• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Do moral women exist?

Discussing,

In most cases viral (including STD's) and bactirial diseases arn't in the face, mouth, or throat per se, they are in the blood or in the directly infected area. The diseases need a growth medium to survive and that medium is normally blood because blood provides nourishment, but may be other fluids or tissue, it is not normally saliva because saliva breaks things down. Unless its something that embeds itself in the soft tissue (and thus creates noticeable sores of some kind) the chance of transmitting an infection is nil. Even with a soft tissue infection (like herpes) the disease would not spread via saliva but via direct contact with the sore (by the tongue, for example)

What of the rest of my post?
 
Tlaloc said:
Discussing,

In most cases viral (including STD's) and bactirial diseases arn't in the face, mouth, or throat per se, they are in the blood or in the directly infected area. The diseases need a growth medium to survive and that medium is normally blood because blood provides nourishment, but may be other fluids or tissue, it is not normally saliva because saliva breaks things down. Unless its something that embeds itself in the soft tissue (and thus creates noticeable sores of some kind) the chance of transmitting an infection is nil. Even with a soft tissue infection (like herpes) the disease would not spread via saliva but via direct contact with the sore (by the tongue, for example)

What of the rest of my post?
Click to expand...

Tlaloc said:
Even with a soft tissue infection (like herpes) the disease would not spread via saliva but via direct contact with the sore (by the tongue, for example)
Click to expand...

So if you stuck your tongue in the mouth of someone with a STD in their mouth you could get an STD by kissing? I heard some STD's can get spread into the eyes after touching something in some online articles I just read, but I do not know if they are accurate, that is why I merely said I heard and some articles instead of such and such a reputable source by so and so.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Chlamydia-%28 ... &id=256085

Oh by the way I am not saying that people should not get tested before marriage simply that being tested as STD free does not mean someone really is STD free so it is better for men to marry Virgin women, or women to marry a man who only initiated marriage with virgin women and did not have sex outside of marriage. Now about marrying widows it would be safest only to marry a widow that originally married a man that only initiated marriage with virgin women, and the type of widows I just described and did not have sex outside marriage. If society followed those rules, STD's would be much less common. Not to mention that God has rules against sexual immorality that should be followed, for moral reasons regardless of if someone gets or does not get a disease.

About the rest of your post. The reason I mentioned questioning if a certain SPECIFIC section of John was in the original text is because unlike the rest of the CORE of the text it's location is not stable. The core of the text was unchanged and clearly the original but a few portions like that one from John is probably not in the original text in my opinion.
 
Isabella said:
discussingthetopic said:
Please consider watching the following video which explains how condoms do not protect against various diseases.

Safe Sex Is A Myth / Sex Education Video by rosemaryvivianne on youtube
Click to expand...

Who the heck is this woman when she is at home and why would I take her advice (unbiased and without agenda I am sure it is) over my own doctor or my own common sense? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

You do not have to take her word for it she was referring to a study done by other people, who are more qualified than her. You can go and look up studies such as the one she mentioned or other studies and find out that condoms do not actually prevent the spread of 100% of STD's, 100% of the time during sex.

Furthermore it is more important to avoid ending up in a lake of burning fire. Someone with a bad attitude toward God will, end up with the result of their attitude luring them to unlawful sex outside marriage and that person, if they do not change their attitude toward God will end up in a lake of burning fire.

If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:15 NIV

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
Revelation 21:8 NIV

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Mathew 5:27-30 NIV
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
You do not have to take her word for it she was referring to a study done by other people, who are more qualified than her.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but the ability to read does not make her any more of an authority than I am.

It is still nothing more than an opinion and I am afraid it is still not good enough.

You can still be a virgin having kissed someone.

You can still have herpes and be a virgin.

You can contact the herpes from someone in a non-sexual situation.
You can also pass that infection on in a sexual way therefore causing an STD.

No, condoms won't protect you from that but neither will virginity.
 
Safest only to marry a widow that originally married a man that only initiated marriage with virgin women,
Click to expand...

How on earth do you suppose that you will find that out? Will you contact the dead or take someone who knew him at his/her word? It is insanely unrealistic and I don't understand why you can't see that? At the end of the day if a man is dead he can't tell you that he only married virgins AND was a virgin when he married. You have to trust someone and you have no idea if at some point someone along the line lied. Also, it doesn't matter what STD it is and whether you can get it when kissing (unlikely btw) it still leaves a trace and will be picked up with comprehensive testing (which people should be doing anyway but rarely do).

As I said before, you have the right to choose who you marry but your reasoning is flawed, why not just say this is what you want to do and leave it at that?
 
Isabella said:
it still leaves a trace and will be picked up with comprehensive testing (which people should be doing anyway but rarely do).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You mean like during the time when the first people had HIV, how it was instantly found on a STD test, before people even knew HIV existed?

I am not against testing, it simply will not protect you if you fool around with people outside of marriage. Testing can be done as an additional means to improve safety, but it can not take the place of following God's guidelines for marriage and marrying other people who have respected those guidelines.
 
Preach on Lissa!!!! Just a few thoughts to think about . If i were a single woman or a widow looking to find out more information on Plural Marriage and I came upon this subject and read what some of the men wrote on here, I would leave this site and wonder where all the Godly MEN were. I think we turn away a lot of people with some of our holier than thou attitudes and the need of some of the people on here to always be right.
We all have expectations for the person we are going to marry but sometimes we have such high expectations that we might miss the one that God has hand picked for us because that person does not meet certain criteria that we want or desire. If you are a man and want to marry a virgin then you should be one yourself. What right do you have to expect your wife to be pure and you are not? I think that is what is called a double standard , is it not?
I sin , you sin, we all sin but we as Believers have a few things that are available only to Believers. These are but a few of the many... Forgiveness, Mercy, Grace , Compassion and Redemption. Wake up out there and see how many Godly women are in the world looking for a God fearing husband who will love them for who she is and not only love her because she is a Virgin. Again I will ask "Where are all the Godly men?"
I am blessed to have found a Godly man who loves me in spite of my failures and flaws. He knows I am not perfect and I am rebellious at times and am not always submissive But I have no doubt in my mind that he loves me and he protects me from what can harm me, even when it is I who brings the harm upon myself. I am a work in progress that God has to chip away at to make me the woman I need to be but then again we are all a work in progress!
Chaplains Rose
 
Only if said STD had an active soft tissue infection that you would generally already know about and you really pushed it. Like Isabella said, unlikely. Eyes are very susceptible to diseases, its conjectured that rubbing the eyes after shaking a hand or something are a major way communicable diseases like cold or flu get around.

Either way this line of discussion is a terrible reason to want to marry only a virgin or widow, as it has been pointed out that either of those may have an STD (and there are quite a few they may have)

To that end, there is very little you can do to protect yourself from unknown diseases of any kind...

If John 8:11 is in the Bible I might consider your point, but if it is not in the original text, it is not in the original text therefor.... I do not mean to be rude.
Click to expand...

Before I corrected you you didn't know it was there at all. Now your gripe is

it's location is not stable.
Click to expand...

But I explained the likely reason it is not stable, and interestingly enough that reason is the very same reason you don't like that text. But 'your opinion' brushes around the question 'if it was not in the original, why did the church copies leave white space for it?' But of course you are happy to reject that section of John and make a case against it, but are not so eager to accept that 'upright' does not have roots in the original text of Ecclesiastics 7:28. Hmmm...
 
It seems that this discussion has degenerated into a battle of differing opinions rather than a discussion of biblical principle. Personal preferences aside, there is no reason not to marry any eligible woman provided you as the husband can provide for her properly. When I was young and ignorant, I thought I would marry a virgin - I grew out of it.
 
You think its gone down to differing opinions? I thought questioning the validity of quite a few verses in John was a matter of principle, its why I got involved in this undesirable topic in the first place. The improper (and frankly quite nasty) use of Ecclesiastes as tied to the thread title is a matter of principle as well.
 
Yep, I think it would be wise to adjust the direction this post.

Let's steer away from the argument over STD's and peripheral issues of such and either move back to the issue of discussing morality and where to actually locate moral women who indeed do love the Lord, or open a new thread if needed for another topic.

So back to the disussion on finding moral women. . . . .

Dr. Allen
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
So if you stuck your tongue in the mouth of someone with a STD in their mouth you could get an STD by kissing? I heard some STD's can get spread into the eyes after touching something in some online articles I just read, but I do not know if they are accurate, that is why I merely said I heard and some articles instead of such and such a reputable source by so and so.
Click to expand...

You know, I really think you're obsessing about this too much and it's making you appear more than a little narcissistic. How about having some faith in God and believing that He will bring the right wife/wives to you, in His timing ?? Trust Him, He's the expert !
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Many years ago a missionary to Micronesia preached at our church and gave his testimony. As a native of the island of Ponape', he returned there as a single man to start a church. At the end of a year he baptized 100 people, one of whom he later married. They were a wonderful family. It is my opinion that what I have read recommended elsewhere on this forum, is a great practice of doing the work Of God and letting Him provide. Evangelize, witness, win the lost to Christ. Among them, God will provide a woman to be a wife. There is no one so pure as one who has been washed in the Blood of the Lamb, one who has been Born-Again, one who has been made a New Creature in Christ Jesus. Morality that has any real value, is that which is the result of a soul come to love our Living, Wonderful Lord. If Christ Jesus loves her, why should we not also love her as He does. I fear the emphasis upon demanding a virgin can be taken too far. To go beyond preference, to demand, is unhealthy for a Spirit filled believer. God's choice is always better. Bought by the Blood of Christ, cleansed and renewed, precious in His sight is an excellent recommendation for any woman, can't get any better than that. Methinks that the insistence on a particular status of a woman as wife material is selfish and ego-centric in nature and something we should get over. Marriage is not about what we get, but what we can give. Look at the non-virgin brides in the genealogy of Jesus, Tamar, Ruth, Rahab and Boaz. The only women mentioned in His genealogy are those who had aspersions cast upon their morality, but were included to display the marvelous scope of God's grace. Who would not be blessed to husband women like these. My personal experience: As a young man I was engaged to a sweet lovely Christian girl, she was my choice. She was not God's choice, He knew things I didn't. Through circumstances (I now believe orchestrated by God) we broke up. This broke my heart and drew me closer to my Lord. Less than a year later, while on church visitation, I met a wonderful young lady, Sonja Teague, she was a very sweet Christian with a lot of strength, heart and perseverence. That night, I thought, "I've got to get to know her better". Forty-four years later, I'm still getting to know her better. She was God's choice. It's true, "Father Knows Best". First things first.
 
John Whitten said:
There is no one so pure as one who has been washed in the Blood of the Lamb, one who has been Born-Again, one who has been made a New Creature in Christ Jesus. Morality that has any real value, is that which is the result of a soul come to love our Living, Wonderful Lord. If Christ Jesus loves her, why should we not also love her as He does.
Click to expand...

John, I think the above quote has to be one of the most beautiful statements I have ever read ! It is also filled with TRUTH ! As far as I'm concerned, this statement says it all. :D
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Amen John, after all the discussion, a lot of which strayed way away from the topic header, you have brought it back to center and hit the nail on the head. Man or woman, being washed in the Blood of the Lamb of God is the only thing that can make us pure. No physical state of virginity matters to Him as much as our acceptance of the Son - which, in the end, should be the criteria we use when choosing a mate. Is she a believer? Is is His will that we join together? Under the law of Moses, being virgin at marriage meant she was a follower of the law. For us as Christians, what is important is that she be a follower of Christ.
 
Amen, Pastor John. Your words remind me of 1 John 1:9.

What a blessing that any woman, or man for that matter, can find total healing and cleansing through our beloved Head, Christ.

Allen
 
It might be morally wrong to love someone because they are smart, rich, strong, or pretty/handsome. Because you should love someone even if they are not those things.

Would it be wrong to marry someone because they are smart, rich, strong, or pretty/handsome?

If the answer is yes it would be wrong motivation (regarding the reasons listed above)

Would it be wrong to marry someone on the basis of their morality or to refuse to marry someone who you do not consider moral enough?
 
Hummm....would it be wrong to refuse to marry someone who is not moral enough?

Perfect example, I believe, of what i'm talking about in the other forum thread with you. I'm not sure that is the proper question DTT.

What if Christ had said: "Father, is it ok to refuse to marry or unite with those humans because of their lack of morality?" Thank God he did not say that or all of us, every last one one us would have been doomed. But, from reading your post in the other forum I see you are working from a justice system instead of a grace system.

See DTT it works this way. However you view Christ and his love for his saints is the same ways you have to view man's love for his wife. The two run parallel based upon the way the bible presents the marriage metaphor in Scripture.

The morality issue is not how grace children look at it. Justice children look at it this way but not grace children. Grace children see all of us just as bad, just as condemned, just as hopeless, just as lost, just as evil, and just as rotten as every other person without the grace of Christ. For grace children we see the ACT as the FRUIT of the heart. Whereas in a true justice system people see the ACT as the matter of impotance that produces the just or unjust heart. The two directions are totally opposite of one another. In other words, grace children see the bad acts as flowing from a bad heart. Justice children see a good heart that sometimes does bad. Or they see a bad act creating a bad heart.

But from your other thread I see you are working on the system of justice, and thus it makes sense as to why you ask this question you do here.

The real question is, is person XYZ cleansed by grace and holy because of their union with the righteous Christ. It is not about a person's morality, or what we call a person's own justice or just standing. That is how justice children live but those who are grace children have a totally different worldview and outlook on life because grace children wear glasses of grace that view everyone through that lens.

Grace children start with the question of: "Are they in love with my greatest love, my head, Jesus Christ."
Justice children start with the question of: "Are they good enough or moral enough or just enough for me."

These are two different concepts, two different worlds, and two different systems of thought.

That DOES NOT mean grace child ignore morality. Oh to the contrary. Grace children look for morality but they see morality again as the FRUIT of a good heart. As Jesus said, a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, neither can a good tree bear bad fruit. bad trees produce bad fruit and good trees produce good fruit. What then is the difference? The heart! As one theologian said: "The matter of the heart is the heart of the matter." Grace children look to see what is in the heart and then see how that plays out in actions. Justice children look to the actions and then think the actions can change the heart. Like I said, two different worlds.

Allen
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
That DOES NOT mean grace child ignore morality. Oh to the contrary. Grace children look for morality but they see morality again as the FRUIT of a good heart.

Allen
Click to expand...

Would it be wrong to avoid marrying someone because they do not have enough fruit of a good heart, because you do not know if they have enough of a root of a good heart?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top