Christians Not Only Accept Pre Marital Sex Among Adults But Are Also Now Accepting “Shacking Up” as The New Norm
I have blogged on here the past couple years of how morality in the American church has fallen so far, that fornication (pre-marital sex) is now pretty much accepted.
Now, being an actual virgin past the age of 25 or 30 (as opposed to being a “spiritual virgin” or “born again virgin”) is considered, by evangelicals, Neo Reformed, fundamentalists, Pentecostals, Non Demoninational members, and Baptists, to be weird or very rare.
Evangelicals and Baptists have no expectation that anyone can or will possess sexual self control and abstain from sex past one’s mid 20s.
Now, it looks like evangelicals and other types of Christians, are caving in to the new trend in secular society: couples living together without being married.
Here is an excerpt, with further comments by me below this excerpt:
- BY NICOLA MENZIE , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
- December 4, 2013|3:35 pm
One topic in particular featured in the docu-series that elicited strong responses is “shacking up,” or the state of an unmarried couple living together as if they are husband and wife. The situation suggests that a shacking couple is a couple having sex, or facing the temptation to have sex. But is “shacking” even mentioned in the Bible?
In the Oct. 16 airing of episode 2 of “Preachers of L.A.” (“Acceptance”), gospel recording artist and former pastor Deitrick Haddon and his fiancée, Dominique dine with Bishop Ron Gibson and his wife, LaVette, for the purposes, according to Haddon, of getting wisdom from the long-time married couple.
Despite beginning amicably, the meeting quickly turns south as Bishop Gibson states that “a shaky suspect engagement is indicative of a shaky and suspect marriage.”
Cutting to the chase, Gibson asks Haddon, “Are you guys shacking?” Haddon, offended by Gibson’s question, declares that shacking up isn’t in the Bible.
The issue of intimacy involving the Haddons, who have since married, was overshadowed by the fact that Dominique was impregnated by Haddon before his divorce to his first wife was finalized. Haddon, 40, also appeared impatient in early episodes of “Preachers of L.A.” to have his wife, 29, and their two-year-old daughter living together with him under one roof, as opposed to Dominique and their child residing with her mother until the wedding ceremony.
(end quote)
I’m not exactly sure what a “bishop” is especially as opposed to a preacher, but at least the bishop guy was willing to lay it out there and point out to the shacked up couple that couples living together (suggesting sexual involvement) is a sin.
Most preachers today are reluctant to refer to sexual sin as sin; see for example my previous post:
(Link): Christian Preacher Admits He Won’t Preach About Sexuality For Fear It May Offend Sexual Sinners
I’ve noticed a disturbing trend among some Christians today – usually the liberals, feminists, and emergents – to redefine what sexual sin is, to criticize the practice of being a virgin until marriage, or to claim that the Bible is so murky and vague about what sexual sin is, that by golly, we all might as well have sex anytime, anywhere, and with whomever we want, because who is to say exactly how God feels about sex?
Which brings me to very good observations made by another writer in an editorial about the bruhaha over Phil Robertson’s (Duck Dynasty Star’s) comments about homosexuality (the most pertinent parts for my purposes are in bold face):
(Link): The Anus Monologues
- by Ann Coulter | Dec 31, 2013
… There’s absolutely no question but that Robertson accurately summarized biblical strictures.
But liberals [and feminist and emergent Christians] can’t grasp that God is not our imaginary friend, who says whatever we want Him to say, when we want Him to say it. (I promise you, except for venereal disease and eternal damnation, life would be a lot more fun if we were making it up as we went along.)
So they blamed Robertson for Holy Scripture. True, God created the universe and every living thing, but liberals think they can improve on His work.
Since Robertson’s interview appeared, I haven’t heard as much sophistical nonsense about the New Testament not condemning fornication since I was a teenager in the backseat of a car.
The book of Romans, called “the Cathedral of the Christian faith,” provides the clearest explanation of the doctrines of sin. Here are a few catchy verses:
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven … so that people are without excuse.
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error …
“Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
Also, keep these citations in your back pocket for the next time some sweaty teenage boy tries to convince you Jesus didn’t condemn fornication: 1 Corinthians 7:2; Galatians 5:19-20; Jude 1:7; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; and Matthew 5:32.
The lake of fire and burning sulfur (Revelation 21:8) may not sound like a day at the beach, but judging by their hysterical attack on Robertson, our new earthly gods are a lot less forgiving than the real God.
GLAAD instantly condemned Robertson’s totally accurate rendition of Holy Scripture as “vile.” With refreshing originality, CNN’s Piers Morgan called Robertson a “vile bigot.”
And it’s not just “vile” to cite Holy Scripture. Evidently, it’s also vile not to appreciate the joys of anal sex.
What seemed to set liberals off as much as Robertson’s Biblical summaries was his statement that he doesn’t find anal sex appealing. He said:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
So now, not only do we all have to support gay marriage, gay wedding cakes and gay soldiers — but we also have to agree that anal sex sounds peachy! It’s like being denounced for saying you prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate.
To paraphrase an old Jewish line: This is not good for the gays.
Gays have gone from being the bullied to the bullies — a modern American phenomenon detailed in my book “Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America.”
Yes, we know you used to be unfairly victimized. But being beaten up for being gay is simply not the same as having to endure hearing someone opine that anal sex isn’t his cup of tea.
(end excerpts)
While the editorial you see above by Ms. Coulter is discussing homosexuality and anal sex among homosexuals, it can equally apply to HETERO fornication and forms of HETERO sexual sin.
Hetero Christians today are just as eager to jettison Biblical guidelines in regards to sexuality for heteros as much as the homosexuals are in regards to homosexual sexual behavior.
Coulter’s comments here are equally applicable to HETEROsexuals:
Since Robertson’s interview appeared, I haven’t heard as much sophistical nonsense about the New Testament not condemning fornication since I was a teenager in the backseat of a car.
- (end quote)
I’ve been hearing and reading “sophistical nonsense about the New Testament not condemning fornication” from sexually active hetero Christians in regards to hetero sexual behavior for the last few years, the ones who identify as either emergent, liberal, feminist, or conservatives who have bought into the dreck that biblical sexual ethic teachings have made female fornicators “feel ashamed” or like “damaged goods,” so that, they feel, such teachings should be watered down considerably or rejected altogether.
Now we have self professing Christians accepting unmarried couples living together (and having sex with each other, apparently).
I keep wondering why I have bothered staying a virgin as long as I have. I was waiting until marriage to have sex, for several reasons, but one was that growing up, I heard other Christians tell me that pre marital sex was sinful, a view which I saw was in fact in the Bible.
But I don’t see many other Christians also abstaining from sex as long as I have. Makes me wonder why I bother with being among the few, lone hold outs.
Nobody is else bothering, why should I?
I have asked this question before on this blog, and on others, and I’ve yet to see a good, solid response to it.
About the closest I reply to it I saw was was from a Christian guy who told an adult, Christian virgin that she was “glorifying God” by staying a virgin into her forties. What a joke. At my age, I don’t care a whit about giving God glory with my virginity, assuming there even is a God.
Christians are divorcing at about the same rate, or sometimes higher, than Non Christians (depending on what categories we are talking about):
(Link): American Christian Divorce Rates Vs Atheists and Other Groups – throws a pall over Christian Fairy Tale Teachings about Marriage
Christians keep lowering the bar on their own teachings, the ones in the Bible. They are now indistingiushable from secular society.
Good comment by some guy on the Christian Post page about these preachers “shacking up”
by Brian Butterflyguy
- 10:50 PM on December 10, 2013
The fact that this [Christians couples living together prior to marriage] is being seriously debated shows just how far fallen the church is today. Between worshiping Nelson Mandela, excusing and legitimizing the gay agenda, turning against Israel, and completely buying into the Hollywood megachurch craze, the state of the modern so-called evangelical church is nothing short of deplorable.
Any real Christian knows that cohabiting and having a sexual relationship outside of a binding, lawful marital covenant by the legal standards of your nation is a very serious SIN. End of story, no questions asked, no comments, no ifs/ands/buts. Let the tares reveal themselves to be cast away on the threshing-room floor.
———————————-
Related posts:
(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity (they attack both concepts)
(Link): Religious Dating Sites: More than Half of Users Surveyed Are OK with Premarital Sex
(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming
(Link): Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity
(Link): ‘Relevant’ Christian Magazine Ultimately Dismissive of Virginity – Also Maintain A Few Falsehoods
Christian Pundit 