Lil Red Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 I am truly saying this with the least amount of sarcasm possible, because I mean it seriously - good luck finding any woman who is willing to be with you with your current attitude (not about virginity but the attitude of entitlement and superiority you so clearly communicated in this post). You are entitled to have a preference to marry a virgin but the comments above are really unsettling. Look at the words you use to describe a relationship with someone who has lost their virginity before marriage; "settling, questions about her motives, insulted, disrespected, dirty like everyone else, let her future spouse know that he is loved and that he is the only man worthy of such a special and powerful gift, disgraced, crushed as a human being, settle for someone like that..." Everything you wrote above is about YOU and what you want. No relationship works when it is only about one person and what they want. You didn't write much at all about your desire to truly love someone with the love of Christ for his Church (which did involve Jesus suffering a horrible death out of love for his sinful people, probably some non-virgins included there), to build a life with her and help her get to heaven, to love her without counting the cost of that love... This post reflects much more about your character than it does about the desire to marry a virgin. The issue that I see with it has nothing to do with the desire to marry a virgin and everything to do with personal immaturity and a complete misunderstanding of the gift of life and our human nature. I suggest that before you "see what you can get" at a youth group or online dating site that you see a therapist and try to deal with whatever is the root of this self-absorbed attitude. It will be more of a problem for your future marriage than a non-virgin will be. I'm not twisting your words either. I'm sure you didn't mean to come across the way you have but I have a feeling that these words really express how you truly think and feel so its worth the time to examine them and see if there is any truth to what I and others have pointed out based on your posts. Only you can work on you... you can't change your future spouse or anyone else but you can change yourself. I hope you can grow in love and holiness. Prayers, SM props, Sister Marie. :)
Lil Red Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 I like how He's so completely unimpressed with them. He starts doodling in the dirt (which is probably highly symbolic, but I just like the "This is what you bring me? Whatever" attitude displayed). Yep. People sin. Get high and mighty about it. Meanwhile, you're keeping the Kleenex industry in the black. Jesus the coolly dismissive. God is sarcastic. I have hope. I think your vacation was good for you.
Lil Red Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 It's fine with me if you find my post rude or cranky, but I find the posters attitude to be far more offensive than my own response to it. I wish I could have had a nicer way to say what I believed this poster truly needed to hear but I couldn't think of one. His post was demeaning to women and to people in general but I didn't think it was because he was a bad person but because he has some attitudes that are not healthy and will be major problems if he does get married. Therapy is not a bad thing - its a good thing. It's for people who need to work on issues... so if you think I need therapy that's fine... we all have things we need to work on and I'm well aware that I am part of the sinful human species and I need just as much help as others. The result of therapy is, hopefully, to be able to live more fully and healthily. I don't see that as a rude thing to desire for anyone. Just because I think the poster needs some help because of his attitude doesn't mean that I don't have high regard for virginity and for the virtue of chastity. (Seeing as I have taken a vow of chastity, I certainly have a high regard for it) I just don't believe that physical virginity is the sum value of one's worth. It's because I see the high value in each person, regardless of their sins that I wrote this post. I don't think that the belief that we are called to care about more than physical intactness will harm those to whom I minister. props again.
Lil Red Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 I never said that He didn't think she should marry - it's just that He didn't marry her. OK, let's apply this logic to something else. I don't know if you have children or not, but suppose you are looking for someone to babysit your children. If there were someone in your neighborhood who had a conviction for a sexual offense against a minor but has gone to confession and has been forgiven, would you hire that person as a babysitter, or would you hold the past against that person? comparing a woman losing her virginity to a pedophile? :blink: ummmmmm
Winchester Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 I think your vacation was good for you. It led to complete chaos on the forums. It took no less than three people to keep the forces of certain hygiene products from utterly destroying the place.
Lil Red Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 It led to complete chaos on the forums. It took no less than three people to keep the forces of certain hygiene products from utterly destroying the place. i didn't say it was good for the phorums. :|
Winchester Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 i didn't say it was good for the phorums. :| I understand. It's just that someone like me cannot be concerned only for himself. I was only sharing my perspective. I have a sacred duty, here.
Norseman82 Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) Your not going to get an answer because its a stupid comparison. Find something that is comparable to someone choosing to have sex before marriage and then I will answer your question. I don't answer something that is in no way comparable. Just like I won't answer if I would allow Hitler to watch my child since we both know God would forgive him if he truly repented. Sounds to me like you've been caught doing that what you are accusing Polskieserce of doing and you don't want to own up to your own hypocrisy. If I'm wrong and you are not a hypocrite, please indicate that you would let a pedophile or Hitler babysit your children. Otherwise, please own up to your hypocrisy, apologize to Polskieserce, and get off his case. A refresher of Havok's own words: the point being is if Jesus is willing to forgive anyone of their sins and does not hold it against them then why should a mere human be more than willing to hold past sins against the person. Jesus didn't say only if your a virgin will I forgive your sins. He said anyone, anyone ask for forgiveness and I will forgive you of your sins. The OP seems to not follow this teaching when it comes to sex. Jesus teaches us to forgive others and do not hold the past against them. Unless your understanding is that you are to forgive them but hold past sins against them. Although that is not what Jesus taught but yet what the OP advocates. Edited July 20, 2013 by Norseman82
Lil Red Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 I understand. It's just that someone like me cannot be concerned only for himself. I was only sharing my perspective. I have a sacred duty, here. Winchester Line, and all that.
Norseman82 Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) comparing a woman losing her virginity to a pedophile? :blink: ummmmmm Again, Havok's words (with substitutions to show how his words would apply to the other situations): the point being is if Jesus is willing to forgive anyone of their sins and does not hold it against them then why should a mere human be more than willing to hold past sins against the person. Jesus didn't say only if your a virgin not a pedophile or not Hitler will I forgive your sins. He said anyone, anyone ask for forgiveness and I will forgive you of your sins. The OP seems to not follow this teaching when it comes to sex pedophiles or Hitler. Jesus teaches us to forgive others and do not hold the past against them. Unless your understanding is that you are to forgive them but hold past sins against them. Although that is not what Jesus taught but yet what the OP advocates. Unless Havok would allow a pedophile or Hitler to babysit his kids, in which case I will stand corrected. Otherwise, Havok should get off Polskieserce's case. Edited July 20, 2013 by Norseman82
Norseman82 Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 you must have missed discussion of the Winchester line. I guess I did......
HisChildForever Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) Besides the obvious, the sex offender comparison doesn't work for a few reasons.... 1. If the SO is truly repentant, then he went to the authorities and likely served time. He would also be registered as a SO in the state. Therefore, would you hire him, he'd not only be breaking the law - and in a way I'd question his repentance because he's not accepting the consequences of his actions (an obvious consequence being: he can't be near children anymore) - but you'd be breaking the law. Also, if he was genuinely sorry for his past crime(s), he wouldn't WANT to break the law again and therefore a, wouldn't look for a position working with children and/or b, wouldn't accept a position working with children. You would also put him at risk for being caught by the authorities. And if you helped him get around the law - kept things "hush hush" - you'd end up in a load of trouble yourself. 2. Of course, either way, it would simply be impossible for him to get this job even IF you were totally unaware of his criminal background because SO are kept under very close scrutiny. Why would he take the risk, knowing that it's more likely than not he'd end up back in court? 3. If he was genuinely repentant but did NOT serve time, i.e. the authorities aren't aware, and confessed to you his past crime(s), don't you have the responsibility of reporting him? 4. A lot of sex offenders, after they serve time, are "released" but often placed, sometimes indefinitely, in facilities that house sex offenders - while they did the time, they're just not deemed safe for society, and are in a sense involuntarily committed. Edited for clarification. Edited July 20, 2013 by HisChildForever
Norseman82 Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) Besides the obvious, the sex offender comparison doesn't work for a few reasons.... 1. If the SO is truly repentant, then he went to the authorities and likely served time. He would also be registered as a SO in the state. Therefore, would you hire him, he'd not only be breaking the law - and in a way I'd question his repentance because he's not accepting the consequences of his actions (an obvious consequence being: he can't be near children anymore) - but you'd be breaking the law. Also, if he was genuinely sorry for his past crime(s), he wouldn't WANT to break the law again and therefore a, wouldn't look for a position working with children and/or b, wouldn't accept a position working with children. You would also put him at risk for being caught by the authorities. And if you helped him get around the law - kept things "hush hush" - you'd end up in a load of trouble yourself. 2. Of course, either way, it would simply be impossible for him to get this job even IF you were totally unaware of his criminal background because SO are kept under very close scrutiny. Why would he take the risk, knowing that it's more likely than not he'd end up back in court? 3. If he was genuinely repentant but did NOT serve time, i.e. the authorities aren't aware, and confessed to you his past crime(s), don't you have the responsibility of reporting him? 4. A lot of sex offenders, after they serve time, are "released" but often placed, sometimes indefinitely, in facilities that house sex offenders - while they did the time, they're just not deemed safe for society, and are in a sense involuntarily committed. Edited for clarification. Sounds like these laws are holding a person's past againt him/her and we should change them, if we follow Havok's postings. Suppose he's in a country/jurisdiction where there are no registries and it's not against the law? Edited July 20, 2013 by Norseman82
HisChildForever Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 Sounds like these laws are holding a person's past againt him/her and we should change them, if we follow Havok's postings. Suppose he's in a country/jurisdiction where there are no registries and it's not against the law? No civilized society permits rape and molestation...
havok579257 Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 Again, Havok's words (with substitutions to show how his words would apply to the other situations): Unless Havok would allow a pedophile or Hitler to babysit his kids, in which case I will stand corrected. Otherwise, Havok should get off Polskieserce's case. continue to stick your fingers in your ear and say blah blah blah all you want, your choice. Everyone here who has commented about this analogy says they are not comparable and to try again. So either we are all wrong and your the only one who could be right or your wrong. Since I know you are convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong I will answer your question like you would. So this 20 year old girl wants to watch my children and she is a sex offender. Her crime is she got drunk and urinated in public. Due to this she is labeled as a sex offender. She explains the situation that she got drunk which was a mistake and made a bad choice by urinating in public. Due to this she is label a sex offender(also for your little scenario sex offenders are now by law allowed around children. You ran for congress and got the laws changed so sex offenders can now watch children. Why you did this, who knows.). Other than this one instance she is a very morally upright catholic who I personally know(since unless I personally know you, you can't watch my children no matter what unless your the Pope). So yes, I would allow this women to watch my children and be fine with it. There is an answer in the same vain of your questions. Happy?
Norseman82 Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 No civilized society permits rape and molestation... I was referring to where there are no registries and it's not against the law to hire such a convict after he/she has done his/her time.
Norseman82 Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 continue to stick your fingers in your ear and say blah blah blah all you want, your choice. Everyone here who has commented about this analogy says they are not comparable and to try again. So either we are all wrong and your the only one who could be right or your wrong. Since I know you are convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong I will answer your question like you would. So this 20 year old girl wants to watch my children and she is a sex offender. Her crime is she got drunk and urinated in public. Due to this she is labeled as a sex offender. She explains the situation that she got drunk which was a mistake and made a bad choice by urinating in public. Due to this she is label a sex offender(also for your little scenario sex offenders are now by law allowed around children. You ran for congress and got the laws changed so sex offenders can now watch children. Why you did this, who knows.). Other than this one instance she is a very morally upright catholic who I personally know(since unless I personally know you, you can't watch my children no matter what unless your the Pope). So yes, I would allow this women to watch my children and be fine with it. There is an answer in the same vain of your questions. Happy? What about an actual pedophile?
HisChildForever Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 I was referring to where there are no registries and it's not against the law to hire such a convict after he/she has done his/her time. Oh, my bad. Sex offenders - not the "urinating-in-public-type" but the "raping women/men-and-touching-children-type" - are sadly next to impossible to rehabilitate, whether or not they're sincere about changing. The subject is just too complex to use.
CatholicsAreKewl Posted July 20, 2013 Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) I find this post to be very rude. If there is anyone who needs therapy, it is you, because with this rudeness and crankiness at age 25 I fear for anyone whom you will minister to. "Back in the day" virginity was a higher priority than it is today. Notice also that back then we did not have the high rates of promiscuity and cohabitation as we do today (or at least it was not as open or socially accepted). Correlation? I think so in the sense that we have lowered our standards on sexual morality. It's sadder that this lowering of standards has crept into the religious as well; however, it was estimated that the majority of clergy subscribed to the Arian heresy in the 300s, so I guess nothing should surprise me. There was a huge taboo against sexual promiscuity/divorce/anything related to female pleasure back in the day. Would you rather that unmarried people hide their sex lives in their respective closets? What's more healthy, a trusting relationship between two consenting adults who have both admitted to having sex with over 20+ people or one in which both parties have sexed 3 or less people but feel like they'll be judged/unloved if they admit this to their significant other? We were made to eat and "have sex with" everything. It's human nature. Also, your other post about pedophiles seemed to indicate that non-virgins don't live up to your gold standard of marriage. Pedophiles will have problems around kids. Your post suggests that non-virgins will have similar problems with their marriage. This is simply not true. Edited July 20, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl
Recommended Posts