Buster Cannon

Has the church made purity an idol? (Article)

8 posts in this topic

From the article:

 

“In a blink of an eye, the prospect of being “pure†and holy has been wiped away. This mentality is so dangerous because it fools us into believing that our entire worth as believers and as “eligible†bachelors/bachelorettes is wrapped up on this one, single part of who we are.â€

 

We’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory. That’s a given, so our past doesn’t determine our worth as a believer, but as to the second point about our worth as bachelors and bachelorettes, our past does determine our worth to a future spouse. Even non-Christians know this, which is why some people might lie about the number of partners they’ve had or on the other side, try to get with someone who’s had a low or zero number of partners in spite of the fact that they themselves have had their promiscuous fun.

 

I think it’s important for people, particularly women, to know that right or wrong, future lovers are likely to judge you for your sexual history, so the analogies with which the author of the article seems to take issue that “Your sexual purity, once it’s given away is like...’Tape that’s lost it’s stickiness,’ ‘Paper that’s been torn,’ ‘Gum that’s been chewed,’ ‘A gift that’s been unwrapped,’†are all to some extent true from a future lover’s perspective, the church’s view notwithstanding, as the future lover’s perspective is the more relevant one. (This came from "Relevant" Magazine after all, right?). I think people should learn this lesson early while they’re still virgins.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

 

“In a blink of an eye, the prospect of being “pure†and holy has been wiped away. This mentality is so dangerous because it fools us into believing that our entire worth as believers and as “eligible†bachelors/bachelorettes is wrapped up on this one, single part of who we are.â€

 

Not Christian, yet I have no problem with this article.

 

The only thing I do have a problem with... that I've seen before... is when people want to marry a virgin and are vilified for it.

 

While I absolutely support not shaming non-virgins, and making them feel like they have less worth, that can't be equated in any way, shape or form with someone who has virginity as a deal-breaker.

 

A non-virgin's worth is EQUAL to a virgin's worth, but some men and women are going to want to marry a virgin anyways, and the two have no relation. It's just a feature that they want present in their relationship. And that should be honored and respected in my opinion. As they say "To each their own." Everyone knows what they want and everyone should go after what they want in a life partner and nobody is in a position to judge other's for it.

 

Because if we're going to start judging guys and girls who want to marry virgins, we might as well say it's "not Christian" to want to marry someone who is taller, or who is physically attractive, etc.

 

Dare I say that God didn't put any requirements for who you choose as a lover? But you can be sure as hell certain God will judge you for how you treat your lover after you find what you're looking for and commit to him or her.

 

Nobody has any moral obligation to select a lover when they're without something that that individual highly values. It's never been this way, and it should never be this way. The only thing we have an obligation to do is to treat everyone with equal respect: But this doesn't mean we have to see them as good matches for us romantically.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I do have a problem with... that I've seen before... is when people want to marry a virgin and are vilified for it.

 

I'll take your word for it that this happens, but I've  never seen it.

 

What I do see, however, is men sleeping with anything with boobs for most of their teens and 20s, and then when it's time to settle down, they want to marry a virgin. THAT double-standard sexist attitude is one I will happily vilify til my dying day. I mean, there was a trollish poster in these threads for awhile who displayed that exact attitude and didn't understand why we all told him off.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take your word for it that this happens, but I've  never seen it.

 

What I do see, however, is men sleeping with anything with boobs for most of their teens and 20s, and then when it's time to settle down, they want to marry a virgin. THAT double-standard sexist attitude is one I will happily vilify til my dying day. I mean, there was a trollish poster in these threads for awhile who displayed that exact attitude and didn't understand why we all told him off.

 

I've seen it. On this forum (before you were here), on Christian forums, and on the net in general. There is a sliding scale, though. Sometimes it's the notion that it's unChristian. Or people try to talk you out of your deal-breaker in a very critiquing way as if their deal-breakers are somehow righteous, including the deal-breaker almost everyone has which is rejecting someone based on the face they were born with. Then it gets into the territory of people just saying your plain wrong to have that deal-breaker, and I've seen things written such as "If a guy cares if you're a virgin or not, run the other way" as if to suggest that the guy has a defect for valuing that the girl and him are each other's only's.

 

So, while it may not always technically be a 'vilification' a lot of people, from what I've seen, seem to have a real problem with this deal-breaker, but they are very confident and supportive of their own.

 

Regarding the guy you're speaking of, I was very active in that thread by challenging his position. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with the article when it comes to people who come to Christ out of a sexually impure lifestyle. When someone becomes a new creature, their past is washed away, they no longer have a past in Christ. The important thing is for them to find spiritual purity and all the other aspects will fall in line.

Converted Christians do still have to deal with their own memories and personal consequences, but the Christians around them should not be reminding them of a forgiven past - if they've changed, that shouldn't be used to belittle or take advantage of them. They become equals before God, receiving the same reward as those who've obeyed longer/always.

Could I accept someone converted like that as a spouse? It isn't my wish, but if the person was sincere and the "right one" in God's eyes, I could. I've seen enough of life and people to know how complicated and messy things can get even for those who think they are doing the right thing and how important compassion is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take your word for it that this happens, but I've  never seen it.

 

What I do see, however, is men sleeping with anything with boobs for most of their teens and 20s, and then when it's time to settle down, they want to marry a virgin. THAT double-standard sexist attitude is one I will happily vilify til my dying day. I mean, there was a trollish poster in these threads for awhile who displayed that exact attitude and didn't understand why we all told him off.

 

That dumbass double standard is ridiculous. That should be villified, but virgins who have a preference for other virgins should not be villified. It is not unreasonable for someone to want to share that exclusivity with their spouse. I've seen some ad hominem attacks on men saying "if he was a real man, he wouldn't care about her sexual past." 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now