Alycin Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 (edited) I don't know if Norseman's stance is that non-virgins should only marry non-virgins or if that he personally feels it on his heart to only marry another virgin. (If you read this please clarify for me, NM) However-- what I find interesting and a bit strange is that this has became somewhat mathematical in thinking. NV+NV=YES.... Where does love come into the equation? If someone who is not a virgin falls in love with someone who is, and vice versa, that has to count for something. Also--it is completely and totally errant to make the jump that you, Norseman, did about someone not being a virgin to speaking about promiscuity. Someone can be without their virginity without having a history of sleeping around. Edited June 15, 2008 by Alycin
Norseman82 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1571926' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:13 PM']I do commend you for having high standards, I really do. And perhaps part of the problem here is how difficult it can be to gauge tone over the internet. That being said, I do take some of your posts on this matter to be looking down on others' past mistakes, as you [i]seem [/i] (from what I've read in this thread) unwilling to forgive what may have been a 1-time mistake. I think these things really need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, instead. There are just too many variables otherwise, TBH.[/quote] Again, forgiveness does not mean that one need enter into or continue a relationship. And it does not necessarily make one compatible. And even if the other person i snot a virgin becasue she was a widow and onlt slept with the one she was married to, we still would not be compatible, since we do not have common background, so this is not about forgiveness of sin. It's about compatibility.
Alycin Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Era Might' post='1571928' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:14 PM']Maybe. I think there can be a common ground in this discussion. Your own expectations for your spouse should be respected. But you should also respect that not everyone has the same expectations, and it is not because they have lesser standards. You referred to compatibility, which I agree is important, but what determines compatibility will be different for each person. You have expectations for your spouse's past, which is fine for you. But others place the emphasis on the present, not the past. You both agree on the basic duty to forgive. But as you said, marriage is not only about forgiveness, but also about compatibility. There are some general guidelines for determining whether you are compatible with a potential spouse (e.g., will the spouse respect and support your faith). But there are also many personal factors that each individual must consider for themselves.[/quote]
XIX Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1571929' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:16 PM']As somneone posted previously, some sins are more grievous than others. And the bible cordons off fornication in a special class by itself (it is in one of Paul's epistles). The temporal effect of fornication is that I would no longer be giving 100% of myself to my future spouse if that future spouse is someone else, thus cheating her if she is a virgin and giving me 100% She has earned better.[/quote] Love isn't something that is earned. Otherwise, we'd all be in Hell right now. This is where people start to think that you are being judgmental as opposed to merely looking for compatibility. To say that past sins would render someone incapable of giving himself 100% to his future spouse is nothing less than a judgment on that person's soul. You have standards and that's fine with me, but you present them as objective truths when in reality they are not.
Alycin Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1571936' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:22 PM']Again, forgiveness does not mean that one need enter into or continue a relationship. And it does not necessarily make one compatible. And even if the other person i snot a virgin becasue she was a widow and onlt slept with the one she was married to, we still would not be compatible, since we do not have common background, so this is not about forgiveness of sin. It's about compatibility.[/quote] I think perhaps the fork in the road, then, is how you and others view compatibility. You are making blanket statements that appear to be almost authoritative in the matter. I think that is what is troubling to some.
StColette Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Is virginity more important than the personhood? You can't love an aspect more than a person or you are merely objectifying the person.
CrossCuT Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [size=1]Yes, I would marry a man who was not a virgin. But like what most everyone else has touched on, he would have to repent for it. He would have to WANT to change his ways and understand what he did was wrong. Jason Evret's wife was not a virgin by any means when they first met. But she wanted to change and found the love she always needed in him. Its a super cute story! [/size]
Norseman82 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Alycin' post='1571931' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:19 PM']I don't know if Norseman's stance is that non-virgins should only marry non-virgins or if that he personally feels it on his heart to only marry another virgin. (If you read this please clarify for me, NM) However-- what I find interesting and a bit strange is that this has became somewhat mathematical in thinking. NV+NV=YES.... Where does love come into the equation? If someone who is not a virgin falls in love with someone who is, and vice versa, that has to count for something. Also--it is completely and totally errant to make the jump that you did about someone not being a virgin to speaking about promiscuity. Someone can be without their virginity without having a history of sleeping around.[/quote] The feelings (FEELINGS! WO-OH-OAH FEEEEELINGS!) of the heart need to be tempered bythe logic of the brain - because you can find countless people who do stupid things out of "love" (like get involved with the wrong person, but hey, they were blinded by love - blinded by the light, wrapped up like a douche into the rotor of the night, if I have the Mannfred Mann lyrics correct). Edited June 15, 2008 by Norseman82
Archaeology cat Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='StColette' post='1571944' date='Jun 15 2008, 08:25 PM']Is virginity more important than the personhood? You can't love an aspect more than a person or you are merely objectifying the person.[/quote] Exactly! That's what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get at. IMO, rejecting someone solely on the basis of their virginity (or lack thereof) is looking at someone in a purely sexual way, and not at the whole self. That's why I was saying it has to be a case-by-case evaluation, as well.
Alycin Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1571946' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:28 PM']The feelings (FEELINGS! WO-OH-OAH FEEEEELINGS!) of the heart - because you can find countless people who do stupid things out of "love" (like get involved with the wrong person, but hey, they were blinded by love - blinded by the light, wrapped up like a douche into the rotor of the night, if I have the Mannfred Mann lyrics correct).[/quote] Wait, what? Did you leave off part of your sentence?
Norseman82 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='CrossCuT' post='1571945' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:28 PM']Jason Evret's wife was not a virgin by any means when they first met. But she wanted to change and found the love she always needed in him. Its a super cute story! [/size][/quote] And I wonder what ever happened to all the virgins that Jason dated and ended up shafting in order to marry his wife?
Archaeology cat Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1571946' date='Jun 15 2008, 08:28 PM']The feelings (FEELINGS! WO-OH-OAH FEEEEELINGS!) of the heart - because you can find countless people who do stupid things out of "love" (like get involved with the wrong person, but hey, they were blinded by love - blinded by the light, wrapped up like a douche into the rotor of the night, if I have the Mannfred Mann lyrics correct).[/quote] It's "Blinded by the light, revved up like a deuce, another runner in the night" [url="http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/blow/blindedbythelight.htm"]lyrics here[/url] OK, end
Alycin Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Oh and you didn't clarify what I asked you to clarify, btw.
Alycin Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1571953' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:31 PM']And I wonder what ever happened to all the virgins that Jason dated and ended up shafting in order to marry his wife?[/quote] Whaaaaaat?? You are SO not in the position to judge their marriage. Do you know anything about them at all?
Norseman82 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Alycin' post='1571952' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:30 PM']Wait, what? Did you leave off part of your sentence?[/quote] It has been corrected.
Norseman82 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='StColette' post='1571944' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:25 PM']Is virginity more important than the personhood? You can't love an aspect more than a person or you are merely objectifying the person.[/quote] But those aspects are wrapped up in one another.
Alycin Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1571962' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:33 PM']It has been corrected.[/quote] Oh okay, that makes more sense now! I was confused at first.
HisChildForever Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Norseman82' post='1571953' date='Jun 15 2008, 04:31 PM']And I wonder what ever happened to all the virgins that Jason dated and ended up shafting in order to marry his wife?[/quote] I suppose you're implying here that virgins are just better than non-virgins. That we should see non-virgins as lesser. Just because two people are virgins doesn't make them compatible for marriage. Virgin A could be a practicing Catholic, and Virgin B thinks nothing of religion and hasn't had the opportunity to have premarital sex, and would if he/she had the chance. Would you call that compatible? Edited June 15, 2008 by HisChildForever
Norseman82 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 [quote name='Alycin' post='1571960' date='Jun 15 2008, 03:32 PM']Whaaaaaat?? You are SO not in the position to judge their marriage. Do you know anything about them at all?[/quote] I simply want to know what happened to the others.
Era Might Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 I think St. Paul is a good analogy. Would someone with a background similar to St. Paul be ordained a Priest today? Maybe, but probably not. His background would probably keep him from being ordained. But St. Paul became an Apostle in his time. Just as certain personal expectations for a Priest may differ according to times and circumstances, so personal expectations for a spouse will differ from person to person. But the personal expectations for a Priest today do not mean that it was wrong for St. Paul to become an Apostle, and conversely, just because St. Paul became an Apostle does not mean a person with a similar background cannot be excluded from the Priesthood today. Likewise, one person may legitimately choose a spouse that another person would not.
Recommended Posts