Past Sin Does Not Make You A Better Spiritual Leader by P. Cooke

Past Sin Does Not Make You A Better Spiritual Leader by P Cooke

I’d say that this guy’s claim for pastoral sin in general is also very true for sexual sin in particular – sexual sin by anyone and everyone, that is, and not just pastoral sexual sin.

As I’ve blogged about before, rather than hiring celibate or virgin adults to give discussions or lectures about virginity and sexuality to teen-agers or in churches, most Christians oddly opt to get a known fornicator who claims to be a “born again” celibate to offer lectures, sermons, and to be guest speakers.

The assumption by Christians seems to be that if an adult has fornicated and now claims to be celibate that he or she is more qualified or more relatable to people than a virgin adult who is past the age of 25.

This seems like backwards thinking to me: you should want to hear from the man or woman who is over the age of 25 who has maintained their virginity and walked the walk, not the guy or woman who failed at it, who had sex prior to marriage but who now claims to be celibate.

Contrary to what many Christians and Non-Christians think, controlling one’s libido over a lifetime, and hence remaining a virgin into one’s 30s, 40s, or older, is not a heroic or an impossible task.

(Link):  Past Sin Does Not Make You A Better Spiritual Leader by P Cooke

Excerpts

In many cases I’ve encountered, that shortcut comes from the idea that because they’ve [preachers have] morally fallen in a particular way, they’re now more sensitive and understanding to those in the congregation who have experienced something similar.

Continue reading “Past Sin Does Not Make You A Better Spiritual Leader by P. Cooke”

Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Relationship Lasting Guarantee Contra Comic Chelsea Handler

Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Guarantee for a Lasting Relationship – Contra Comic Chelsea Handler

The following blog post contains strong profanity in places and some frank sexual talk.
—————————————–
Not that I object to this editorial per se, but it’s being carried by the same site (a pro-life site) that (Link): usually denigrates female virginity – because they put too high a premium on people pro-creating, and if a woman is remaining chaste, she is, in their opinion, in sin, or error or some sort, for not having sex and making babies, because supposedly, a woman’s only purpose in life is to make babies (even though the Bible no where teaches this concept).

But here is a guest editorial they are featuring where the author is defending a person’s right to sexually abstain, and it’ okay.

(Link): Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin

Excerpts:

  • by C. Martin
  • Our society is obsessed with talking about sex, regardless if you’re having it or not. Take for instance the recent March (Link): cover of People magazine, which featured the title, “Bachelor’s Sean & Catherine, Waiting for Our Wedding night.”
  • To make things a bit clearer, they added below the title, “No sex until ‘I do.’” The cover may intrigue those who scratch their heads, wondering in earnest why anyone would (gasp) wait to have sex.

Continue reading “Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Relationship Lasting Guarantee Contra Comic Chelsea Handler”

Can Someone Really Be a ‘Born-Again Virgin?’ by L. Borreli

Can someone really be a ‘born-again virgin?’ by L. Borreli

I do not support the term or concept of “born again virginity” as I’ve explained in a few previous posts, such as (Link): this one, so I shall not belabor that point here.

(Link): Can Someone Really Be a ‘Born-Again Virgin?’ by L. Borreli via Medical Daily

Excerpts:

  • Is it really possible to become a “born-again virgin” through spiritual and surgical routes?
  • The Social Construct of Virginity
  • The (Link): social construct of virginity will most likely not disappear. People define virginity by what it means to them and what works in accordance to their morals and values. However, the most common definition of virginity for heterosexual women is whether they have had penile-vaginal intercourse.
  • According to (Link): The Kinsey Institute: “Losing one’s virginity is a physical act, whether or not a woman notices any blood from her vagina. The reason why some women bleed when they first have sex is because a thin layer of tissue called the hymen covers part of a woman’s vaginal entrance.”
  • It is believed when a woman has sex, the hymen tears and she may begin to bleed a bit. However, some women don’t have much of this tissue to begin with, or have tissue that has been torn from using tampons, from masturbation, or from being fingered by a partner. This is why looking for blood on the sheet or going to the doctor is a poor way of determining whether or not a woman is a virgin.
  • Born-Again Virgin: What Is It?
  • According to Dictionary.com:
  • “Revirginzation is the process of a sexually active person attempting to regain virgin status by abstaining from sexual relations, esp. during the time just before marriage; also called secondary virginity, revirgination.”
  • UrbanDictionary defines being a born-again virgin like this:
  • “More than a year between sexual relations, with anyone else.”
  • But, how did this label come to be?
  • The concept of born-again virginity started to be embraced in the 1990s and early 2000s as abstinence education took root in public schools.

Continue reading “Can Someone Really Be a ‘Born-Again Virgin?’ by L. Borreli”

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

(Before I get to the link proper, here is a long introduction by me.)

I agree with this guy’s editorial (linked to farther below). I’ve written of this phenomenon before on my own blog, going back a year or maybe as long as three years ago (see links at the bottom of this post under the “Related Posts” section).

I do not like legalistic jerks. I don’t think Christians should be rude, mean, hateful jerks to other people, even when condemning certain behaviors as being sinful.

However. HOWEVER.

I can’t say as though I’m a whole-scale supporter of legalism’s opposite characteristics, either – which amounts to extreme leniency and “watering down of standards” in the name of Love and Tolerance.

I have seen some Christians so very afraid of hurting the feelings of Non-Christians (or even that of fellow Christians) who are in sin, or in confronting Christians who are openly supportive of behaviors the Bible condemns, they tip toe around the sin in question to an absurd degree – where they end up practically supporting, condoning, or excusing said sin (whatever it may be).

These Christians are hyper-sensitive to other people’s feelings, and it is a huge annoyance to me.

This tendency to treat other people’s feelings with kid gloves has gotten so bad in Christendom (particularly in regards to sexual sin), that some preachers have admitted they are afraid to speak out against sin in public, in their blogs, TV shows, books, or from the pulpit.

It’s also very common among Christian lay persons, or by ex-Christians or liberal Christians, who confuse God’s propensity to love and forgive with the notion that God (and Jesus Christ) are hunky-dory with behavior the Bible thoroughly condemns, such as hetero pre-marital sex or homosexual sex acts, for example.

(Transgenderism is a sexual state which has become the new liberal Christian, moderate Christian, Theology of Hurt Feelings Christian, ex-Christian, and left wing secular Sacred Cow that you may not criticize at all.)

It’s also intriguing to me that on the spiritual abuse blogs I have visited, whose owners and members champion the downtrodden (i.e., adults who have been mistreated by churches, or victims of sexual abuse whose abuse was swept under the rug by their fellow church members),
have forum or blog participants, who will, on one hand, quite understandably call for the heads of such abusive church members on a platter,
rightly call out Christians as being naive fools about abuse in churches, but – many of these same people are also very dismissive of, or blind to, abuses by Muslim militants and homosexual militants.

They are very naive of abuses by Muslims and homosexuals. They seem to have a huge blind spot in those areas.

How they can so easily spot and repudiate Christian and church bungling of spiritual and child sexual abuse, or of preachers who exploit their church members,
but fail to recognize the dangers of Muslim and homosexual militancy in American society and other regions of the world, I will never understand.

The blindness and naive nature by folks on those sorts of forums and blogs also extends to Roman Catholicism.

I have had a few Roman Catholic friends in the past, and they are fine people, but their church? No.

The Roman Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, but one Roman Catholic individual recently thanked a (Protestant) blogger for bringing to everyone’s attention the anti-Roman Catholic commentary expressed by yet another blog (a Protestant one which was critical of perceived sinful RC behavior).

I mean, really? Some Protestant writing a critical comment about Roman Catholic behavior in general on a blog is thought somehow worse than the Roman Catholic Church in years past doing things such as:

-Covering up priest sexual abuse of children, or….

-Burning people to death for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, or for (Link to Wiki page): translating the Bible into English, or….

-The same Roman Catholic Church that historically has held the position that the Gospel (which includes sola fide) is anathema (to be damned)?

Off site link for more on that:
Roman Catholic Church condemns the Gospel itself

Seriously?

But you can’t easily point these issues of the Roman Catholic Church out at some forums or blogs – the ones who are into The Theology of Hurt Feelings – as it might offend a Roman Catholic somewhere.

The Roman Catholic Church historically persecuted a lot of people (see again: burning people to death at the stake for things like not converting to Catholicism), but criticism on the internet of their church is considered by some of them to be the height of persecution against Roman Catholics.

At any rate, I agree with the gentlemen quoted below.

There is most certainly a Theology of Hurt Feelings, where-in some Christians are so incredibly concerned with not offending various classes of sinners (e.g., hetero fornicators or active homosexuals), they think Christians speaking out publicly (on blogs, radio shows, in church services, etc) is “unloving” and therefore Christ would object to it.

The mind boggles at this. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for hetero fornication and homosexual sex acts, among other sins of humanity.

But these “lovey dovey” types want other Christians to pipe down about all this and act as though God is totaly fine with, and accepting of, all manner of sin.

The Bible presents a God who is not only loving, forgiving, and gracious, but also one who is Holy, just, and who does not tolerate sin, he does not like sin, and he won’t put up with sin indefinitely. God is not fine and dandy with sin.
And the Bible does in fact call out hetero pre-marital sex, and all homosexual sex acts, as sin.

I suspect that this well-meaning, yet wrong-headed, tendency to want to be Very Loving, Very Accepting,
and To Spare People’s Feelings, is partially responsible for what gave rise several years ago to the ridiculous,
non-sensical, un-Biblical habit of referring to fornicators as “Born Again Virgins,” “Spiritual Virgins,” and similar monikers (see links below, this post, for more about that).

(Link): Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities

Excerpts.

    • BY ALEX MURASHKO , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
    July 25, 2014|8:33 am

Advocates for behavior considered immoral by Christians who believe the Bible is God’s inerrant word, have successfully used the idea of “love” to affirm homoerotic behavior, to redefine marriage and family, to justify pedophilia, and as theologian and pastor James Emery White recently pointed out, to justify assisted suicide.

The problem, White writes in his blog, Church & Culture, is that the “love” described to normalize these behaviors is “not the biblical idea of love.”

Continue reading “Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin”

Christian Mouthpiece – Russell Moore – Who Says Christians Are Prideful About Virginity Has Audacity to Make Pro Sexual Purity Arguments on TGC (Gospel Coalition) Site

Christian Mouthpiece Who Says Christians Are Prideful About Virginity Has Audacity to Make Pro Sexual Purity Arguments on TGC (Gospel Coalition) Site

Russell Moore is being a hypocrite on this topic. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth about it.

(Link): Can We Trade Sexual Morality for Church Growth? by Russell Moore, hosted on TGC site

Here is an excerpt or two from that page with observations by me below the excerpts:

    by Russell Moore

    From time to time we hear some telling us that evangelical Christianity must retool our sexual ethic if we’re ever going to reach the next generation.

    Some say that Millennials, particularly, are leaving the church because of our “obsession” with sexual morality. The next generation needs a more flexible ethic, they say, on premarital sex, homosexuality, and so on. We’ll either adapt, the line goes, or we’ll die.

    …Always Difficult

    The same is true with a Christian sexual ethic. Sexual morality didn’t become difficult with the onset of the sexual revolution. It always has been. Walking away from our own lordship, or from the tyranny of our desires, has always been a narrow way. The rich young ruler wanted a religion that would promise him his best life now, extended out into eternity. But Jesus knew that such an existence isn’t life at all, just the zombie corpse of the way of the flesh. He came to give us something else, to join us to his own life.

    …But even if it “worked” to negotiate away sexual morality for church growth, we wouldn’t do it. We can only reach Millennials, and anyone else, by reaching them with the gospel, good news for repentant sinners through the shed blood and empty tomb of Jesus Christ.

    If we have to choose between Millennials and Jesus, we choose Jesus.

    …No Amendment

    Some think the Christian sexual ethic is akin to our congregation’s constitution and by-laws, that it can be amended by a two-thirds vote. But this isn’t the case. Sexuality isn’t ancillary to the gospel but is itself an embodied icon of the gospel, pointing us to the union of Christ and his church (Eph. 5:29-32).

    This is why the Bible speaks of sexual immorality as having profound spiritual consequences (1 Cor. 6:17-20), ultimately leading, if not repented of, to exile from the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

    Sexual immorality isn’t simply a matter of neurons firing. A Christian view of reality means that the body is a temple, set apart to be a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. Sexual immorality isn’t just bad for us (although it is); it’s also an act of desecrating a holy place.

And Moore’s editorial goes on like that for several additional paragraphs.

I don’t think a guy who advises Christian virgins that they are “idolizing” virginity if they are upset or disappointed that their betrothed is a non-virgin – as Moore has done preivously (see link below) – is really in a place to opine about how churches should not “trade sexual morality for church growth.”

Even sadder is that a well-known Christian apologetics group was tweeting a link to this Moore editorial yesterday, as though they approve of it.

I tweeted them a link to my rebuttal:
(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

A person who claims to represent Christian sexual ethics and who scolds a virgin Christian for wanting, or hoping, to marry another Christian virgin, and accusing her of “idolizing virginity” or “being prideful” about it, has no place to write

    “Sexual immorality isn’t simply a matter of neurons firing. A Christian view of reality means that the body is a temple, set apart to be a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. Sexual immorality isn’t just bad for us (although it is); it’s also an act of desecrating a holy place”

and similar things.

Continue reading “Christian Mouthpiece – Russell Moore – Who Says Christians Are Prideful About Virginity Has Audacity to Make Pro Sexual Purity Arguments on TGC (Gospel Coalition) Site”

Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher

Sex After Christianity

This starts out discussing homosexuality or homosexual marriage and moves on to broader sexual topics, and how Christianity impacts societal views of sex and so forth. Very interesting read.

(Link): Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher

Excerpts:

    Gay marriage is not just a social revolution but a cosmological one.

    By ROD DREHER • April 11, 2013

    … In a dinner conversation not long after the publication of American Grace, Putnam told me that Christian churches would have to liberalize on sexual teaching if they hoped to retain the loyalty of younger generations.

    This seems at first like a reasonable conclusion, but the experience of America’s liberal denominations belies that prescription. Mainline Protestant churches, which have been far more accepting of homosexuality and sexual liberation in general, have continued their stark membership decline.

    It seems that when people decide that historically normative Christianity is wrong about sex, they typically don’t find a church that endorses their liberal views. They quit going to church altogether.

    This raises a critically important question: is sex the linchpin of Christian cultural order? Is it really the case that to cast off Christian teaching on sex and sexuality is to remove the factor that gives—or gave— Christianity its power as a social force?

    Though he might not have put it quite that way, the eminent sociologist Philip Rieff would probably have said yes. Rieff’s landmark 1966 book The Triumph Of the Therapeutic analyzes what he calls the “deconversion” of the West from Christianity.

    Nearly everyone recognizes that this process has been underway since the Enlightenment, but Rieff showed that it had reached a more advanced stage than most people—least of all Christians—recognized.

    Rieff, who died in 2006, was an unbeliever, but he understood that religion is the key to understanding any culture.

    For Rieff, the essence of any and every culture can be identified by what it forbids.

    Each imposes a series of moral demands on its members, for the sake of serving communal purposes, and helps them cope with these demands. A culture requires a cultus—a sense of sacred order, a cosmology that roots these moral demands within a metaphysical framework.

    … Rieff, writing in the 1960s, identified the sexual revolution—though he did not use that term—as a leading indicator of Christianity’s death as a culturally determinative force.

    In classical Christian culture, he wrote, “the rejection of sexual individualism” was “very near the center of the symbolic that has not held.” He meant that renouncing the sexual autonomy and sensuality of pagan culture was at the core of Christian culture—a culture that, crucially, did not merely renounce but redirected the erotic instinct.

    That the West was rapidly re-paganizing around sensuality and sexual liberation was a powerful sign of Christianity’s demise.

    It is nearly impossible for contemporary Americans to grasp why sex was a central concern of early Christianity. Sarah Ruden, the Yale-trained classics translator, explains the culture into which Christianity appeared in her 2010 book Paul Among The People.

    Ruden contends that it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.

    In fact, Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time—exploitive especially of slaves and women, whose value to pagan males lay chiefly in their ability to produce children and provide sexual pleasure.

    Christianity, as articulated by Paul, worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.

    Christian marriage, Ruden writes, was “as different from anything before or since as the command to turn the other cheek.”

    The point is not that Christianity was only, or primarily, about redefining and revaluing sexuality, but that within a Christian anthropology sex takes on a new and different meaning, one that mandated a radical change of behavior and cultural norms.

    Continue reading “Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher”

No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings

No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings

BIBLICAL LITERALISM AND INERRANCY

Another common thread I see on forums for spiritual recovery sites (or ones by ex Christians, liberal Christians, etc), is a rejection of

1. Biblical literalism
2. Biblical inerrancy

This is all so much intellectual dishonesty in another form it makes me want to throw up.

I spent years studying about the history of the Bible, Bible translation, and so forth.

I came away realizing that the Bible is inerrant and yes, we can trust the copies we have today; the Bible is not filled with historic blunders and mistakes, and all the other tripe atheists like to claim.

It is not entirely accurate for critics to paint the Bible as a purely man-made document, that contains mistakes because it was copied and re-copied numerous times over the centuries.

While there is an aspect of truth to that description, the end conclusion, or how that description, impacts the NIV or NASB Bible version you have sitting on your coffee table right now, is not how critics of the Bible paint it.

Atheists and ex-Christians who are critical of the Bible are disingenuous and duplicitous in how they paint some of their arguments against the Bible, and they should be ashamed for it, as some of them claim to be truth lovers.

Not too long ago, an ex-Christian woman at another site was declaring that Christians cannot “trust” the Bible because the originals (called the Autographa) do not exist.

Oh please! I pointed out to her that is not so: as far as the New Testament is concerned, scholars have many thousands of copies of the Autographa (some dating within decades of the originals), and by use of lower textual criticism, they can reconstruct the READINGS of the Autographa.

It is not necessary to have “the biblical originals” themselves to know what they said, as she was dishonestly arguing (but she later accused me of being dishonest!).

I pointed this FACT out to her (about it not being necessary to have the autographa to know what the autographa said), where upon she shot back the falsity that one cannot trust the translations anyway because they are done by “conservatives.”

Oh, but she is willing to grant liberal scholars or liberal theologians the title of un-biased, as though they do not have an ax to grind against the Bible and dating its documents and so forth?

Because the liberal scholars do in fact start out their examinations of the Bible from an anti- Christian bias.

The woman with whom I was corresponding on this matter doesn’t seem to understand that the practice of lower textual criticism is a science – a liberal who uses that methodology would come to the same conclusion as the conservative who uses it.

So here we have an example of one type of ex-Christian I am talking about:

This woman claims she was a Christian at one time, now fancies herself atheist or agnostic (and some kind of expert on the Bible), but who now spews inaccurate or untrue things about the Bible, because she disdains all of Christianity in general.

My view: Do not lie about the Bible’s history, accuracy, and textual evidence just because “Preacher Fred” at your old church was a big meanie to you X years ago (or insert whatever other emotional baggage you carry against Christians that now colors all your other views about the faith and Bible here) – please!

Give me a freaking break.

I am genuinely compassionate towards people who have been hurt by churches, but not to the point I cover for their dishonesty about how they discuss church history, the biblical documents, etc.

Because some of these folks claim to have been hurt by Christians in general, or a particular denomination, or what have you, they feel fine now rejecting biblical literalism and inerrancy.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings”

More Snarky Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming, Courtesy the “The anti-purity movement” Facebook Group – the blog page “My Secondary Virginity” – and a Proud Slut Parody

More Snarky Virgin- and Celibate- Shaming, Courtesy the “The anti-purity movement” Facebook Group and the blog page “My Secondary Virginity” – also: A Proud Slut Parody

Notice: this post contains some adult, racy, salty language – and some raunchy, sexual content

—————————————
Link to the Facebook group:
(Link): The anti-purity movement

I do see one or two articles on the group I think I would probably agree with (just by going title alone, I have not read the pages), such as:

    But I need to ask, “Is it the purity culture that is to blame? Or is it the purity message?” A culture contains fallen humans and so any “culture” can become oppressive.

    I need to know if it is the purity message itself that is causing the harm. I want to address the factors that I think are causing the pain, but also look at the alternative.

    If we throw away purity culture, what will take its place and will the alternative be any better?

The person behind that group (the Anti Purity Facebook group) links to something on their Facebook group called:

“No Shame Movement” (noshamemovement), whose tag line is, “No Shame Movement functions as a platform to share stories of unlearning purity culture.”

I counter that with:
(Link): Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

Here is a page that satirizes the idea of virginity until marriage – the person at the “The anti-purity movement” Facebook group is very fond of this page; the group owner said ((Link): source),

    This is the best, snarkiest, most perfect post about “second virginity”, and the author wins the internet with it. Absolute perfection.

The page starts out ridiculing “secondary” virginity (which I’ve written about a few times on my own blog, such as (Link): this post and (Link): this post and a few others), in which they might have had a legitimate basis for critiquing, but, their opening salvo can also be applied to actual virgins – so I have to give them a big “fail” on the parts that can apply equally to true virginity.

Continue reading “More Snarky Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming, Courtesy the “The anti-purity movement” Facebook Group – the blog page “My Secondary Virginity” – and a Proud Slut Parody”

Long Editorial about Virginity at CT – Don’t Blame Evangelicals for the Cult of the Virgin – I Notice It’s the Fornicators Who Want to Ignore or Downplay the Bible’s Teaching that People Are To Stay Virgins Until Marriage

Long Editorial about Virginity at CT – Don’t Blame Evangelicals for the Cult of the Virgin

I am not in complete agreement with all points raised in this editorial farther below.

In particular, I disagree with this view (among a few other portions of the essay):

    Additionally, Christians should extol obedience— in all its forms— not virginity. Chastity is, after all, an act of obedience

Yes, virginity should in fact be extolled; currently in Christian culture, as well as this very editorial, it is being disrespected and downplayed.

You know the Christians who do not want virginity upheld, valued and extolled? None of them were virgins when they married.

The people who have failed at the Biblical command to remain virgins until marriage are the ones who want the teaching ignored or watered down.

You may possibly be able to find some Christian somewhere, who stayed a virgin past age 35, who feels Christians should ditch or downplay the virginity teachings and stop esteeming virginity, but by and large, most of the people I am seeing talking smack about virginity are fornicators.

Some are self-admitted: they will tell you they boinked around a lot as teen aged kids and hearing sexual purity lessons in Bible class when they were 18 or 25 years of age hurt their feelings or made them feel ashamed.

This is like a convicted thief telling Christians,

    “Look, I’m 35 years old now. When I was a teen ager, I robbed a lot of convenience stores and a few banks.

All those sermons I heard against theft when I was 18 or 25, and all the lessons on how stealing is wrong I heard at age 19 in Sunday School, made me feel so dirty and ashamed!

Therefore, I think Christians should stop condemning theft and esteeming honesty in particular and just speak in very generic terms about being ethical in a very vague way.”

That is what fornicators, those who had pre-martial sex, are asking the rest of Christian culture to do in regards to sexual sin and virginity.

And it makes no sense to me why Christians should stop condemning “sin X” or stop extolling “virtue Z” just because some have failed to do “Z” or feel guilty about “X.”

I am not sure I am comfortable or trusting of sexual sinners dictating to the rest of the Christian community how churches should be discussing or handling topics such as sexual sin and virginity. (It also reminds one of this: (Link): How About Using Celibates as Role Models For Celibacy? (Oddity: Christians Holding Up Non-Virgins [Fornicators] As Being Experts or Positive Examples on Sexual Purity)))

Virginity is a form of obedience, how odd the writer of this piece assumes otherwise.

Oddly, while this paper at “Christianity Today” portends to defend virginity in some fashion, it actually puts virginity down by saying virginity is a lost cause and Christians should really only support a broader concept of purity or chastity. ~Way to abandon adults who have remained virgins past age 35, author of this web page.

(Link): Don’t Blame Evangelicals for the Cult of the Virgin

    • As the saying goes, we didn’t start the fire.
    by Karen Swallow Prior

Even in the midst of a sexual revolution, of a generation drawn to open relationships, hookup culture, and “polyamory,” virginity still enthralls.
Yet another beautiful young woman is auctioning hers off.

The cable show My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding juxtaposes a cultural expectation to maintain virginity until marriage with a flashy celebration on the day-of. Feminist defenses of virginity crop up on edgy websites. A burgeoning academic field is devoted to (Link): “virginity studies.” Even the “first kiss” video that recently went viral is but a variation on the “first time” theme.

In the midst of this, younger evangelicals question the church’s message to encourage Christians to maintain “purity” until marriage. They have a point: some of our efforts cross the line between encouraging chastity and venerating virginity. But as the examples above show, making an idol out of virginity is a problem that’s much bigger than evangelicalism.

A recent (Link): article [Naked and Ashamed: Women and Evangelical Purity Culture] at The Other Journal that details virginity’s history in the church moves toward correcting a myopic vision that can’t see past the pews of personal experience to the broader historical and cultural contexts. Yet, the exaltation of virginity for virginity’s sake began, and continues, well outside the church.

Rather than merely an evangelical hang-up, our adoration of virginity is a universal impulse with a long tradition.

Throughout human history, virgins have been worshipped in paintings, sculptures, poetry, prose, and song. Today’s church needs to do a better job at distinguishing between biblical and cultural views of virginity to develop a robust theology of the body, human sexuality, and chastity.

Chastity, sexual abstinence outside of marriage and faithfulness within it, has been a distinctive of the Christian church since its beginnings, brought into sharp relief by an array of sexual practices found in the surrounding pagan cultures.

Unlike the balanced view of sexuality offered by the church—as a gift that promotes human flourishing when expressed within the limits of its Creator’s design—ancient sexual practices embraced the extremes: homosexual pederasty, for example, on one end and sacred virginity on the other.

…Fascination with virginity is by no means limited to medieval Catholics, courtiers, and queens—and virginity was no less fashionable in the modern era.

In the Victorian age, women were caught in a double bind: in her idealized role as wife and mother, the Victorian woman couldn’t, of course, be a perpetual virgin and fulfill those roles, so she was exalted instead as the “Angel in the House.”

In the meantime, a thriving prostitution industry arose, perpetuating a dichotomous view of women as either angels or whores and nothing in between.

… Christians, of course, are commanded to live chaste lives before and during marriage. But when we decontextualize the purpose and meaning of virginity or attempt to promote it through guilt or gimmicks, the church reflects ancient myths and modern fetishes more than biblical principles.

While there’s no formula for how Christians can encourage chastity without accommodating cultural practices that are at odds with biblical principles, a few guidelines come to mind.

First, chastity is best cultivated within the context of vibrant relationship and genuine community.

Yet, the (Link): rituals and (Link): pledges [Study: Abstinence Pledges Aren’t Enough] popular with some Christians reflect ancient pagan rites more than a biblical faith centered on personal relationship.

Continue reading “Long Editorial about Virginity at CT – Don’t Blame Evangelicals for the Cult of the Virgin – I Notice It’s the Fornicators Who Want to Ignore or Downplay the Bible’s Teaching that People Are To Stay Virgins Until Marriage”

Stop Rewarding People For Their Failure – Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences – Allowing Sinners To Re-Define Biblical Terms and Standards

Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences

The over-riding point I wanted to make in my post from yesterday, but I do not think I was clear enough about it (I was half asleep when I wrote the last blog page) is that Christians speak out of both sides of their mouth on the sexual sins front, but then, ironically, have the nerve to complain about sexual sins.

On the one hand, a lot of American, socially conservative Christians complain, whine, and cry about the high rates of fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex and homosexual marriage in American culture, but then turn around and downplay, ridicule, or water down the Bible’s teachings about sexual purity, virginity, and celibacy in their blogs, magazines, sermons, television appearances, and pod casts.

If you want to know one reason homosexuality has taken off or received an embrace among evangelicals to the degree it has, and why there is more fornication now, even among Christians, it’s because the church does not esteem, defend, and respect adult singleness, virginity, and celibacy.

Good lord knows churches either insult adult singles or refuse to help them, something I’ve written of before in several posts, including this one:

    • (Link):

To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

Ignoring adult singles and their needs, a respectable amount of whom are staying celibate, or insulting adult singles, and treating them like second class citizens, acting as though singleness and celibacy are not as good and worthy as marriage, or acting as though adult singles are failures (and many married Christians do in fact behave in these ways or adhere to these stereotypes), is contributing to the rise of sexual sin in the church.

Even socially conservative Christians have taken it upon themselves within the last several years to be influenced by emergents, liberal Christians, and post-evangelicals to water-down virginity and celibacy, if not ceasing to preach about the worth of both altogether.

These groups – no longer the post-evangelicals and liberal Christians only, but also the conservatives now – are attempting to re-define terms and words, as well.

Some want to do away with the word “fornication,” for example, because they feel it is too old-fashioned or too judgmental.

Starting around ten years ago, I started hearing Christians on Christian talk shows use phrases such as “born again virgin” or “secondary virginity” which are phrases that are applied to Christians who have committed sexual sin, to make them feel less guilty about having sexual failings.

I do believe that the terms “sexual purity” and “virginity” are inter-changable, but I am seeing more and more Christians try to divide the two, by explaining that sexual purity is not tantamount to virginity – and I disagree.

That is not to say that a fornicator cannot cease having pre-marital sex, because a fornicator can make a change and stop fornicating. That is true.

But, it is also true that virginity is a form of sexual purity. But more and more Christians today are denying that “virginity = sexual purity,” because a lot of self professing Christians have failed to keep their virginity intact until marriage.

It’s so strange to me, and an abject travesty, that Christians are seeking to change biblical teachings, to move the goal posts on what constitutes acceptable and un-acceptable behavior, all based upon people’s failings, sins, and feelings.

It seems to me that robbery is on the increase in the last several years.

Why are we not seeing these same Christians, who are so willing to pardon sexual sin and downplay celibacy – saying things like,

    “Let’s not refer to robbery as “stealing” anymore, let’s call it by a euphemism, so as not to hurt the feelings of bank robbers. Let’s stop sermonizing against theft, because if we keep insisting the God of the Bible is opposed to theft, it might hurt the feelings of all the kleptomaniacs out there. Let’s not positively teach about, or encourage, honesty and holding down an honest day’s labor at a 9- to- 5 job.”

Why would you re-define standards and rules, all to spare the feelings of people who fail to keep those rules and standards, who do not even attempt to keep the rules?

If a person keeps failing at something (as in sexual abstinence), rather than encourage that person to buck up and improve, the majority of the Christian culture very oddly has decided a winning strategy is to go the opposite direction, which is quite un-biblical, and say, “hey, we get it – you cannot help but fail in this area, so don’t even try. Just give up, cave in, and later call yourself a ‘born again virgin.'”

FFS, Christian people. You cannot sit there and say virginity, sexual purity, and celibacy are really not all that important, as is your habit, and tell people you expect them to fail at biblical sexual ethics, then turn around and complain that homosexual and hetero fornication rates are sky rocketing.

Continue reading “Stop Rewarding People For Their Failure – Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences – Allowing Sinners To Re-Define Biblical Terms and Standards”

Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

This is one of those pieces that seems to seek, at least on some level, to affirm virginity, celibacy, and sexual purity, but in the end scheme of things, somewhat undermines all of it to say Christians need to soften their stance on all these issues, because, gosh durn it, don’t you know that some women (who have engaged in consensual pre-marital sex) get really hurt feelings when they hear that the Bible condemns sexual sin, and such teachings makes them doubt their self-worth?

Sexual abuse victims are also tossed into the mix, which is one of my huge pet peeves in these discussions about sexual purity and virginity.

Folks need to keep these issues separate.

Bringing up rape and sexual abuse in conversations about the Bible’s standards on consensual sexual activities unnecessarily muddies the waters, and has the effect of Christians saying,

    “These purity and virginity discussions make abuse and rape victims feel just awful, so let’s just water the Bible’s sexual standards down, and even pretend like the Bible does not demand that all people remain virgins until marriage. This will spare the feelings of so many sexual abuse victims.”

The Bible’s teachings on sexual ethics in regards to consensual sex become negated, in other words.

It’s really kind-hearted, nice, and considerate to care about people’s feelings, but to the point where one’s sense of compassion and kindness over-rides definite standards of right and wrong as laid out in the Bible, and to say, “Aw shucks, let’s just explain away or ignore the Bible’s teachings on ‘Topic X!’,” to spare that person’s feelings, no. At that stage, I think you have tip-toed over into heresy.

Notice, too, that even in the headline that the notion of even defending the Bible’s view on sexuality is termed in a derogatory manner: if you are someone who defends the Bible’s position on sex, you are referred to as a “purity pusher.”

Continue reading “Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position”

Horny Celibacy – Another Anti Virginity, Anti Sexual Purity Essay – Also discussed: Being Equally Yoked, Divorce, Remarriage

Horny Celibacy – Another Anti Virginity, Anti Sexual Purity Essay – Also discussed: Being Equally Yoked, Divorce, Remarriage

All right. This one is interesting. I am actually rather sympathetic with some of this lady’s views and her reasons for arriving at the conclusions she has arrived at, some of them mirror my own. However, I feel she has a few points incorrect.

I think I have linked to her blog before, many months ago, concerning another topic. The lady that writes this blog was a Christian for many years (I think a fundamentalist or evangelical?), but somewhere along the way she got a divorce. I am not sure if she still considers herself a Christian.

If I remember the story from her blog correctly (I visited her blog months ago), the divorce and subsequent maltreatment by other Christians because of her divorce status caused her to reflect (and reject? I don’t remember) some of her former Christian beliefs. She probably has an “about” page at her blog you can read to get the details about her current views of faith.

Here is the link to her blog post that discusses celibacy, including her term “horny celibates”, and which I will be commenting on farther below:
(Link): IR: SEX, DIVORCE, AND GOOD CHRISTIAN KIDS

Before I address her post itself, I wanted to discuss some of the issues it indirectly deals with, such as divorce.

I think most evangelicals, Baptists, and other Christians teach and believe incorrectly about marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

I do not believe the Bible teaches that divorce is applicable in cases of adultery only, or that re-marriage is sinful.

Some of these views are dangerous, in that the “permanence” view of marriage, which is taught by many Christians and preachers, can lead to some women being pressured to stay in an abusive marriage for years which is a waste of their time, and some of these ladies end up dead, murdered by their spouses.

You can read more about those topics at the following pages:

This site, A Cry For Justice, has many more posts about these issues, I am only linking to a small number here:

— EQUALLY YOKED —

Being equally yoked is a belief Christian single women need to abandon, because it is one factor of several as to why they are staying single into their mid 30s and older.

Additionally, as many self-professing Christian males are abusive or negligent, and some Non-Christian males are loving, ethical, and supportive, it is important to Christian single women to recognize they need to judge men on the basis of character, not on if the male in question claims to have accepted Jesus as Savior, or if he prays, reads the Bible, or attends a church regularly.

The fact is, getting married to a Christian male is not a guarantee that you are getting a man who is going to love you, stay faithful to you, and be a good provider.

If you need examples (proof) of Christian men who misbehave, who raped women, had affairs on their wives, were into pedophilia, serial killing, stole from others, were drug addicts, or abused their wives, please see (Link): this partial list of such examples.

Given that so many genuine Christian women marry such abusive men makes the “maybe they (the abusive husbands) weren’t REAL Christians” argument moot.

Plenty of sincere, honest- to- goodness Christian women ended up with abusive, cheating, or negligent slobs who CLAIMED to be Christ followers and who had the outer trappings of what most would consider to be an actual, true Christian – whether these men who turned out to be abusive were truly “saved and regenerated” or not is beside the point and irrelevant to the women they were once married to.

We are talking about sincere, born again believers in Jesus who prayed, waited, hoped for, and expected to marry a CHRISTIAN man who would cherish them. But they ended up with Christian men who beat them, or who cheated on them repeatedly.

I do not know of any Christian single woman who sits about and day dreams, “I sure hope I marry a Christian man who beats me daily and tells me I’m worthless!”

I actually think teaching women that they can marry only other Christians is un-biblical, because it is placing an undue burden on them, and Christ said his burden is light.

But how Christians love to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Many Christians would rather Christian women remain single indefinitely in the guise of upholding “being equally yoked” as a doctrinal purity point…

Than realizing those women are entitled to some happiness and companionship while here on earth, even if that means them marrying an atheist.

The blog I linked to above, A Cry For Justice, has numerous examples of Christian women who married Christian men – they were “equally yoked” – and their Christian spouse
– I wrote their CHRISTIAN spouse there; that does not say “atheist,” “Jewish,” “Hindu” or “Muslim,” but CHRISTIAN spouse –
gave them daily verbal assaults that drove some to deep depression (and I’ve read of women who have been driven to suicidal impulses after enduring years of emotional abuse off a spouse), or, they received broken ribs and black eyes weekly or monthly – from their Christian spouse. Some of these Christian men are pastors or attend church weekly, too.

There is no rhyme or reason in telling a Christian woman she may only marry another Christian when there is no advantage to her in that, and it may in fact be a limitation and a burden, see (Link): Matthew 23:4, where Jesus discusses the Pharisees on a similar matter.

God created marriage for man, not man for marriage.

I want to write that again, but in a bigger sized font:

God created marriage for man, not man for marriage.

Too often, those who insist on a slavish devotion to “equally yoked,” or to no divorce or no remarriage, not ever ever!!!!!111!!! (or only in the most narrow of circumstances), appear to be placing rules and institutions above human beings (see this link, Luke 6:1-11).

Here are a few excerpts from the page by Hannah:
(Link): IR: SEX, DIVORCE, AND GOOD CHRISTIAN KIDS, by Hannah

    Here is my best advice for good Christian kids looking to get married: have sex already.

    I’m watching too many couples play Russian roulette with their lives because they aren’t listening to their gut instincts about who they want or need to spend their lives with because they happened to have found one person somewhat enchanting and willing to play the Christian marriage game and the stakes are: your whole future on this decision, made in the worst possible state of mind, horny celibacy.

It appears to me she is confusing the topics of virginity and celibacy with early marriage.

I have said on this blog time and again that pushing early marriage, as evangelicals have been doing for the past couple of years, is not the solution for halting pre-martial sex.

Hannah continues:

    Hermeneutically speaking, St. Paul’s “it’s better to marry than to burn with passion” was probably not about what you think it’s about. All my books are in storage in boxes, so I’d love to have someone with an accessible library help me out with citations here, but it’s pretty widely accepted in schools of theology that he was talking about couples disturbing idealistic celibate communities by sneaking off to have sex and making everyone feel either jealous and upset.

    As in: don’t be Gnostic, early church! It’s okay to not require celibacy of all Christians. C.f., Reasons why no one should ever be forced into celibate living against their will. Not a lot of people have that gift, and that’s what Paul was acknowledging in that well-worn passage.

Celibacy is not a “gift.” The Bible nowhere teaches that God chooses who will remain single (celibate) and who will marry: in the New Testament, both are choices left up to each individual. I can only assume that is how she is intending the usage of that phrase there.

If I am not misunderstanding her here, I am afraid that Hannah is making the mistake that preacher Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, and a million other Christians make: they assume the only persons capable of remaining celibate are those who have been granted some kind of Sex Superpower by God, that God sprinkles magic dust on a baby at the time of her birth, and makes her magically able to resist sexual desire or sexual behavior.

I am still a virgin, and I am over 40 years old. I was engaged for several years and sometimes spent time alone – including over-night stays with my ex at his home – and we never had sex.

I experience sexual desire.

I did not choose to remain single; I had wanted to marry. God did not choose me to stay single or be single. God did not sprinkle me with Magic Sex Dust that makes me immune from sex or from having sexual desire.

My celibacy is due to this:
It’s good old-fashioned will power, and up to now, my former devotion to Christ and the Bible’s stance on sexuality, that kept me from caving in and doing the deed.

Every time Hannah, preacher Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, or other Christians chalk my celibacy up to The Supernatural, the Gifting of God, or God’s Grace, they are cheapening and making a mockery out of my hard work.

Mine. Me, me, me. God did not wave a wand and take away my sex drive, folks. It’s not God who kept me from engaging in pre marital sex, it was my own will power. It was my dedication.

There is nothing easy about being a virgin past your 20s, but it is possible.

I know Calvinists love to chalk everything, and I mean everything, up to God (I am not saying Hannah is a Calvinist, only I have seen this view expressed in their works), but the fact is I am a virgin because of me and my hard work – not due to Jesus Christ, grace of God, the glory of God, or any super power from on High.

The glory of my sexual purity goes to me…. me me me meeeeeeee. Not God.

Me. Me. Me. Me. I’m the one who has done the hard work of abstaining. God did not blow magic fairy dust on me at my birth or in eternity past to remove sexual desire. I do not feel any special “peace” about sex anytime I get sexually tempted.

An angel never did appear in the home of my ex when he and I were alone together when I was tempted – but I did not give in. It was all me. Me me me me me.

I was, and am, responsible for whether or not I cave in to sexual temptation. Choice and Personal Responsibility is what it’s all about, not God’s gifting or empowering.

That idiotic “gift of singleness,” and moronic “gift of celibacy” teaching unfortunately have these false views embedded in them: that God supposedly “chooses” someone to remain single, choosing them in eternity past to stay single; and that God supposedly gives such a person Special Powers and/or erodes all sex drive from them to make life as a celibate bearable. This sort of teaching (which is false and not biblical), removes Personal Responsibility, Free Will, and Choice from the equation.

And I’m no Calvinist: mankind has free will, and the will to choose to do what is good and right, not only evil.

Hannah continues:

    But what that passage doesn’t say (and honestly, what no passage in the Bible says) is “God’s best plan for your life is to be a virgin when you get married.” Seriously. Look for it. It’s not there.

Well, no, it does not say that explicitly, but the Bible does teach that one is to remain a virgin until marriage. The Bible may not tack on the phrase “it’s God’s best plan for your life” before the teaching, or after it, but the notion of “having pre marital sex is sinful” is still in the Bible.

Remaining celibate is a wiser life style choice, in that the individual who is not fooling around does not have to worry about getting STI’s (STDs), or getting pregnant, or being used.

But I think that’s all beside the point. While I can see how it is of benefit to a person to remain celibate until marriage, the Bible presents sexual sin as being a sin against God and against your own body.

Hannah writes,

    So we started searching the Bible ourselves and we haven’t found a much biblical basis for Christian purity culture and how it treats virginity and sexual experience.

The concept of sexual purity is indeed in the Bible, regardless of how screw-ball and legalistic fundamentalists treat the topic. And good Lord knows many conservative Christians are weird and legalistic about sex, I realize that.

But fundamentalists, Reformed, evangelicals and Southern Baptists being mean- spirited, kooky, or crazy about how they teach about such topics and present them to kids, women, or singles does not legitimize trying to argue away texts in the Bible that do support the notion of virginity until marriage, or in trying to find loop holes for them.

Hannah writes,

    Therefore I believe, based on my research, that it’s possible to have consensual, safe, and private sex* outside of marriage and not be transgressing any of the basic ethical guidelines for sexual behavior as laid out in the Bible.

This strikes me as quite similar to homosexuals who claim to find loopholes in the Bible that pardon homosexual sex. Homosexual apologists will argue, for instance, that the Sodom story was not condemning consensual homosexual sex, but only the forced variety (i.e., male- on- male rape). I provided links on a previous post to material that argue against such points (see that list of links here, they are listed about half way down the page).

It’s almost genius the lengths some will go to in order to find excuses to practice or defend behavior that the Bible forbids.

My stance is this: if you are an adult, you are free to make whatever choices you want to, including some pre- or extra- marital nooky.

But please don’t try to argue for it on the basis that the Bible is really hunky dory fine with it, when in fact, it’s pretty clear ((Link): yes clear) it’s not.

Have all the extra marital sex you want, but please, don’t try to insist the Bible is fine and peachy with it. That is just lame and intellectually dishonest.
– (Says someone who is a virgin at age 40+, who fully intends on getting into pre marital boinking whenever she gets in a serious relationship but who will not blog and argue that the Bible is really okay with it. Do what you want, but be honest about it.)

Hannah writes,

    Christian culture over-values virginity at marriage so much that it heightens to an unreasonable degree the tension of an already momentous and risky decision.

Oh stop it, you’re making my side split from all the laughter! As in tee hee hee, 😆

If there is one thing Christian culture does NOT do is over-value virginity, not at marriage, and sure as heck not over a lifetime. That is what this whole blog is about. (And Hugh Jackman photos. This blog is also about the occasional (Link): Hugh Jackman photo.)

Examples of what I am talking about (I have many such stories on this blog, this is only a partial listing):

Er, yeah, I am not seeing a lot of judgment there and not much over-valuing, either.

These days, Christians, even ones who claim to be “biblical,” who say they are conservative, who claim to value “traditional marriage” and “the family” now attack virginity and celibacy and keep reassuring the fornicators that they are fine and dandy in their fornicating.

Hannah says,

    1) we are required to take them at their word that sex is life-changing and terrible (in both senses of that word)

I’m not sure what this is about. Most commentary I have seen, heard, or read from Christians who advocate celibacy until marriage say how AWESOME sex is, not how “terrible” it is… it’s said to be “mind blowing” if one waits until marriage to have sex. Frequently, Christians say how great sex is, but that God intends for it to take place in marriage only. I’ve not heard Christians bill sex as “terrible.”

Unless she means the standard Christian scare-tactics of, “You can get an STI (sexually transmitted infection) if you have sex before marriage.”

But then, you can be a virgin woman on your wedding night, stay faithful to your spouse, and if your Christian spouse starts having affairs, he can pass an STI on to the wife. Food for thought.

Hannah continues,

    The bogey of sex thus becomes a looming question mark for us and the already-significant risks of choosing to get married to someone become exponentially more risky because there’s a huge piece of the marriage-choice puzzle that we are required to leave up to chance (which our good mentors have named God’s Will to keep us quiet).

    … we have to not question what our parents and pastors have told us—which is, essentially, that everything I just laid out in layman’s hermeneutics about biblical sexual ethics is lies and that God’s best plan for sexuality is total ignorance and total commitment to one person and one form of sexual experience forever and ever, amen—and to jump through all the Christian social hoops to land in bed with someone and not get ostracized or shamed for wanting to have sex in the first place.

    … and you got married because that was the only way to explore your sexuality and stay sane in the face of such overwhelming social pressure and potential shame, and if you’re really lucky you’ll both be moderately happy and mostly sexually compatible

I sincerely hope she is not attempting to utilize the typical ex-Christian, Non-Christian, or liberal Christian argument that you should have sex with someone (ie, your boyfriend) prior to marriage to find out if you are “sexually compatible” with the person. Could be wrong, but that sounds like what she is getting at.

If that is what she was hinting at, I addressed that in a previous post:

Hannah writes,

    But the chances of ending up with that ending to your story are pretty slim—and after my marriage ended, the stories of unhappy marriages launched on these terms started coming to me out of the woodwork. Our pastors and parents may adore Dannah Gresh, Josh Harris, and the Ludys, but those relationship and purity gurus are the lucky ones selling their stories through books and speaking events. They do not represent the vast majority of American Christians, and while they mean well, their idyllic solutions have shortchanged most people who bought into their system out of blind trust.

    So, as a divorced woman who did everything right by the assumptions of that system and found that it was full of empty promises…

I do think she is on to something here, in a sense. When I was growing up as a Christian, I had many other Christians and their publications telling me, or strongly implying, that if I stayed a virgin, prayed, had faith and simply waited, that God would send me a Christian spouse. But that never happened.

I remain single in my 40s, despite being sexually pure, despite praying, having faith, and so on. Christian singles, the women especially, were sold a bill of goods when younger. We were misled.

Overall, she wrote a decent post there that you may enjoy, but I’m not buying the notion that the Bible is peachy fine dandy with pre-marital sex.
———————————————-
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re Celibacy

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments (including by self professing Christians)

(Link): Weak Argument Against Celibacy / Virginity / Sexual Purity by the Anti Sexual Purity Gestapo – Sexual Compatibility or Incompatibility – (ie, Taking Human Beings For Test Spins – Humans As Sexual Commodities) (Part 2)

This post discusses, among other topics, Rev Mark Driscoll’s false views of adult singlehood and celibacy:
(Link): Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias

(Link): The Nauseating Push by Evangelicals for Early Marriage

(Link): Decent Secular Relationship Advice: How to Pick Your Life Partner

(Link): Why Christians Need to Uphold Lifelong Celibacy as an Option for All Instead of Merely Pressuring All to Marry – vis a vis Sexless Marriages, Counselors Who Tell Marrieds that Having Affairs Can Help their Marriages

(Link): More Married Couples Admit to Sexless Marriages (various articles) / Christians promise you great frequent sex if you wait until marriage, but the propaganda is not true

(Link): Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

(Link): Celebrity Deems Herself A Born Again Virgin And Vows to Stay Celibate “For A Year” – Oh Puh-leaze

(Link): How About Using Celibates as Role Models For Celibacy? (Oddity: Christians Holding Up Non-Virgins [Fornicators] As Being Experts or Positive Examples on Sexual Purity)

(Link): Being Equally Yoked: Christian Columnist Dan Delzell Striving to Keep Christian Singles Single Forever

(Link): Christian Single Women: Another Example of Why You Should Abandon the “Be Equally Yoked” Teaching: 21-Year Old Christianity Student, Children’s Minister Charged With Murdering Fiancée He Was to Wed in August; Made It Look Like Suicide

(Link): Wife of Preacher Shoots, Kills Him, Recounts Years of Physical and Sexual Abuse – So Much for the Equally Yoked Teaching and the Notion that Christian married sex is Mind Blowing

(Link): Pro Ball Player Convicted for Kid Diddling Three Kids (Pedophilia) Claims to be an Outstanding Christian (and he’s married with a kid of his own) – again, why should Christian single gals limit themselves to only marrying Christian men? The Whole “Being Yoked Equally” thing is irrelevant and unduly limiting for singles