What's wrong with marrying a non-virgin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DlandFan06
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Norseman82 said:
It’s human nature to take offense when someone who plays by the rules loses out to those who do not.
Click to expand...
We are supposed to rise above our human nature, our animalistic instincts and follow the law of God. That’s the whole reason we are here, is it not?
 
austenbosten said:
My friend you need to be careful with jumping to conclusions and passing judgment. No one else on here made the assumption. You took my words to be used as a weapon against me.
Click to expand...
And you didn’t do the same (use my words as a weapon against me)?
 
David_Thorne said:
Our actions always echo throughout our lives whether we want to hear it or not. The spiritual world, yes, it is more important and a better reflection of who someone is, but the physical realm is still bound by the laws of the physical realm. We cannot escape that, no matter how hard we try.

The last part of your comment about him being or not being a “true Christian” wasn’t very nice, if I may be honest. I think a persecution complex has come into play here and that has led to bitter words being exchanged.
Click to expand...
I apologize, I did not mean it in an accusatory manner. I just mean that’s what a true Christian would do. And that’s the truth.
 
austenbosten said:
So are you using a Sola Scriptura argument? You are arguing against Church teaching with Scripture…and you lecture me on just being in RCIA. :confused:
Click to expand...
No, I’m not. Although we are saved by God, our works determined whether we stay saved or not. One mortal sin is enough to send a person to hell, according to official Catholic teaching.
 
Marie1234 said:
I apologize, I did not mean it in an accusatory manner. I just mean that’s what a true Christian would do. And that’s the truth.
Click to expand...
I’m still not convinced that that’s what he’s arguing here. I think we’ve all been a bit hasty in jumping on Norseman. It’s hard to defend a position and explain it at the same time while feeling under attack.
 
Marie1234 said:
We are supposed to rise above our human nature, our animalistic instincts and follow the law of God. That’s the whole reason we are here, is it not?
Click to expand...
That’s nice - on paper. But in motivating people, we need to remember how human nature works, since not everyone is at the desired level you speak of. In fact, for many (if not most) that level may not be achieved until we go through purgatory. In the meantime, are we going to recognize this human nature in ministering to people, or are we going to ignore it and in doing so, play with fire or ignore it completely?
 
No one is telling you that being a virgin isn’t good. What I’m saying at least is that saying “I deserve her more than he does because I’m a virgin and she should reward me for that” is very degrading and absolutely not what marriage is about.
 
Kelfa28 said:
Nothing wrong with it at all.

If there is…then whats the point of being Catholic if forgiveness just doesn’t matter that much?

What’s the point of converting to Catholicism and making a genuine effort to live according to the Church teachings when you’re already damaged goods.

I’ve had numerous sexual sins in my past but I’ve converted, confessed and deeply regretted my past. My husband has as well.

However, according to some holier than thou folks…my husband will probably commit adultery and we’ll get a divorce despite the fact that we’ve asked for forgiveness and actually lived a Chaste life before our marriage…even if it was only for about 6 months or so.
Click to expand...
You are quite right! Jesus forgave the woman that had been a prostitute and told her to “sin no more” that is all that is important, we are all sinners, no one can cast the first stone.
 
David_Thorne said:
I’m still not convinced that that’s what he’s arguing here. I think we’ve all been a bit hasty in jumping on Norseman. It’s hard to defend a position and explain it at the same time while feeling under attack.
Click to expand...
Sorry no one is “attacking” him we are just calling him out on his uncharitable words and actions.

One can argue and explain a position without resorting to personal attacks.
 
David_Thorne said:
I’m still not convinced that that’s what he’s arguing here. I think we’ve all been a bit hasty in jumping on Norseman. It’s hard to defend a position and explain it at the same time while feeling under attack.
Click to expand...
What exactly is he arguing then? Perhaps I misunderstood.
I was not trying to attack him at all. I was trying to help him understand the non-virgin’s side. Even though I may not be categorized as such, I know many and have a lot of insight into the secular world, as well as the spiritual.

Just trying to help, that’s all.
 
JerryZ said:
You are quite right! Jesus forgave the woman that had been a prostitute and told her to “sin no more” that is all that is important, we are all sinners, no one can cast the first stone.
Click to expand...
👍
 
austenbosten said:
Sorry no one is “attacking” him we are just calling him out on his uncharitable words and actions.

One can argue and explain a position without resorting to personal attacks.
Click to expand...
There have been uncharitable words from both sides. Meeting like with like. While I understand people have been hurt by Norseman’s words, I also understand that he also has likely been hurt by others’ words. The “calling him out” part I think is also a clue. But yes, we shouldn’t be resorting to personal attacks and should be considering that each person is trying to be charitable even if it doesn’t seem that way. Text does not convey emotion well and we tend to project our reaction onto the words as the writer’s intent.
 
So…going back several pages…

Did norseman ever answer thewanderer’s following question? Or is he still avoiding it?

Do you or do you not believe that I would be morally obligated to pass over the non-virgin even if we were perfect in all other respects simply because he was a non-virgin (and a repentent one at that)?
 
austenbosten said:
Sorry no one is “attacking” him we are just calling him out on his uncharitable words and actions.

One can argue and explain a position without resorting to personal attacks.
Click to expand...
How is it that when I quote someone or point to what they say it’s a “personal attack” or “uncharitable” but when another does it it is merely “calling him out” and “expressing concern”? Sounds like a double standard to me.
 
David_Thorne said:
There have been uncharitable words from both sides. Meeting like with like. While I understand people have been hurt by Norseman’s words, I also understand that he also has likely been hurt by others’ words. The “calling him out” part I think is also a clue. But yes, we shouldn’t be resorting to personal attacks and should be considering that each person is trying to be charitable even if it doesn’t seem that way. Text does not convey emotion well and we tend to project our reaction onto the words as the writer’s intent.
Click to expand...
I really haven’t seen much uncharitableness from the other side, merely concern for what Norseman is saying. That is the opposite of uncharitableness. If I was acting out of line I would prefer someone to tell me that I was…and I have.
 
Norseman82 said:
How is it that when I quote someone or point to what they say it’s a “personal attack” but when another does it it is merely “calling him out”?
Click to expand...
Norseman, I think your words have hurt people more than you realize. Not only did you make non-virgins feel lesser because they lost their virginity and that they are somehow tainted, you also objectified virgins and made it seem like they are some kind of commodity or prize to be won.

People are people. Both virgins and non-virgins alike are sinners. No one is better than anyone else. We may not commit the same sins but we all offend the Lord our God and He still forgives us equally. We are implored to do the same: forgive others. How can we expect God to forgive us if we won’t forgive others.

Again, I’m sorry if you felt attacked by me, it was never my intention to insult you.😦
 
Lucky7 said:
So…going back several pages…

Did norseman ever answer thewanderer’s following question? Or is he still avoiding it?

Do you or do you not believe that I would be morally obligated to pass over the non-virgin even if we were perfect in all other respects simply because he was a non-virgin (and a repentent one at that)?
Click to expand...
As I said, I phrased my answer as delicately as I could. I’m not going to be baited into answering only to risk having it twisted as being uncharitable. And my first answer in this thread did explicitly acknowledge that the Church did not have an official position on this. So even though I find problems with it once one thinks through it logically (which I have shown throughout the thread), canon law does not see it alone as an impediment. It may be one of those things that can be classified as technically not immoral, but instead imprudent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top