I go to university and share a room with a lady... Apparently that is considered to be within the bounds of decency.<P>I am considering marriage and move in with the person I intend to marry.... Somehow this is considered to be "outside" the bounds of decency.<P>Can someone explain to me why the "mental" difference of the intention you have towards ANYONE you are living with determines whether it is right or wrong?<P>It this "mental" difference is the only deciding factor then surely my "decision" to marry that person is therefor wrong by its own instigation.

my opinion only....<BR>i dont think its the " living "<BR>together that determines the moral decency .. its the sexual relationship outside of marriage that is not morally ethical. <BR>Hope this helps<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LostSoul:<BR><B>I go to university and share a room with a lady... Apparently that is considered to be within the bounds of decency.<P>I am considering marriage and move in with the person I intend to marry.... Somehow this is considered to be "outside" the bounds of decency.<P>Can someone explain to me why the "mental" difference of the intention you have towards ANYONE you are living with determines whether it is right or wrong?<P>It this "mental" difference is the only deciding factor then surely my "decision" to marry that person is therefor wrong by its own instigation.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>

Lost Soul,<P>I would disagree with your assumption that living with a member of the opposite sex, even in a platonic relationship, is within the bounds of decency. I will admit that our culture thinks many things are within the bounds of decency that clearly are destructive. You need to decide what you are going to use to calibrate your moral compass. If you are planning on using popular culture or your friends oppinions you are headed for very stormy seas. I will base my post on Biblical principles because the Bible is what I use to keep me on coarse. <P>First of all the Bible does not explicitly state that you can not co-habitate with a member of the opposite sex. It does give clear instructions to not engage in sex outside of marriage. Base on this living with a member of the opposite sex may not be morally wrong but it would be unwise. Why? Because human nature, being what it is, could lead you to immoral behavior. The Bible also directs us to keep even from "the appearance of evil". This instruction may make living with a member of the opposite sex morally wrong. I was just wondering what triggered the question?

Chrissie:<BR>And yet people NEVER think that a couple living together would be sexually platonic. I wonder if perhaps they let their own perceptions run away with them.<P>Mudder:<BR>What a sad, sad view of the world you have. Do I follow "popular culture" in my thinking? I would hazard a guess and say that one who follows the Bible is the one who is following the "Popular Culture".<P>I make my own mind up while you read a book that is followed by thousands upon thousands of others... which do you believe to be "popular"?<P>That you say a man and a woman living together would "tempt" means you already admit that man by its very nature is EVIL, purely evil, irrideemable. How do you exist knowing every single day of your life your diety frowns upon you as a despicable and EVIL creature who must be WARNED constantly against your own nature?<P>What you failed to read in my original post was the "spirit" of the question... I was not talking about SEX, nor was I talking about the tempation of sex (you can walk down the street to get that any day)... I was talking about purely and simply why the gender of a person SHOULD change the perception of the interaction between them.<P>If you read this as meaning sex, temptation, immorality then that tells me you do not see things for WHAT they are... but for what you have been TOLD they can be.<P>No truer words of wisdom than this have been spoken... not even GOD can refute them!!!!<P>"Man is stupid. He will believe something is TRUE because he WANTS it to be true... or because he FEARS it is the truth".<P>If only that were in the Bible... perhaps fewer people would condemn others simply because of their demographic.

Lost Soul,<P>I'm sorry my worldview is so distressing to you. While many people in the world use the Bible as their moral compass I have a hard time accepting your point that a biblically based life style is in any way part of popular culture. The term “popular culture” usually means secular , embraced by the majority or humanistic.<P>I too make up my own mind but I'm not so arrogant as to think that, I alone, have all the answers. I have chosen a book that has stood the test of time to help guide me. Every one will use something to give them guidance even if that something is their own limited wisdom or experience. If you have made up your mind about life why hang out here on these boards and ask questions?<P>Yes I do believe that all people are sinful. I believe that because God’s word says so in Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” I also believe that man IS redeemable as Romans 6:23 states. “For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”. I live every day not in fear or shame but victorious because I have a God who loved me so much that he sacrificed himself so that I might have a full life.<P>John 3:16 “"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”<P>John 10:10 “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”<P>In your last post you say, “If you read this as meaning sex, temptation, immorality then that tells me you do not see things for WHAT they are... but for what you have been TOLD they can be.<P>The Bible actually makes a similar statement in I Samuel 16:7. It states, “The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." So actually God won’t refute those words, He said them!!<P>As for your comment that, “Man is stupid” God has something to say about that too.<P>1 Corinthians 1:25<BR>For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.<P>1 Corinthians 2:14<BR>The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.<P>I know it is risky quoting any scripture to you because it seems clear to me, from your post, that you hold some sort of hostility or distain for the Bible and/or people who try to live by its principles. Someone who tried to counsel or instruct you using the Bible likely causes this. They did a poor job and I hope I have not added to your misconceptions about God and the Bible. God’s Word and His purpose are not to condemn but to lift up. This is clearly stated in John 3:17 “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”<P>I simply tried to respond to your question, as I understood it. I can only respond to a question from my perspective. If you will re-read your own post what you were/are driving at is ambiguous at best. I will attempt again if you will refrain from attacking the perspective from which I respond. <P>Do I understand more clearly that you were driving at why gender should change people’s perspective of a relationship? Is this more to the point? If so let me know and I’ll give you my two cents if you want it.<BR> <P><BR> <P>

Mudder:<P>I really did not want someone quoting the Bible at me... that was a very inconsiderate thing to do... but then again, I anticipated no less.<P>Secondly... if "popular culture" is what is in majority then we would be talking Hindu wouldn't we? Because the majority of mankind does NOT believe in your diety... then again, I am sure you didn't mean that either.<P>As for having hostility towards the Bible which as you so laughingly put it "was a result of someone who instructed me poorly" you are actually wrong. I had a conversation with God directly and he told me of the plans he has and of the reasons why he is doing what he is on earth and he actually admitted to me how much he laughs at how we have twisted everything he originally intended.<P>But another thing... If I am *arrogant* to assume I have all that I need within myself to do something... are YOU not arrogant to believe that you are part of the TRUE path to follow? That YOU are the "chosen ones"? That sounds far more arrogant than someone who makes realistic assessments of their own limits and approaches them cautiously.<P>As for questioning why I am here... I noticed you have been happily married for 21 years and your life is just peachy keen... I guess the better question is why YOU are here if that is the case?<P>Question for you : If God *GAVE* you the abilities that you have... why do you then DENY them by always deferring yourself to him? Surely you are committing heresy to say that the gifts God gave you were NOT enough<P>Oh and I *LOVE* the way the only thing you picked out of my "wisdom" was that Man is stupid... I noticed you couldn't QUOTE the bible that says the predispositional behavioral trait of believing things out of WANT or FEAR....<P>Gee... I wonder if you FEAR God not existing or if you WANT him to exist... Funny that <p>[This message has been edited by LostSoul (edited February 24, 2000).]

Mudder:<P>This one is just for you because you decided to get SOOOOOO off topic on my original question.<P>I asked why GENDER alone was enough to change the view... I asked for YOUR opinion... not for you to expound the opinion of other people...<P>If you have to quote someone else then you are a puppet my friend... and a poorly stringed one at that. Think for YOURSELF and tell me what YOU think without having to crutch yourself on the words of others.<P>That only makes you a plagurist.

!<p>[This message has been edited by K (edited February 25, 2000).]

LostSoul,<P>I am truly sorry that I have aggravated you. I care about you and the other folks on these boards. If I didn't I wouldn't spend the time I do responding. I also would not have bothered to research your other posts here. I did that last night for about an hour. From your past posts I learned that you have been working hard to strengthen your marriage. In your more recent posts I see that there are more problems now. I'm sorry for the pain you must be in.<P>I'm also concerned because as I read through your posts I realized that in your posts back in early 1999 you were conversational and responsive to counsel. In your more recent posts there seems to be an undercurrent of anger and hostility. You have mentioned in some of your posts that you have seen a counselor before. Given all that you have been through and the frustration level I sense in your posts it may be good to consider seeing a counselor again. It just might help deal with the pain you must be feeling. You will be in my prayers.<p>[This message has been edited by Mudder (edited February 25, 2000).]

I rarely debate religion or politics, but I DO like to learn more and continually shape my own opinions.<P>I didn't get the impression that Mudder was laughing at you, LostSoul. Not at all.

Mudder:<P>There is no pain.<P>There is no anger.<P>There is no frustration.<P>These things are called emotions and if you *had* read my other posts of late you would have understood that although I can acknowledge the existance of them they are not attached in order to register an effect.<P>What you hear is the manifestation of your emotional response registering it as "frustration" which if looked at a logical point of view would be correct.<P>I am beyond feeling things now, and while others may see that as "shutting down" my emotions or being "numb" I can sense completely that it is something different to that... I have been numb before and this is different.<P>As for seeing another councilor... there is no point nor any use in that... I am councilor-proof. I have seen councilors and professors of universities and they have all concluded that my awareness is resilliant to their techniques and training... Something I wish was otherwise.

If I can jump into this discussion -<P>If the question is 'what is the difference between living together platonically' and 'living together in contemplation of marriage', the difference is sex. Sex makes a difference in relationships. For one thing, it leads to babies, and children need and deserve two committed parents. For another thing, it involves people emotionally, especially women. <P>If the question is 'what is the difference between living together non-platonically' and 'marriage', the difference is commitment. When people marry, they are making a promise to love and support each other for life. The promise is broken far more often than it should, but the principle remains valid. It is much easier to trust someone who has promised to stick by you than someone who will be out the door as soon as their initial attraction dies down. <P>Are either of these what you were asking? Or are you asking if it is OK to live with someone of the opposite sex platonically? <P>I don't know that Christianity condemns having room mates as sinful. I am sure some people will assume you are having sex with anyone you are living with, but I can't think of a reason why you should have to explain your living arrangements or justify your choice of room mates.<P>There is such a thing as 'the near occasion of sin'. This is a Roman Catholic term meaning basically putting yourself in harm's way, or what alcoholics call 'enabling'. The assumption is that you are more likely to fall into what many consider a sinful relationship (meaning unmarried sex) if you live with someone, if for no other reason than that you have more opportunities for sex.<P>If it adds anything, I believe that marriages where the partners lived together before getting married divorce at a higher rate than those who did not. Dr. Harley talks about this as carrying over the dating mindset into a committed relationship. I expect there are other factors involved as well.<P>I hope this helps. I am not sure I am understanding everything in this thread.<P><BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rs0522:<BR><B>I am not sure I am understanding everything in this thread.<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Your not the only one.

Then if understanding has not been found an attempt to learn of the TRUTH instead of attempting to fashion it within the boundaries of your own pre-conceptions might allow it to reveal itself.<P><BR>By saying that it is a sin (or wrong) to live with someone of the opposite gender... be it as room mates or in leading to marriage is both ignorant and closed minded.<P>Why?<P>Because people DO have something called will power... they CAN hold back from having sex and in some cases they might not WANT to even have sex...<P>Yet a large number of people will automatically judge and condemn them, assume they have done it and brush them aside... after all isn't that EXACTLY what some people in answering this thread did? AUTOMATICALLY assume sex was involved?<P>rs0522? Why did you mention "sex" when describing the difference between platonic living together and "heading towards marriage"?<P>Is it inconceivable that two people who are seeking to marry in the future would live together PURELY platonically in order to find out if they are compatible?<P>Jumping to conclusions like this is the whole reason why the world is SOOooo judgemental while standing on their pillars of purity claiming they judge no-one. Western society has a lot to answer for.

Hi folks,<P><BR> I make it a point not to say much on the forums as a moderator because usually folks here are understanding, supportive, and as often as possible, quite helpful. <P>This thread and a few other recent ones have had some unpleasant overtones of one poster acusing another of being ignorant and/or unintelligent. <P>This forum pretty well polices itself so I happily have very few occasions to bring behaviour like this to anyone's attention.I certainly hope we can all be a little more courteous and caring for one another, since we all have the same purpose here. We are not experts, we're searchers - no one should get blasted for not having the "right" answer.<P>I've been on the forum quite a while and have found many kindred spirits. Until we can get our problems worked out, we may have to find solace in that.<P>Lets all try to be nice to each other. (Don't make me come up there!).--------------<BR>**edit**

First off, I apologize to anyone I have offended. E-mails don't always sound the way they were intended to, so if I have been rude or disrespectful, I am sincerely sorry.<P>As to why I assumed people who are living together in contemplation of marriage are not platonic, this is based on my experience. All or almost all of the people I know (friends, family members) who lived together in contemplation of marriage were having sex. One of the reasons I have heard cited for living together is as a test of sexual compatibility, as well as a test of the other aspects of a relationship. <P>The results as I understand them are that this is not a good test. Marriage is different enough from living together that those who live together, decide they are compatible, and get married, then get divorced at a rate higher than those who decide they are compatible without living together. The reasons for this are probably more complex than the one I cited (the dating mindset carrying over and creating a weaker commitment to the marriage), but I don't think they would fit into one e-mail.<P>The other reason that people assume that living together as a test of compatibility involves sex is the increased opportunities that living together affords for having sex. This is one reason why married people live together. This is what I was clumsily trying to get at with my mention of putting yourself into temptation's way. A couple may move in together with every intention of being platonic, but biology often overcomes even the best intentions. This is not to insult anyone's willpower; it is simply an observation of what has happened to others.<P>If you are in fact going to be able to live with someone as a test of compatibility without having sex, well, good luck to you. It is our experience that this does not often turn out successfully, but you might beat the odds. If you wanted our advice, there it was, for whatever it is worth. <P>Again I apologize if I sound judgemental or harsh. This is after all a marriage forum, and you are going to encounter a lot of people here with a preference for marriage over living together. There is also a great deal of experience, both good and bad, and you are always welcome to avail yourself of it if you like.<P>And, if you don't mind one more Bible quote, may the Lord bless you!<P>Regards,<BR>rs0522<P>

Valiant.<P>"By saying that it is a sin (or wrong) to live with someone of the opposite gender... be it as room mates or in leading to marriage is both ignorant and closed minded."<P>I assume this is the comment you are referring to. I am sure as you can read it does not "accuse" anyone of being ignorant or unintelligent it simply puts forward a statement that I believe. If people wish to consider themselves the one that was aimed at then are they not calling themselves ignorant and unitelligent by feeling it is meant for them?<P>I could say "criminals are stupid"... if someone took offense to that does that mean I called Fred stupid? Or does that mean Fred considers himself a criminal?<P>But I do see your point Valiant... I *would* however like to point out that although you are making it known directing comments at each other in certain "overtones" is not acceptable (to which I shall bite my tongue) I feel it would ALSO be only fair to inform people that not ALL of us are Christian and that having the Bible quoted at us (6-7 times in some posts) is offensive to others and just as they should not have to put up with offense... neither should WE.<P>I do not go around quoting passages out of bhudism or Hindu to these people and I am sure they would not appreciate it if I did... the last thing I think people need is to have a religion quoted at them in a place that SHOULD be gender-neutral, religion-neutral, political-neutral and all the rest.<P>rs0522: Interesting point you raised and I think you have actually highlighted the crux of the problem.<P>"It has been my experience that this means sex is involved"<P>What you are basically saying here is that the only thing that matters when you make your mind up (a judgement if you like) is what YOUR personal experience has been.<P>Looking at what you last wrote would suggest that these people your experience was talking about lived at home with their parents (re chances of sex are better when moving in rather than where they were), probably christian or at least of that leaning and considered themselves to be "vulnerable" when around the opposite sex.<P>Should that mean its the case everywhere and that it is "beating the odds"?<P>Testing sex takes only a few days (not wanting to get graphic) but testing living together takes months. I am sure you are aware that the majority of people still have sex while living at home with their parents so they dont need to live together to find that out... and surely if these people want to wait until marriage and truely care for each other then living together wouldn't be a problem....<P>But it does seem the overlying thought here is that two people cannot live together without being tempted... Funny that... we seem to be able to work next to the other gender ALL day long and not even have the faintest desire to bed every man/woman in the office... but just because we see each other for breakfast and again for dinner then retire to seperate rooms we are in mortal danger of wanting to jump in bed with them.<P>I hope that sounds as ridiculous to you as it does to me

all I know about the subject is that I lived in a platonic relationship with a friend of mine as roomates....seperate rooms, seperate lives, the whole nine yards...<P>the only problem we ever had was the fact that others REFUSED to believe it was platonic.....even his parents...we would get the old, eyebrows up in the air, snide jokes and comments....<P>it was unbelievable to me that no one would or COULD believe that two adults of the opposite gender could share a living space without sex being involved....<P>we lived together for a year....and when we each got our own place later, everyone assumed that we had 'broken up'....I even got a tearful call from his mom saying how sorry she was...how much she had liked me, and how he would be sorry later for 'letting me get away'....<P>LOL...<P>it's other people's perceptions that get to me...how dare anyone not believe me???..I don't lie, but no one could see that we could indeed live in a platonic manner....I mena, there was NEVER a hint of tension..sexual or otherwise....<P>Dylan

soulloss:<P>And as long as we have people that refuse to look at what is THERE rather than what they THINK is there the problem will NOT go away.<P>Word of Wisdom :<P>"People are stupid. They believe something is true because they WANT it to be true or because they FEAR that it is true"<P>I tried explaining this to someone on this post (;-P) but he "WANTED" to believe something else

Thanks for reading my post LostSoul - <P>Though a religion neutral, gender neutral forum may be some people's idea of an ideal forum, that's not what my message was referring to.<P>We do need to be tolerant of other people's views - so if you wanted to quote passages from Hindu or Buddist sources, that's fine. Some folks will continue to quote scripture, some will answer that some form of meditation does them good.<P>My admonition was simply to be polite to each other. No one's opinion is less valuable here. No one is to be belittled because their answer doesn't measure up to another's standards.<P>This IS a moderated forum - no one will be censored for expressing their personal beliefs. Insults, and rude comments will not be tolerated however.<P>------------------<BR><B>Valiant</B>, Moderator<BR>Marriage Builders Forum<p>[This message has been edited by Valiant (edited March 06, 2000).]