Bad Relationship, Partner Trust & Cheating Cheating on your mates?

[Unregistered 015 0]

When two people are merried or in commited relationship they should be faitfull, but if it is only girlfriend/boyfriend situation, why not do it with someone else if you like them too?

[Joshua 0]

Well, as far as I'm concerned "partner" is synonymous with "spouse" to some individuals.  It is not my place for me to tell them any different.  In addition,  I don't believe it would be any less complicated if people just didn't have sex before marriage, because you can emotionally cheat on someone.  The jealousy and possession factor will still remain.  Someone will still get hurt.

 

In the same token, not everyone will become androids and keep to this fantasy rule "No sex before marriage."  You can bet that while someone is staying true to this rule, the other person can still very well cheat on them and have sex with someone else.  Then where does that leave the other person?  Will it still be any less complicated for them, because they never had sex?  That would be a big "NO."

 

So, with that said, people are going to be people, and will continue to act like they lost their mind.  I just know that my husband better not ever cheat on me.  We have an understanding.  If you want to go be with someone else, it's time to split up, period.  Just let the other person know it's over, before you go disrespect the relationship like that.  That way, respect will still be kept for the other person.

174447[/snapback]

While I accept the Bible as an authority and know it doesn't equate "partner" with "spouse" the simple fact of the matter is that "partners" do not have the bond to each other which marriage brings, which is why I'm surprised that they should expect any kind of devotion or commitment from the other person to them.

 

Personally I think it's precisely the sex factor that makes jealousy and the possession factor so heightened. The Bible says that through marriage a man and woman become one flesh, I think nonmarital sex creates something of the same effect but without the bond to each other. Thus the other person feels that a part of them is being used but without the bond the other person is not obliged to act as such.

 

Emotional "cheating" can still happen but I highly doubt most people will be as jealous, if jealous at all, if they're assured the other person is not sexually involved with anyone else.

 

You're other argument, that it's ok because the other person will probably do it is not an argument at all in my mind. It's like attacking another country because they "might" attack you. Doing evil is never right irregardless of what good may come out of it, the Bible makes that plain in Romans 3:8.

 

With your final paragraph, what if one wants to split up and the other doesn't? The Bible says divorcing is always wrong unless the other person was sexually unfaithful (fornication). You see, marriage means the two became one, and the Bible says that what God therefore has joined together, let noone break apart. Sexual activity for any reason other then divorce because of the other person's unfaithfulness is impinging on something that belongs to the other person-you.

 

That's what God intended marriage to be, a sacred bond where both people belong to each other, and what should make it so intimate. Disagree with me if you like, but I strongly believe that doing so is defiling something that belongs to the other person, no matter what some man-based court may say.

[Milovoriel 0]

Fun is highly overrated

No it isn't .... well, not the fun I have anyway ....

 

and you can have plenty of fun without acquiring an STD .... I'm certainly not advocating unsafe sex .... that would be ridiculous!

 

Cheerie .... ~M~

[Joshua 0]

No it isn't .... well, not the fun I have anyway ....

 

and you can have plenty of fun without acquiring an STD .... I'm certainly not advocating unsafe sex .... that would be ridiculous!

 

Cheerie .... ~M~

174847[/snapback]

When sex involves 2 or more partners how can it be safe? I read about how the latex gloves that are basically the same material condoms are made of can't keep the STD germs or whatever from going through them. They can go right through gloves and the safest way is simply abstinence before marriage (and it needs 2 people to work).

 

Anyway, it seems like that's a common misconception that using a condom makes it safe.... Any thoughts?

[msdeeva 0]

While I accept the Bible as an authority and know it doesn't equate "partner" with "spouse" the simple fact of the matter is that "partners" do not have the bond to each other which marriage brings, which is why I'm surprised that they should expect any kind of devotion or commitment from the other person to them.

 

Personally I think it's precisely the sex factor that makes jealousy and the possession factor so heightened.  The Bible says that through marriage a man and woman become one flesh, I think nonmarital sex creates something of the same effect but without the bond to each other.  Thus the other person feels that a part of them is being used but without the bond the other person is not obliged to act as such. 

 

Emotional "cheating" can still happen but I highly doubt most people will be as jealous, if jealous at all, if they're assured the other person is not sexually involved with anyone else.

 

You're other argument, that it's ok because the other person will probably do it is not an argument at all in my mind.  It's like attacking another country because they "might" attack you.  Doing evil is never right irregardless of what good may come out of it, the Bible makes that plain in Romans 3:8. 

 

With your final paragraph, what if one wants to split up and the other doesn't?  The Bible says divorcing is always wrong unless the other person was sexually unfaithful (fornication).  You see, marriage means the two became one, and the Bible says that what God therefore has joined together, let noone break apart.  Sexual activity for any reason other then divorce because of the other person's unfaithfulness is impinging on something that belongs to the other person-you. 

 

That's what God intended marriage to be, a sacred bond where both people belong to each other, and what should make it so intimate.  Disagree with me if you like, but I strongly believe that doing so is defiling something that belongs to the other person, no matter what some man-based court may say.

174468[/snapback]

See, I think you are trying to get into a theological debate. I never said that those things are not the values that I hold true to myself. I, myself, am Christian, thereforer, much of what you are saying -- I agree with. But I'm also realistic, I know that there are other people that do not follow the Christian faith. All of what you are saying will be null and void, as far as they are concerned.

 

And being that I am Christian, and therefore not allowed to judge others, I do not pass judgement on other people because they have pre-marital sex. That is their choice, and has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.

 

As far as the jealousy thing: I do know for a fact that just because you aren't sleeping with someone, does not eliminate the jealousy factor. So does the bible say that you cannot kiss? I know if I wasn't married and I was in a committed relationship with someone, and all we did was kiss, I would feel betrayed if I saw him kissing someone else. That's just the way it is. You can still have very strong feelings for someone even if you're not sleeping with someone. For example, King Henry VIII, divorced his first wife, and got ex-communicated from the Catholic Church, just so that he could marry Anne Boelyn, who he never got to have sex with until their wedding night.

 

And as far as divorce goes, much of those "rules" that you are speaking of are being taken out of context in today's world. So are you saying that just so long as a man doesn't fornicate, a couple has to stay married? So he can beat her then, is that what you're telling me? There are plenty of women that would beg to differ. Violence in marriage is definitely another deal breaker as far as I'm concerned. And if you want to tell me that I'm not Christian if I would leave my husband if he ever laid a hand on me, I'd ask you one simple question, "Who are you to judge me? God?" I think not. I refuse to let a violent marriage into my life, and would leave in a heart beat. No one should let another person endanger their life, even if they are married to him/her!

[msdeeva 0]

When sex involves 2 or more partners how can it be safe?  I read about how the latex gloves that are basically the same material condoms are made of can't keep the STD germs or whatever from going through them.  They can go right through gloves and the safest way is simply abstinence before marriage (and it needs 2 people to work). 

 

Anyway, it seems like that's a common misconception that using a condom makes it safe....  Any thoughts?

174923[/snapback]

Ok, I think you should stop relaying false information. If latex gloves can't keep STDs from going through them, I believe that doctors and nurses would stop working. I'm a new graduate RN, so I think I know a little bit about Universal Precautions and the use of latex gloves when dealing with bodily fluids. You can rest assured that if we healthcare workers were being easily exposed even after putting on latex gloves, or synthetic ones, we would probably stop working, and all patients in the hospitals would be at risk of contracting, HIV, HPV, or any other STIs, ok.

 

If you want to start spreading rumors about that, maybe you should tell everyone the safest thing is to not end up in the hospital, because all the nurses/doctors/healthcare workers will have been exposed to STIs, and will expose you too.

 

I think you should really start reading some medical/health journals before you decide to comment on stuff like this. Just a thought.

 

(STIs: sexually transmitted infections - the new "correct" verbage)

[thablkpanda 0]

Cheating in a so-called exclusive relationship I'd call wrong.Seeing as the main ingredient in a relationship in my opinion is Trust, then breaking that 'trust' is pretty much breaking your relationship.I thought STI/STD would be a NOUN.. lol

[Joshua 0]

Ok, I think you should stop relaying false information.  If latex gloves can't keep STDs from going through them, I believe that doctors and nurses would stop working.  I'm a new graduate RN, so I think I know a little bit about Universal Precautions and the use of latex gloves when dealing with bodily fluids.  You can rest assured that if we healthcare workers were being easily exposed even after putting on latex gloves, or synthetic ones, we would probably stop working, and all patients in the hospitals would be at risk of contracting, HIV, HPV, or any other STIs, ok. 

 

If you want to start spreading rumors about that, maybe you should tell everyone the safest thing is to not end up in the hospital, because all the nurses/doctors/healthcare workers will have been exposed to STIs, and will expose you too.

 

I think you should really start reading some medical/health journals before you decide to comment on stuff like this. Just  a thought.

 

(STIs:  sexually transmitted infections - the new "correct" verbage)

174971[/snapback]

I never said anything about it being a rumor, I read a study about it in a magazine recently, I think it was USA Weekend if I recall correctly. I did a search and found condoms don't stop HPV, although that's not what I'm looking for:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

If I find it again I'll show you, if I'd known I'd be quoting it I'd have kept the article at the time.

[Joshua 0]

See, I think you are trying to get into a theological debate.  I never said that those things are not the values that I hold true to myself.  I, myself, am Christian, thereforer, much of what you are saying -- I agree with.  But I'm also realistic, I know that there are other people that do not follow the Christian faith.  All of what you are saying will be null and void, as far as they are concerned.

 

And being that I am Christian, and therefore not allowed to judge others, I do not pass judgement on other people because they have pre-marital sex.  That is their choice, and has no bearing on how I choose to live my life. 

 

As far as the jealousy thing: I do know for a fact that just because you aren't sleeping with someone, does not eliminate the jealousy factor.  So does the bible say that you cannot kiss?  I know if I wasn't married and I was in a committed relationship with someone, and all we did was kiss, I would feel betrayed if I saw him kissing someone else.  That's just the way it is.  You can still have very strong feelings for someone even if you're not sleeping with someone.  For example, King Henry VIII, divorced his first wife, and got ex-communicated from the Catholic Church, just so that he could marry Anne Boelyn, who he never got to have sex with until their wedding night. 

 

And as far as divorce goes, much of those "rules" that you are speaking of are being taken out of context in today's world. So are you saying that just so long as a man doesn't fornicate, a couple has to stay married?  So he can beat her then, is that what you're telling me?  There are plenty of women that would beg to differ.  Violence in marriage is definitely another deal breaker as far as I'm concerned.  And if you want to tell me that I'm not Christian if I would leave my husband if he ever laid a hand on me, I'd ask you one simple question, "Who are you to judge me? God?"  I think not.  I refuse to let a violent marriage into my life, and would leave in a heart beat.  No one should let another person endanger their life, even if they are married to him/her!

174969[/snapback]

Christ said not to judge, He also said not to judge according to appearance but to judge righteous judgement? Why don't you explain just what you think He meant in both cases by the word "judge"?

 

The Bible says just lusting after someone you're not married to is adultery. I don't get what your Catholic reference meant, I thought we were talking about Christianity here...

 

Ultimately it comes down to whether you obey God or your own judgement I guess. You yourself say that by your own judgement you think God should have added another "deal breaker," but as the Bible says, let God be true, and every man a liar.

[msdeeva 0]

I never said anything about it being a rumor, I read a study about it in a magazine recently, I think it was USA Weekend if I recall correctly.  I did a search and found condoms don't stop HPV, although that's not what I'm looking for:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

If I find it again I'll show you, if I'd known I'd be quoting it I'd have kept the article at the time.

175359[/snapback]

The reason why condoms don't stop HPV, is because The HPV virus creates warts, therefore if you have HPV on let's say your scrotum, you can definitely pass it on from skin to skin contact. Only the penis is protected, the scrotum however is not. When in the hospital, though, I would definitely use latex gloves when dealing with any patient that had HPV, and that would protect my skin from contracting it. Do you understand the correlation? Skin-to-Skin contact versus blood-born/bodily fluid pathogens. They are two different modes of infection. So you are definitely correct, you can still easily contract HPV if you use a condom, only because the mode of infection is through skin-to-skin contact as well as blood born. If you have any more questions or are confused about something, don't hesitate to drop me a line. I would be more than happy to explain it to you.

 

As for the article that you saw, please post the article when you find it, including the source.

 

Thanks.

[leiaah 0]

Death Lock, a lot of people think that cheating is bad and they have every reason to think that way. If two people both agreed to be in a relationship then they must have both assumed to exclusively see each other otherwise what's the purpose of getting into a relationship?

[msdeeva 0]

Christ said not to judge, He also said not to judge according to appearance but to judge righteous judgement?  Why don't you explain just what you think He meant in both cases by the word "judge"? 

 

The Bible says just lusting after someone you're not married to is adultery.  I don't get what your Catholic reference meant, I thought we were talking about Christianity here...

 

Ultimately it comes down to whether you obey God or your own judgement I guess.  You yourself say that by your own judgement you think God should have added another "deal breaker," but as the Bible says, let God be true, and every man a liar.

175362[/snapback]

First of all, you are putting words in my mouth. Never did I say, God should have added another deal breaker. I said, I wouldn't stay married if my husband put my life in danger. Sorry if that goes against "your" religion. You, as an individual, are free to interpret the Bible how you want. I know in my heart that God wouldn't want me to let my husband beat on me or threaten my life (i.e. Marcus Wesson who killed his nine children in Fresno, California). If you think otherwise, then that's your opinion, and you will be judged when the day comes.

 

As far as judgement goes, I read in Corinthians, that we are not to judge people by their actions. If they are not leading a righteous path, we are to disassociate ourselves from them. I found this after have a so called "theological" debate with an individual who had a Masters in Theology, who could not show me any passage in the Bible that said we are allowed to judge others. After he was trying to draw his own conclusions from various "metaphors" he chose from the Bible, I was led to a passage that clearly stated that we are not to judge (which just so happened to be in the same area as a passage he was showing me). If I find the scripture, I will definitely post it so that you can read it for yourself.

 

As far as the Catholic reference, I was only pointing to the fact that strong feelings can exist for someone even if you're not sleeping with them. King Henry VIII had such strong feelings for someone he had never slept with, that he had his whole country excommunicated for the Catholic Church. You really need to read my post thoroughly before you post that you do not understand. So your reference to Christianity vs Catholisism is really off topic with the conversation at hand. But even if I was to address this newly proposed topic, I'm really shocked that you can't draw a simple parallel between Christianity and Catholisism. They are historically tied to each other. You need to do a little research. For goodness sake, we use the same Bible. Or you didn't know that either?

[msdeeva 0]

I never said anything about it being a rumor, I read a study about it in a magazine recently, I think it was USA Weekend if I recall correctly.  I did a search and found condoms don't stop HPV, although that's not what I'm looking for:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

If I find it again I'll show you, if I'd known I'd be quoting it I'd have kept the article at the time.

175359[/snapback]

I also wanted to add that I tend not to trust medical information from a publicly traded newspaper. Most of my medical information comes from medical and nursing journals. You cannot rely on one study for accurate medical information, because there are a lot of variables involved. If you have taken a statistics course you'll know what I mean. As far as the article, I would still like a link. In the meantime, I will be scouring the web for said information.

 

Thanks.

[msdeeva 0]

I never said anything about it being a rumor, I read a study about it in a magazine recently, I think it was USA Weekend if I recall correctly.  I did a search and found condoms don't stop HPV, although that's not what I'm looking for:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

If I find it again I'll show you, if I'd known I'd be quoting it I'd have kept the article at the time.

175359[/snapback]

Ok,

 

I found something that alludes to the fact that the President is going to use a study conducted by the government that shows that there is no conclusive evidence that latex condoms protect against STDs. Well, duh, if not used properly, condoms will probabl,y most likely, not work.

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

What I haven't found was what you tried to say earlier: Pathogens (microorganisms) can pass through an intact latex condom/glove. Please, I am begging you, show me a study that states that. I would love to see it

[Joshua 0]

First of all, you are putting words in my mouth.  Never did I say, God should have added another deal breaker.  I said, I wouldn't stay married if my husband put my life in danger.  Sorry if that goes against "your" religion.  You, as an individual, are free to interpret the Bible how you want.  I know in my heart that God wouldn't want me to let my husband beat on me or threaten my life (i.e. Marcus Wesson who killed his nine children in Fresno, California).  If you think otherwise, then that's your opinion, and you will be judged when the day comes.

I don't have a religion, a religion is man trying to work His way to God. I'm a Christian. I follow what the Bible says, what Christ told me, and which you are clearly against. Christ clearly says that any reason for divorce other then for fornication is committing adultery:

 

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

As far as judgement goes, I read in Corinthians, that we are not to judge people by their actions.  If they are not leading a righteous path, we are to disassociate ourselves from them.  I found this after have a so called "theological" debate with an individual who had a Masters in Theology, who could not show me any passage in the Bible that said we are allowed to judge others.  After he was trying to draw his own conclusions from various "metaphors" he chose from the Bible, I was led to a passage that clearly stated that we are not to judge (which just so happened to be in the same area as a passage he was showing me).  If I find the scripture, I will definitely post it so that you can read it for yourself.

Umm... you mean this???

 

1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Well, this is a very good passage for showing that we SHOULD judge people by their actions... Are you SURE this is what you're thinking of?

 

Because it would be highly ironic if so. Here Paul is specifically stating that those in a lifestyle contrary to the Gospel are living in rebellion against God and as he says those that are within the Church are judged by them. (verse 12) The Bible in Basic English translation for verses 12 you might find easier to understand:

 

1 Corinthians 5:12 For it is no business of mine to be judging those who are outside; but it is yours to be judging those who are among you;

So you see my friend, while this passage is again vulnerable to the same critique I made earlier, of what is meant by "judging" (whether as condemnation or a simple moral evaluation) the passage clearly states that those that are within the Church are indeed to be judged in the sense that they can be not included in the Church so long as they continue living in active rebellion to Christ, unrepentant sin involving the aforementioned sins. What you've effectively just done is led us to one of the best passages for evidence of why we SHOULD judge within the Church, and that is why I laughed

 

As far as the Catholic reference, I was only pointing to the fact that strong feelings can exist for someone even if you're not sleeping with them.  King Henry VIII had such strong feelings for someone he had never slept with, that he had his whole country excommunicated for the Catholic Church.  You really need to read my post thoroughly before you post that you do not understand.  So your reference to Christianity vs Catholisism is really off topic with the conversation at hand.  But even if I was to address this newly proposed topic, I'm really shocked that you can't draw a simple parallel between Christianity and Catholisism.  They are historically tied to each other.  You need to do a little research. For goodness sake, we use the same Bible.  Or you didn't know that either? 

175477[/snapback]

But did Henry know any consequences would follow of his choice? Yes, strong feelings can exist, that can be simple lust, and he did end up sleeping with the woman, didn't he? I still fail to see your point there. *shrugs*

 

You are right that Catholocism and Christianity are drawn together, in that a lot of Christian saints have been persecuted by Catholocism as they were burned at the stake, murdered through horrible tortures during the Inquisition, turned out in the cold with their garments cut short to freeze to death, etc... So yes, I'll grant you that, there is a connection in that the Catholic Church is more responsible for the deaths of Christians then any other institution in the world.

 

Well, good to hear you use a KJV I suppose. *shrugs*