke to us about it, and I am also grateful that some of those friends have respected our decision, even if they have not come to agree with it. But I am most of all grateful in the knowledge that, whatever my christian friends think of our decision, they have continued to love us and pray for us in all things.

Now that is what living a christian life, a good life, 'among the pagans' is all about.
 

I have to agree with Stoobie that living together in a shared house, and living together as a couple are two very different things. Even living with close friends of the opposite gender isn't an issue, because we're all good little people and never have sex outside of a relationship..

How about because we're all totally naieve and deny the fact that there are homosexual Christians, so same sex people living together is ALWAYS fine..

So is it ok for two Christian lesbians who aren't in in a relationship to live together? How about a whole house full of Christian lesbians?

Yes, sexuality is a another heavily debated topic, but it's not on trial here, I'm just illustrating a point that what's on issue here is the relationship between those sharing a house.

What's the difference between two close friends sharing a house, and a couple (who aren't in a sexual relationship) sharing a house?

Simple, if you're a "couple" then people assume you're having sex. Judge a book by it's cover much?

I also agree with Talen regarding the whole perception of marriage. If people can get divorced, then the official "marriage" is no more binding than a personal commitment to each other. The public aspect of the ceremony helps to stick with the promise, but doesn't impact on the permanenct of the arrangement.. So the only thing left is the wether the promise is made with God. Even that doesn't make much difference to the permanence of it all, you can still get divorced.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against marriage, I just think that what it means needs to be reconsidered. There's nothing in it that makes it any more binding than a pinky promise these days, so why does it become the axis on which we base what's right and wrong in terms of living arrangements?

I think the verse Fox used in her Vows ("I don't even need to hear any promise from you now, because what we say here is nothing more than the same promise you have made to me every day since we met") is beautiful, and I think it really shows that (in their case anyway) the marriage ceremony isn't the important part of it. The promise had already been made, and that's what matters.

I've heard a number of people give the following response to the question, "What is marriage?".

"Marriage is a public expression of a personal commitment, made under God."
Or words to that effect.

3 key points: Public, Commitment, God.

1) How public does it need to be to count? Just one or two witnesses? Or does it need to be broadcast to the whole world?

2) What does it mean to make a commitment to each other? It can only mean that it's a commitment that is true now, and that there is an intent for it to remain true for the future. If we insist that the commitment is singularly exclusive and eternal, and that's the only condition under which marriage is valid, watch the ratio of "Married" to "defacto" couples swing drastically (Even among Christians). The commitment means that we fully intend to remain with this person, and that we are willing to put the effort in to get through difficult times together. We have to acknowledge that there may come a time when that's no longer valid.. How long can you take someone for a free ride before you can no longer carry them? The commitment should be strong enough to hold through so long as both sides work at it, but we can't be held responsible for not killing ourselves trying to hold to that commitment when the other party wont do their part in maintaining the relationship. This is why divorce is acceptable (although often misused).

3) Under God. God is with us always, and God is everywhere. Doesn't that make everything we ever do under God? I think the important part here is that the commitment includes taking God into the core of the relationship. As we are Christians because we take Christ into our hearts, so should it be with our commitment.

If a couple makes it know to their friends that they have the full intentions to remain together through the trials of life for as long as they are both hold up the relationship, and that they take Christ into their relationship as they have done into their own hearts, then the only difference between that and marriage is the flash and pomp of the ceremony, and the certificate. I really doubt that those are why marriage matters.

In regards to being seen to do the right thing.. I think this is fair to a point, however it does get taken too far.

In terms of not doing things that cause out weaker brother/sister to faulter, doesn't the verse refer to eating meat? shouldn't we all then become vegetarians because there may be some Christians who feel that eating meat can't possibly be a Christian action.. If this is so, then ALL Christians must live be the STRICTEST possible interpretations of the Bible. If there is anyone who could faulter in there belief for the difference interpretation of a section of the Bible, then we must conform to their intrepration.. Now what if we are faced with two people, each who have a different and contradictory interpretation of how we should act in a situation.. What do we do now? Dissapear in a puff of logic?

I think we have to use a degree of common sense here. It's difficult to live by the standards we should maintain as Christians, saying that we must live by the strictest possible standards is rediculous, and if not by those, then to what degree can we relax them and still be Christian?

I don't have an answer to that, and there has been a lot of blood spilt fighting wars over who has the right point of view.. I think we need to remember the simplest possible core of Christianity, and use that to guide ourselves into what we believe is the right path.. Personally I think that Mark 12:28-34 clearly address that.

Anonymous: Saru would point her finger at anything other that herself and blame it for that relationship "crumbling". She hasn't (and probably never will) come to terms with the fact that her constant inaction ended the relationship. She was asked on many occasions to address issues in the relationship that were causing problems, she would voice an agreement, then never lift a finger to help resolve it. Even if that is put aside, the final straw that caused that relationship to crumble, was that TWICE she when asked if she would marry, she quite simply said, "No". Proving that her fairy-tale land (in which her beloved was so persistent he was willing to suffer that rejection and still beg for her hand) was more important to her that the feelings of her BF.
 

As an addendum:
My last post is a little more aggressive and sarcastic than it should've been. Hopefully people can try to take the spirit of what I was saying and leave aside the unnecessary (and inappropriate) tone.
 

FLAMES AHOY! Arrr cap'n, she burns well...

stoobie: One thing against what you have said. I believe that there is a definite distinction between living in the same share house as a person of the opposite sex and living in the same house with boy/girl friend with noone else around.

Even if there is a difference, what I see amongst Christians is a general assumption that two people of the opposite gender living together is bad, regardless of the truth of the matter or even the nature of the relationship. For example - "My advice would be either marry the guy or move in with a Christian sister till you do." Not "a Christian /friend/", I note (and I was going to tangent here about homosexual relationships, but Psi did that job for me, and well). Not even "a friend" - nope, gotta be a christian female, apparently. /That/ is the kind of thing that bothers me.

Greggles: If you live in the same share house as a member of the opposite sex and you start going out, the smart and Godly option would be to have one of you move out to avoid temptation.

I think that if you can't "avoid temptation" in this situation, you probably have the problem Matt posted about in the first place - to whit, viewing sex as the root of a relationsip, not a tremendously enjoyable bonus. If the only way you can "avoid temptation" in a case like that is to /separate/ yourself from something you love, then something is /not right/. Godly or not, how could it possible be smart to hide from the problem until you can get permission to give in to your temptation? Because that is, in effect, what you are describing.

Greggles: I think we underestimate our sinfulness often. We think 'we arent that bad'. And that thinking is bad. Read Romans 2 about who is righteous or I think the Psalms say "The heart of man is decietful above all things, who can understand it?".

Now /this/ is going to stoke the fire. Please skip it if you're easily offended. You WERE warned.

I think Christians too often use this excuse to simultaneously belittle or punish themselves, /and/ excuse their mistakes. It's just so /easy/ - "oh well, humans are deceitful and sinful and all by nature. We have to try to be better than that, but we still suck in the end.". The hell with that. I think most Christians need to try having faith in /humanity/ for a change, and try living up to the notion that people are /good/ underneath it all. But then, I also believe that the only true tenet of any religion is the concept of "do as you will, and harm no-one" - as Robert A Heinlein (not that I know who he is, I just think this quote is possibly the wisest saying in existence) said, "Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."

...But then, this is my stance on religion at large. I long ago gave up believing in gods in favour of believing in people.

Matt: Fox, Knowing saru, that was just a joke (scarily in almost the exact same style as I often make about girls and get in troubble off you for)

Yeah, and you know what? It's /still/ not funny (and frankly, I'm obligated to take offense on behalf of Talen, who smells almost /addictively/ good). Frankly, I don't see anything funny about making stupid, rude, inftantile gender-based generalisations in order to avoid a serious issue. Sorry to be so brutal about it, but I really do think that this kind of flippant, it's-a-joke insult is an important part of what is wrong with the world today.

Psi: Pursuant to your notes on marriage, remember that "under God" is not a universal component of marriage, no matter how much Christians might believe so. I realise you were working on a commonly given definition, but I thought it needed to be pointed out.

Whoo, I love the smell of burning blog in the evening...
 

Just wanted to quickly add one thing, something that may surprise people. What Fox says here about sin and Robert Heinlein kinda works well with Terry Pratchett's definition of sin which, in turn, works well with God's definition of sin. In Carpe Jugulum the young priest of Om has a discussion about sin with Granny Weatherwax (for those of you who are familiar with the discworld) and Granny says this, "Sin is treating people like things."

Ultimately this is true: the root of all sin is treating first God, then people, like objects. As though you have the right to treat them however you wish, irrespective of their feelings on the matter. As if you owned them and could do whatever you wanted to them. Look at the ten commandments. They are mostly about treating people fairly, as though they had the same rights as you, and those relating directly to God are about having respect and love for him.

When you disregard people's feelings and rights, then you are treating them like a "thing" rather than as a person.
 

To clarify:

No, I don't think that the reason the relationship crumbled was because we were living together. It just added additional stress when it was not needed.

Also, if people wish to have the conception that I deny all blame for the relationship crumbling, that's fine too, but that doesn't mean that's what I actually do. I'm human. There is no possible way that I am blameless.
 

As much as I would like to comment on all the things and argue them through, I feel that I cannot form a theological argument in the space allotted.
I understand that my verses were taken out of context and agree that I should have just said what I thought. The trouble is, as stated by people that it is very difficult to pin down a verse which will successfully convince said parties that they are in the wrong. If there was, I would expect (and hope) that they would then change behaviour. I believe that there is a strong 'vibe' against the whole thing but as I have said, cannot pin down a sufficient verse in the half an hour I looked in my bible last night. The verses quoted previously were in haste and were not ideal. I belive though as Christians we should be striving towards these things as much as possible as they can be achieved. The other thing to note is that whether in an official role or not we all teach each other and if you guys are at church talking to new christians and they see what you guys are doing and think that is standard 'acceptable' Christian behaviour then they are putting themselves in a situation in which they might not be able to resist temptation. As much as I could ramble on, I will leave you with one verse which is not out of context in my opinion: 1 Cor 6:18 "Flee from sexual immorality".
It doesnt just say dont do it, it says flee it and I think that includes unhelpful situations to be in such as living with your boy/girl friend.
 

'Think' and 'vibe'?

Well, you can't fight that.
 

'Think' and 'vibe'?

Well, you can't fight that.
 

If you are all teaching each other, I /hope/ that young Christians will look at Laurel-li and Psi as an example! They demonstrate that you can love somebody, in a romantic sense, and be with them as much as you like, without necessarily needing sex to be a part of it. That just friendship and togetherness can be fulfilling. More power to them, I say.

Also, I don't think "flee from sexual immorality" applies here. I'd have to see the verse in context to say for sure, but as presented here, it seems to regard sexual immorality itself, not the /possibility/ of doing something which is immoral. Perhaps if something "sexually immoral" were to actually /happen/ in the kind of relationship Laurel-li and Psi are in, the concerned parties might be well-advised to "flee" the situation - but if there is nothing "sexually immoral" going on, where's the problem? The mere /possiblility/ of such a thing happening is not enough to justify such advice, in my opinion - by that logic, we should all avoid any kind of relationship, because the potential for "sexual immorality" is always there (married or not, straight or gay, happy or miserable). All it takes is one bad choice.
 

Fox, Talen, I love you both. You are beautiful people.
 

Talen, what I meant by that was that as stated there is no specific verse saying "Do not live with your boy/girl friend before marriage". The concept of boy/girl friends did not really exist in those days. By 'vibe' I meant that I believe the bible says it is not right, but you cant just pick one verse to say it, and therefore it is hard to argue it's case. It sounds like any such case would fall on deaf ears anyway.
Fox I think that verse is saying that. It is saying that you should avoid any situation in which you are likely to sin more. Not that we should avoid any type of relationship, just conducting that relationship in a context where the likelihood of sin is greater than it needs to be is not right.
Laurel-Li, just because people disagree with you doesnt mean that they are not your friends (and therefore worthy of your love). In fact, being able to say that you dont agree and still be friends is a sign of a great friendship.
Matt for example has been able to disagree with you and remain friends with you guys over the whole time which has shown a great amount of maturity on his part.
Just be careful that you dont surround yourselves with people who say what itching ears want to hear.

Perhaps more discussion can be said on what people's and the bible's opinion of sex is. I think many people believe it is just the act of intercourse, whereas others (and myself) believe that it is much more than that. Do we want to discuss more? Or maybe Matt can write a blog on what he thinks sex is and new comments can be placed on it.
 

Feel free to post your thoughts on the matter on your blog, and ill link you so people can discuss there... Its not something i have a stongly enough determined opinion on yet to blog on.

Matt
 

I'd still have to follow Talen, and repeat 'vibe' .. ?

If there were appropriate verses, they would not fall on deaf ears. It's just that this is a frequent issue, and where ever it's been aired, there have never been solid, biblical examples to support the stance that people should not live together before marriage, without it being a very forced comparison.

Unfortunatly the bible can't give as answers to every situation. Often people will come to different ideas about what is or is not the appropriate "biblical" response to a situation based on their interpretation on the "feel" of what the bible has said. If there was clear biblical instruction for the situation would put rest to the issue one way or the other, but without it we have to do our best to deal with what we can take from what the bible does say, and try to take that "vibe" and apply it to any new situations. Of course, as soon as we do that, we're opening a can of worms for argument, and need to acknowledge that we may or may not be right in our point of view. If we acknowledge that, give reference to where we are grounding our "vibe" in the bible, and put forward our perspective as a loving christian friend who is trying to provide support and guidance, then all would be well. It's when we try to take our "vibe" and insist that it is correct and absolute, and that anyone who acts against it is being wrong and sinful that we need to reevaluate our approach.

If we must avoid areas in which the temptation to sin is greater than it may otherwise have been, then perhaps we should question any form of active evangalisism. If a christian goes into a hindu country where they are surrounded by the culture, doesn't that provide more temptation that staying safely nestled in a christian environment?

Which is the greater good, to never be challanged in our christian walk and, or to meet the challanges, and through our strength of faith overcome them? If being christian means to do our best to be like Jeusus, then we must face temptation and overcome it, not flee from it.
 

Wow, interesting reading here. (this covers a number of the threads brought up here).

Firstly, I do have to say that I’m not sure that I agree with a number of posters about marriage. (I’ve posted this, which talks about how I see marriage). I also would say here, that the way marriage is enacted in the world does not devalue it. Throughout the Old Testament the Covenant, (read promise) between God and Mankind is illustrated with marriage (read, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, to name a few). Put simply, celebrity x, marrying celebrating y (for a period of z hours) does not devalue the promise on another’s wedding day. Yes, I would love to see my “partner” be “a princess for a day”, (like she isn’t a princess already). But that’s not what marriage is about. That’s the wedding, by way of an analogy, the tip of the iceberg. Yes it is a promise we would be making to each other, witnessed by God, friends and families, but it’s a promise for the future, it is a promise that describes what we feel, but at the same time talks of the commitment we would share through the circumstances of life, for better, worse, sickness, health, poverty and riches. I guess I do wonder why wouldn’t you want to make this committment publically?

Like a number of those who have posted I would not live with my partner before marriage, this is a personal decision. I have not found an explicit bible verse that could be used to condemn people living together before they are married. (Mind you, I don’t believe we should condemn those who do. Though I would discourage them from it, for what I can only label personal reasons).To be honest, I am not sure of the arguments relating to “leading others into temptation” actually works. But I will need to think about it.
 

I really agree with what Duncan is saying about marriage, except that it isn't how it's treated in general. It should the eternal promise, and for some people it is, but the reality of it is that more and more often it's not kept that way.

If we take it as a theoretical and ideal situation, then I agree that marriage is an appropriate measure for the appropriatness of sexuality within a relationship. However, with the way in which it plays out in the real world, I think it's a flawed measure, so I feel it's inappropriate to use that as the fuzzy line between what's right and wrong.

It's hard to guage how well a relationship will work until you've lived with someone. I've been friends with people for a decade, moved in with them, and within two weeks wanted never to have to see them. Despite the fact that we thought we were absolutely ideal to live together, it simply didn't work out. And that was just a friendship. Add to that all the additional emotional complexity of a relationship, and it can get really messy. So I think living together is a good way of evaluating the relationship and to preparing for marriage. This is purely a practical consideration, but if (as christians) we are to respect marriage, then I think it's appropriate that we do so with an understanding of what that will entail, rather than just jumping into it to avoid sinning.

"Official" marriage carries with it a large deal of issue in terms of organisation and cost, and everyone makes a very big deal over it. Not everyone likes to take the limelight like that, the publicity can be very intimidating. On the other hand, a simple registry signing doesn't do justice to moment, it feels like it lessens the event, and misses out on a good many parts of the "christian" marriage. So it's difficult to balance these things out and figure out what feels right for any given couple, and finding a time that works for them.

So between the practicalities and the complexities of organising a formal marraige, the actual sense of it has a tendency to get lost. Commitment to each other, commitment to god and with the intent to carry that commitment "until death do we part". I think it's the commitments that are made during the marriage that are the most important aspect of it, and if the official side of marriage is getting in the way of that, then there's a problem.

That said, I still intend to use the "Official" marriage as the fuzzy gray line by which sexual decisions are made, I just think that it should be the yard stick that is used to measure the appropriateness of living together.
 

In response to what Duncan said, I dont think anyone is condemning anyone (at least I hope it is not being taken that way), some people seem to think there is nothing wrong, others think it is unhelpful (does that then mean wrong?) and others seem to think wrong. I think generally, those who disagree with Laurel-Li and Psi want her to change their situation because it is an unwise/unhelpful (and some would then say un-Christ-like) position to be in, not to condemn.
Either way, condemnation is a harsh way to put it, but you probably didnt mean in that way, similar to how I didnt mean 'vibe' which seems to have been taken and flogged to death. There are other issues in life such as abortion and euthanasia that arent spoken of specifically in the bible either, but we apply biblical principles to the issue and form a Christian response to it. This is the 'vibe' that I speak of.
Also in response to one thing Psi said, we cant face temptation and overcome it. This is why we need Jesus. We are able (in his power) to overcome a specific temptation at a specific time but we can never say 'I have overcome the desire to steal, and I can therefore put myself in whatever situation I want to because I will never steal again'.
Again I think people often fall into the trap of underestimating their own sinfulness.
Also, in regards to the loving thing to do (as Psi said), to think someone is doing the wrong thing and not say anything would probably be the most unloving thing you could do. It should be out of your love for the person/people that you say something. Their growth and maturity in Christ should be your paramount concern, not whether you tell them things they dont want to hear.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Sorry, deleted above comment, as my link was incorrect.

This was the post I referred to.

I guess the point I take issue with is that to gauge whether or not you can marry someone you need to live with them.

Stoobie: After I posted, I reread my comments, I'm not sure 'condemn' is the word I intended to use.

To conclude, I want to say, I want to remain open. I've not worked all this out, not by a long shot, but lets keep talking :-)
 

Just to clarify, I wasn't intending to flog the term vibe.. I actually think it's as good a term as other to apply to taking what's explicitly said in the bible and generalising it to apply to other situations. (Although I think there's a bad movie quote somewhere to do with the bible and some kind of vibe..)

I think the difference between taking what's said and applying to things like abortion and euthanasia as compared to applying it to sex/marriage, is that there is a level of extremity involved with death. So there's a little less grey and fuzziness.

I do see what you mean by never really overcoming temptation. Temptation will always be there, and I didn't mean overcome in any permanent sense, more that you face the temptations and (with Gods grace) resist them. I do however feel that each time you resist a specific temptation, you strengthen yourself against that temptation.

For those who are easily tempted by physical relationships, living with a partner would be a very, very bad idea. For people who are not so tempted, then I'm not so sure it's a problem. The only thing I can think that would be against it would be that others may look at it and think that is fine and trivial, and then move into such a situation themselves and not handle the temptations so well.. However, I feel that if they are a part of the christian community in which they've observed this behaviour, then I think it's fair to assume they've had the same talks from the same/similar people about the potential dangers of living with a partner. Beyond that, their actions are their own.

I think it's important for us as Christian to be aware of the potential temptation that lies is living with someone, and that we should endevour to make those who are considering entering such a situation aware of those dangers, and express our concerns to them. However, the final responsibility for making that choice lies solely with them. We can do no more than lovingly share our concerns with them, and if they feel that they can handle it, then we should let them do it. If they can deal with the situation, then they'll appreciate the expression of concern, and equally appreciate that noone made them feel harrased, condemned or otherwise judged for their choice. If they can't then perhaps they will know better to listen to the wise council of their friends in future, they can (at their discression) repent of their mistakes, and will (hopefully) be the wiser for their experiences.

On the other hand (and this is often the way it plays out), you can continue to push and argue your feelings on the matter with them. Generally people don't respond well to being told what they should or shouldn't do, and if it's gotten to this stage then they're probably pretty set in their intent to live together and regardless of whether they resist the tempration or not it can leave permanent damage on your relationship with them. In future situations, you will be the "friend" who was very pushy in telling them what they should do and any advice you try to give them will not be received with an openness of heart.
 

Wow, after reading all that I am now glad I an neither a cristian or in a romatic relationship (and hence don't have to worry about all this).
 

Duncan: I agree. You don't need to live with someone to know if you can marry them. But until you live with someone, you can't imagine how well it will work.

I also think there needs to be a distinction between marriage and Marriage. There is the generally accepted sociatal marriage, legally binding until it's not, and then there's the Christian Marriage, which should be binding eternally.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that due to the way marriage is treated in general, it's hard to descern the difference between them, and because of that I find it difficult to accept it as an appropriate measure.

Sex without marriage is a sin.. But does it make a difference to God if two people and a witness sign a certificate together in a registry office? I really doubt it, but according to man's law that's still a legitimate marriage. Despite it's potentially empty nature, and Godless promises, does it still count? We are told to respect man's laws (where this doesn't contridict God's law), so does that mean we are to accept these hollow marriages with their legal divorces as the same thing as a promise of eternal commitment made with God? If they aren't the same, then what why is it different?

This is why I feel that marriage is the wrong way to draw the difference, not because I disagree with marriage, but because the term itself doesn't carry the right meaning, and if marriage isn't the right thing, what is? Personally I feel that it's the commitment, if a couple truely feel that they will make every effort to remain together in a supportive christian relationship, then they are making that commitment. Whether they have the ceremony and certificate, or just have a deep and abiding love for each other, then that's what should matter.

I fully believe that the commitment should be expressed through Marriage, but that marriage is an expression of that commitment and it's the commitment that is important, not how it's expressed.
 

Yeah, but a romantic relationship has nothing to do with this if you don't hold to the belief system that's being used. You don't care about medium save progressions if you're not playing D20 modern, after all.

The reason 'vibe' was treated so negatively is because many of us remember The Castle, where a lawyer attempts to swing his case to a judge claiming that it's 'against this act', and when asked for something more concrete than that, he gives 'the vibe' as his rationale. It's a pathetically weak defense when presented alongside hard facts - and a lot of this argument has been presented as hard facts. When these facts are traced back to their origin point, and found to be standing on a foundation of 'vibe', they become excruciatingly shaky, no pun intended.

Nothing to add to the conversation - just clarifying why I took upon the word 'vibe' (and indeed, it was taken upon by myself once, and Psi twice, so it's not like it was publically flogged to death, flogged some more, then moved to the side so we could more accurately flog the ground underneath it).
 

So many posts since I last looked. Most of what I'd have to say on the matter has been covered either by myself, in two post on my blog (Matt has a link to it), or by Psi. Or, as is true for the most case, both. So I will simply add a few things here and there and anyone who cares what I think can look at what I've written elsewhere.

Stoobie: at no point did I actually say, or intend to indicate in anyway, that people who disagreed with me were not my friends. In fact, if that were the case, I would be completely bereft of friendship since my friends and I frequently disagree on many things. I did, in fact, indicate that I appreciated the fact that my friends discuss their conerns with me when it is done in a loving fashion and similarly appreciated that a difference in opinion did not mean condemnation. Please, do not put words in my mouth.

Similarly, Talen has a point. I've said it before, I'll say it again; just because one thinks something, does not mean God does. We are all sinful, we are all imperfect, none amongst us is God. Therefore, your feeling or opinion (or, for that matter, 'vibe') on the matter does not equal God's thoughts. This is why the term has been 'flogged to death', as you would have it. As there is no specific reference on the topic, all we have is opinion. Now find me a bible verse that allows christians to force an individual, biblically unsubstantiated point of view on other people and insist that they live there lives by it.

As for the marriage issue, I think what Psi is trying to say is this: what is the value of a public, legal marriage when the promises made can be broken at a moment's notice, just as if they had never been made in the first place? In this, there is no difference between a legal marriage and a simple agreement, before God, to stay together for ever. One is as easy to get out of as the other and, therefore, it is the sincerity that is the only thing one has to gauge a true christian marriage, the intent to keep the promise until death, something which doesn't require the trappings we associate with marriage. While I fully intend to get married publicly and legally, the modern world has made marriage more or less a farce.

In the end, the choice of whether or not to live with one's partner prior to marriage is entirely based in our personal opinions of what God would want, like many things in life (including,by the way, abortion and euthanasia). While all available information should be taken into consideration, including prayer, bible reading, discussion with christian friends and, of course, the partner in question, and a consideration of the particular weaknesses one possesses, in the end it is up to the individuals in question. It is not up to anyone else to judge them for the choice they make if that choice is an informed one, nor is it their place to condemn them in anyway.
 

Ok.. so I've finally got some free time to respond to some of this. Sorry for the long silence.

This is where I stand at the moment. I have a vibe. I'm not going to change the word, because its accurate in describing what I actually have. Its unsubstantiated. I cant back it up from the bible.

My 'Vibe' tells me that living together before marriage is wrong. Now its not something that its possible to prove with a biblical verse because its not something that was an issue back then. So its not something we can really expect the bible to have addressed directly. And that's where the controversy comes from.

An aside. The thing I've been really challenged by over the course of this discussion is this, do I have the right to accuse someone else of living the wrong way when I cant conclusively prove my point of view from the bible. Answer - no way. I think.

If I was to say I did, then I would give the catholics the right to berate me for not worshipping Mary Magdalene. Etc, Etc. The only time you can actually be justified in aggressively suggesting someone change the way they are living their life, is when they are someone who professes to be a Christian, and yet is acting against something explicitly said in the bible.

Now where do these vibes come from? I think there's 2 factors here.

1)Tradition... this is the way the Anglican church sees it.. thus this is the way all my friends see it. Thus this is the position all my friends have taken whenever the topic has come up. All the sermons I have heard that have touched on the topic have approached it with this as a given. Its easy to just assume that this is what the bible says in a situation like that. (For those in my bible study group... like the assumption that Satan is a fallen angel for example)
2)Bible knowledge. Like it or not we will form opinions on topics the bible doesn't cover. These opinions will form over time to fit in with our understanding of the bibles overall picture and thus or inferences as to its views on topics it doesn't actually cover

So what does this mean? I need to fight against the preconceived notions that I have as to what the bible says about this. I need to take the time to read and study what it actually does say. And I need to act with this in mind. And on that note, I think I owe Laurel-li and Psi an apology. I still think what your doing is wrong, but until such time as I am convinced the bible says so, I will accept and indeed defend your right to do it.



Marriage:

Well as far as marriage is concerned, I would say there is marriage, and then there is the perverted twisted mis-take on marriage that the world has now.

It is important to realise the difference when looking at what the bible has to say on the subject. Cause its talking about the first one.


I posted some thoughts on marriage a while back...
 

Hon, considering the fact that you are one of the few christian friends who has dealt with us in a loving fashion and respected out decision, no apology needed. On my part, at least. Can't speak for Psi.
 

From people's comments, it seems that some of the things I have said may have been taken in a hurtful and judging/condemning way. I meant them as neither (refer previous comment on condemnation).
I meant them as a concerned brother in Christ.
 

For the edification of all: Romans 14:1-8.

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord." (NIV)

Basically: just because you are strong or weak in your faith and adjust your behaviour accordingly, does not mean you have the right to condemn others who are not like you or to see yourself as superior than they.