Cohabitation

perhaps you should preface comments like this with something like IMNSHO

I don't think that would make sense. Humans were clearly not created to mate for life.

Humans naturally practice serial monogamy, where we are committed to one person for a period of time and then move on to the next. This is a common behavior seen in other animals as well.

Lifetime marriages are unnatural. They take a lot of effort to maintain and often fail anyway.

This why God designed cohabitation... it is a way to be sexually intimate with one partner without making a lifetime commitment.

Which god are you talking about? What about "What God has joined together, let not man separate"? It seems to me that you either decide to have religious morals or you just do whatever makes you happy. But why try and re-mold the bible to fit the things that make you happy?

how about doing some research into when those words started to be used who wrote them?

what?

are you serious?

Humans were designed to have sex with each other, and they weren't created to pair for life. If humans were designed to be joined with one person and never have sex with anyone else, then this is what humans would do naturally.

I don't know how much of life you have lived, but this is not how humans work. There are humans who mate for life... but they themselves will tell you that this is very hard work, and if they are truly honest they will tell you that many of them regret it (of course there are a few exceptions). But look at few many humans actually live their entire life without seeking additional partners.

The number is very very low.

When I use the word God I mean the deity responsible for creating humans the way that they are. If God had wanted humans to be strictly monogamous, he could have created us that way.

If that was his intention, clearly he screwed he pretty bad.

The God of the Bible allowed for men to have multiple sex partners (women were expected to be monogamous under most circumstances).

The kings had multiple wives with God's blessing. Under God's law given to Moses, a man was allowed to have sex with his slaves (see Exodus 21). Righteous men of God had concubines as well as wives. In Leviticus if a man had sex with a married woman they both would be put to death. But if a married man had sex with a single woman (neither married nor betrothed) it was no big deal.

It was really only the Apostle Paul who seemed to have a problem with men enjoying sex with multiple people.

Bible believing women, of course, should only have sex with their husbands (or their masters if they happen to be a slave).

If you don't think God was a factor you simply didn't read and understand the OP.

I did read the OP.

If both people in a relationship agree on what God's will is and both want to follow it, then God has a place in the relationship. But, both people have to agree. I don't think this is the case. It doesn't sound like the boyfriend is on board. In that case the girlfriend has to make a choice (and God really has nothing to do with it).

If the girlfriend decides to end this relationship, that is her decision. If she wants to stay with this guy, she probably is going to have to bend. It is quite unreasonable to ask someone to go from a sexual relationship to a romantic nonsexual relationship.

The poster can correct me if I am wrong about the situation.

There are scriptures that address the situation where one spouse believes and the other does not. The advice given to the believer is not to issue an ultimatum or immediately bail. It says it may happen that the believer may bring the other into belief. It does say to be careful about choosing to get involved 'unequally'.

I know you don't give a fig about these things but my advice was to the OP author who apparently does.

That simply isn't true Leadfoot. I have been on both sides of this equation. I have been a believer and a non-believer at different times of my life.

Let's just tell the truth here. The man in this case is almost certainly not going to go from a sexual relationship to a non-sexual relationship. It is unreasonable to ask anyone to do this (unless they are on board with the religious beliefs in the first place). I don't know what your experience is... but I can tell you from experience that this isn't going to happen. Anyone who thinks that it will is lying to themselves (especially if one personal isn't on board).

This is the truth. If she says "I will not have sex with you until we are married", she will almost certainly lose this relationship. If she doesn't make this ultimatum, then they will continue having a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

Do you disagree with this? And, if you accept that this is true, what do you advise?

The advise that I am giving is that the OP take responsibility for her decision and to understand and accept the consequences before she makes her choice. I think this is good advice under any set of circumstances.

I was taking a completely different perspective. Granted, it is not the social/religious norm, but that one does not solve her problem if she values the relationship and wants to keep it but also keep her faith.

My advice was to realize that she had accepted a false view (from religion) of what God expects of her and that God cares nothing about a paper document. If they are truly committed to each other as partners, she commits no sin by continuing to have sex.

Neither of us really knows the nature of their relationship. We can only take her word for it that it is a committed one. The only thing we know about him is that he rejects the necessity of a marriage certificate. So do I.

I suppose that is fine, but there is a risk with that solution to the problem. If she sees the relationship they have as a lifetime commitment before God, and he doesn't, she may be setting herself up for disappointment.

It is fairly common for intimate relationships to end. This is part of human nature. If I were going to get married to someone, I would want them to agree to make a commitment to try to make the marriage last for life. Most intimate relationships don't come with that level of commitment.

If one person in a relationship has that level of commitment and the other person doesn't, it can hurt. However, if both people understand this is just a way to get around a religious requirement, I suppose it would work out.

As long as you are not conflating 'religious' with 'God' I agree with that.

But you seem overly cautious about risk, hurt and dissapointment. Yes, there is all of that. If you're not willing to accept those things, you're not trying hard enough.

You are missing the point. A healthy adult relationship involves mutual respect, commitment and communication. It is not a good thing if you are not upfront about your expectations.

I would not want to be in a relationship where one person in a relationship is thinking "we are basically married for life" while the other is thinking "this is an intimate relationship that doesn't have a lifetime commitment". In my relationships, I am upfront about these things and I want my partner to do the same.

Communication is an important part of a good relationship.

How did you read 'don't be open and honest with your partner' out of what I said??

You seem to be suggesting that she could continue having sex with him by considering herself married to him. The implication here is that he doesn't consider himself married to her (correct me if I am wrong... but if they both wanted to truly be married, then there is no reason for them not to really get married).

The Christian belief that you can't have sex outside of marriage only works if both people in an intimate relationship agree about this. You can't have one person in a relationship abstain if the other one doesn't.

I understood from your posts that you were suggesting a loophole... where she would consider herself married so she could have sex without sinning, while he just continues as normal since it isn't sin to him anyway. I think this is a bad idea because it means that the two people don't have a true agreement.