Addressing Christian Premarital Sex

erika said:

For those of you who are offended by the notion of Christians having premarital sex, the statistics show they are doing it. My question is, does it have to come across pejoratively to be considered by Christian publishers? Must we paint premarital sex as destructive or could the classical Biblical interpretation be challenged in fiction? Just wondering if such an idea would play in Christian markets.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Christians commit every sin there is, so the statistics are largely irrelavant.

Exactly how do you want to challenge the classical Biblical interpretation? Do you intend to make pre-marital sex a "good thing" or an acceptable alternative? If so, I doubt that it would fly with Christian publishers.

On the other hand, you could probably have a protagonist who engages in pre-marital sex, but is of two minds about it, thus causing internal conflict. Though I think you'd have to resolve the conflict in terms of the classical Biblical interpretation in order to be published by a Christian publisher.

In reading the New Testament, it appears that Jesus did not generally roll with a lot of married people. His mom was supposedly married but his stepdad is only around for the first part of the story and seems curiously absent until the end. None of his female friends seems to be married-- if they are it is not mentioned-- and the one who is mentioned the most "slept around" quite a bit, or so the story tells us. Jesus had considerably less tolerance for hypocrisy than he did for unmarriedness or promiscuity.

Perhaps if you could work a few of the above items into the narrative, whether your characters choose to have sex outside of wedlock or not, it might make the story and the ideas in the story a bit more compelling?

It's a fact that people who are really promiscuous generally regret it at least at some point in their lives, regardless of their religious beliefs. On the other hand, people who go through their whole life struggling against normal urges made intolerable by lack of sexual release often commit heinous sins and end up using their frustrations as an excuse.

If Jesus had not loved sinners, and if he had spent his whole life merely lecturing people for sleeping around, I doubt that we would know his name today.

Just my opinion, of course, and no offense intended.

For what it's worth, I think any Christian who "sleeps around" would be VERY morally conflicted about their actions; one of the Holy Spirit's jobs is to prick our consciences and direct us. And He never condones anything contrary to the Word. Any "Christian" who could engage in promiscuity without regret I'd say is a CINO. And God knows we have a slew of those around these days.

Oh yeah, I agree with Roger: no CBA house would touch a work featuring a protag with the above mindset. Bank on it.

Scarlett_156 said:

If Jesus had not loved sinners, and if he had spent his whole life merely lecturing people for sleeping around, I doubt that we would know his name today.

Click to expand...

And yet he didn't hesitate to call it a sin either. In the story of the adulteress, in John 8, he didn't just say "Neither do I condemn you." He said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

The question of discerning fruit has several facets and can be discussed on more than one plane. Exchanges I've encountered have often devolved into shooting matches because of partial or poor clarification on what the marksmen's terms actually mean.

Discerning an individual's fruit necessarily involves outward action because that's what we see. Our actions reveal our motivations and are manifestations of what's in our hearts. The old adage "You can't judge a book by its cover" only travels so far. If I hold up a dictionary and ask you what it is, you'll probably say it's a dictionary and you'll be right unless I consciously choose to deceive you and glue the cover of a dictionary to an encyclopedia volume. Can we see what's in a person's heart? No, but you don't have to see into their heart if they're betraying what's there by their actions. In questionable circumstance they certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt, but there's still doubt.

Christians certainly sin ("Anyone who says he has no sin is a liar and the truth is not in him.")--take a look at Paul's dilemma in Rom. 7. I think a primary difference between Paul's self-confessed sin and the above character who is a promiscuous Christian (approaches 'oxymoronism' to me) is that Paul recognized his struggle as sin and characterized it as such. It doesn't appear this character does--he'd probably be more likely to march in the streets with protest signs to legitimize it. And a heart that is impervious to sin is not indwelt. A distinguishing mark seems to be whether this is a sin of continuity--a trait of a lifestyle--rather than an ad hoc failure.

How "bad" a sin (fruit) is loses importance because all sin separates us from God and therefore is ultimately bad (Jesus only mentions one "unforgivable sin"). However, if we confess our sin He is faithful to forgive us. Again, it doesn't sound like our character is confessing much.

Defining bad and good fruit can largely be cast in Gal. 5:19 and Gal. 5:22 (although this is not likely a comprehensive list). If we're being honest with ourselves in evaluating our own actions against these criteria (which is the first exercise), discerning the roots of another's action isn't really as tough as we sometimes make it out to be.

Just a couple thoughts on the topic...

Okay. Whatever. All I'm saying is, the CBA won't give your work a second look. The ABA is probably where you'd find a home with it. Good luck.

The issue really isn't an issue. Paul addressed sexual immorality at the church at Corinth, so sexual promiscuity isn't a new issue. The underlying question seems more like, "How far can you stretch the bounds of Christianity and still call it Christianity?" So if exposing sin in the church is now novel, it once wasn't.

But looking at the question from the perspective of "hey everyone is doing it..." can it be that bad?- is sort of like drawing a line in the mud and trying to straddle it without falling in. An immature Christian might ask, "How far can I go -towards stretching the rules and still get into heaven?" A more mature Christian will realize that a person who asks that question, in reality, is already standing on a greeced bannana peel, a proverbial accident waiting to happen.

Jesus first teaching was not about rules, but about attitudes and values and priorities. It kind of seems like rules, but it deals with attitudes of the heart. "Blessed are the pure in heart..." There is a blessing attached to specific attitudes and a "Woe" attached to the wrong attitudes.

The question is pretty much saying, "My highest objective is not "Thy kingdom come and thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven", but how can I have my cake and eat it too? I want to know what I might get away with, without getting zapped. This thinking already assumes there is no such spiritual law as sowing and reaping. Hebrews 12 tells us that God chastens every one of his children - for our benefit. And it isn't pleasant.

The answer, "Everyone seems to be eating cake and getting away with it..." isn't the most spiritual argument.

Clarification

erika said:

Let me clarify for everyone. Originally, this was a question of book market's but something that Gravity wrote got to me. My issue now is this whole matter of judging faith based on outward action. How can you do that when that is precisely why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees?

Basically, what I'm hearing is that Christians sin, should feel guilt (conviction) for their sin. But wait, joy is also a fruit of the spirit. So I'm supposed to feel bad about being my naturally sinful self and rejoice in that self-loathing. Is that about right?

Click to expand...

Erika,

I'm a bit confused, so forgive me if this is off the mark.

Regarding the first point, how else do you discern whether someone is a Christian other than by observing whether his/her actions align with Christian precepts? Why would a Christian's actions not align with Christian precepts? (1 John 1:5-10; 5:1-5, 18) "Judging" is a bit of trigger word in that it's often used in the sense of being judgmental, which Jesus did warn against ("Judge not lest ye be judged.") But that's a whole different connotation than judging as it relates to discernment. You have to discern things spiritual in order to live spiritually, and for the Christian this can't be done without the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12-15). I don't remember seeing anything in Scripture where Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for "judging faith based on outward action." His condemnation of the Pharisees was for hypocrasy and legalism--for relying upon external show as a substitute for internal substance. Is that what you meant?

Your second paragraph is most puzzling--at least to me (maybe someone else has a better handle on it.) Your first sentence is true; when we sin we should recognize it and feel badly about it. That's what drives us to confess it and, hopefully, repent of it. We've grieved the Holy Spirit and that should grieve us. Joy is, indeed, a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22), but the round pegs need to be kept in the round holes. Yes, we should be watchful of our sinful selves (again, Rom. 7:15 with context) as we strive to be Christlike and avoid the pitfalls that our fallen nature often tends to lead us toward. But "rejoicing in self-loathing" is a curious conclusion to derive from this argument--or from Scriptural teaching. Biblical joy is derived from the certainty of the hope we have in Christ and the sanctification we undergo in becoming more like Him (James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 1:3-12). Nowhere does the Bible advocate self-loathing (if I'm interpreting what you mean by that term correctly), let alone rejoicing in it.

Don't mean to come across harshly--I hope I haven't. Just kinda curious about the confusion over how we are to relate to sin vs. how we are to relate to Christ and our walk with and toward Him.

Erika, I like you. I might as well say that in case my answers don't relflect that.

I'll make an observation about the way you phrase questions. It seems you are always standing on a double-edge- on one side you ask a really deep and meaningful question that needs to be asked, and on the other side is kind of a test. You phrase things like a complete curveball that sometimes sounds like more of a statement than a question - a declaration? Then you rephrase the question and it makes more sense.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for primarily one major reason. They didn't like mercy. "For God so loved...he gave..." His entire reason for coming to earth was to demonstrate God's mercy, and they were oppossed to the very concept, trying to establish righteousness based upon good works.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made it clear that the kingdom of Heaven is about attitudes, values and priorities, many that conflicted with the Pharisee mindset. They could avoid killing, but couldn't stop hating. Since Jesus equated 'hate' with murder, they were angry at him, because he made them feel guilty. All along they justified hating certain segments of society, and now he's saying, "Love your enemies..."

Jesus never negated the Law. He clarified it. He broke it down into two main parts that he called the "Weightier issues" - Mercy and Justice. "You tithe dill and mint, yet neglect the weightier issues...justice and mercy..."

James later clarifies this further, "mercy triumphs over justice..." meaning of the two, mercy was the better. (Something every Christian needs to learn) If we err, it should always be on the side of being too merciful.

The Pharisees kept placing stumbling blocks in front of mercy. So Jesus pressed the point - not by making it easier- but by making it harder for self-justification. "...if any man looks upon a woman to lust after her, he commits adultery in his heart..."

The point here was to show the self-righteous that they were just as much in need of mercy as everyone else.

Who never covets? Yet, we're told coveting is idolatry. Jesus was never justifying lust or hate, or coveting. Rather, Jesus was demonstrating why we needed a savior, and not just the people conventionally thought of as sinners, but religious people too.

The Pharisees were declaring a certain segment of society was "beyond mercy"- and called them "Sinners". Jesus was implying they needed to be saved from sin as much as the people they called sinners, an offensive thought to them.

Since "Mercy" was actually written into the Mosaic Law, Jesus kept baiting them to force them to see they were actually disobeying the Law. You can actually heal on the Sabbath as much as you could pull an animal out of the well on the Sabbath, without breaking the Law.

The issues you are talking about are very complex. And honestly, there is an answer, but far more complex than can be answered in less than a book.

We can't be flippant about our actions, weakness or whatever. For one, the laws of sowing and reaping are as indiscriminate as the laws of gravity. If we think we can get away with murder (going to the extremes with this to make a point) even if one gets to heaven, they reap all kinds of pain in this life- people won't trust them- people will look at them with scorn- they spend time in jail if they get caught and if not they spend life looking over their shoulders. With premarital sex, people get pregnant, people get diseases, people get hurt. Just from a common sense standpoint, wisdom should make us want to shoot far higher than playing spiritual russian rullette.(sp???)

Hebrews tells us to STRIVE to enter into peace. That sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't. There is a "rest" in faith, but it doesn't come automatically.

If you look at the steps of growth outlined by Peter, "therefore...supliment your faith...with brotherly affection...with love..." Being a Christian is a process, not a steady state. We don't always know what is right to do, and then when we do, we go through the sometimes difficult process of "How in the world do I stop cursing...drinking...smoking...fill in the blank..."

...I'll stop here ...hands hurt

Point being, some of us really care and care enough to answer the toughest questions. I'm certain some of the people here will give less attitude in their answers, even if you just come out and bluntly say what's on your heart, no matter how difficult the question is. I think some people, myself included, aren't always sure what you are asking right off the bat. Then when you spell it out, I feel, "Why didn't I see where you were coming from?"

Nate

erika said:

Let me clarify for everyone. Originally, this was a question of book market's but something that Gravity wrote got to me. My issue now is this whole matter of judging faith based on outward action. How can you do that when that is precisely why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees?

Basically, what I'm hearing is that Christians sin, should feel guilt (conviction) for their sin. But wait, joy is also a fruit of the spirit. So I'm supposed to feel bad about being my naturally sinful self and rejoice in that self-loathing. Is that about right?

Click to expand...

That's not a lecture, though. (He also said "go and sin no more" to sick people he had cured; the assumption I make about this is that we are all sinners to some degree...?)

Jesus's lectures were for those whom he considered truly sinful, i.e., the hypocrites. In the "woman married to multiple brothers" story he brushes aside the entire "whose wife is she in heaven?" question to point out that false quibblers over details jeopardize their immortal souls to a much greater extent than those who simply act, whether the act is right or wrong. He seemed to favor action, even erroneous action, over quibbling and bickering. (That's why I like the guy so much.)

Doubtless Christian readers and book-buyers would be interested in your subject as you present it-- given that it was well-written and otherwise interesting of course. The "Christian" publishers, however, would likely make some quibbling noises, lol! I would think this would tend to lead toward very wooden and predictable plots in Christian writing...?

Again. If a Christian is bound and determined to see how far he or she can push grace and still remain a candidate for heaven, there's not a man-jack on the planet that can stop them. The question still stands: if pleasing the Father is paramount, knowing that in pleasing Him our own joy is fulfilled, why would a Christian willingly want to continue doing something that hurts Him? And as collateral damage, hurts ourselves? I dunno. Maybe the orgasms are terrific, but can they be that terrific?

erika said:

Originally, this was a question of book market's but something that Gravity wrote got to me. My issue now is this whole matter of judging faith based on outward action.

Click to expand...

Ok, I know the thread has taken a bit of a tangent here, but just thought I'd point out -- in fiction, the reader (and the author) generally knows more of a character's mind and heart than is possible to know in real life. If you want to put it that way, fiction allows something closer to a "God's eye view" of the characters.

If a character's actions and dispositions (promiscuity=action, without regret=disposition) are at odds with who/what the character is supposed to be (committed Christian), there had better be a plausible-to-the-reader reason in the story and a satisfying-to-the-reader resolution.

It's the same rule that applies across all fiction; unbelievable-to-the-reader generally equals losing the reader. Whether it's worth it, or what the desired readership is, is the author's choice, but those factors should be taken into account.

For what it's worth, I never figured out how modern Christians started to equate 'premarital sex' with 'adultery'.

They are clearly separate concepts - every modern translation (NIV etc) seem to understand that .. so why don't most modern Christians?

To quote one reference, which studied the marriage practises of Jesus' era quite extensively: "The patriarchal concern for family lines meant that adultery was limited to acts where there was the possibility of a married woman being impregnated by another man. What the man did by taking another wife, or concubine, or even a prostitute, was therefore not considered adulterous."

No matter how sexist or stupid the definition is by modern standards (the modern idea of adultery applies if EITHER of the parties are married) it simply doesn't respect the Bible's historical accuracy to suddenly redefine all references to 'adultery' to include 'premarital sex' ... even if it does fit the modern culture where many of us live.

We may want to have a prohibition on premaritial sex for many good and sensible reasons. But we can't rewrite the bible to include it .. even if there is a prohibition against a fairly similar activity.

A change is still a change.

In my mind, there are several possibilities:

1. Jesus didn't teach against premarital sex.
2. Jesus taught against premarital sex, but the writers of the Bible forgot to mention it.

I'm not sure that there are other possibilities. (Given that the culture of the time clearly understood 'adultery' as something different to 'premarital sex', a reference to adultery clearly isn't a reference to premarital sex)

There is no shame in Christians proudly having values that Jesus didn't teach. Many Christians believe in things like good hygiene, recycling, no premarital sex etc. But there's no need to rewrite the Bible to pretend that Jesus spoke on these subjects. Or to blame other Christians that hold other views.

Mac

Mac H. said:

We may want to have a prohibition on premaritial sex for many good and sensible reasons. But we can't rewrite the bible to include it .. even if there is a prohibition against a fairly similar activity.

A change is still a change.

In my mind, there are several possibilities:

1. Jesus didn't teach against premarital sex.
2. Jesus taught against premarital sex, but the writers of the Bible forgot to mention it.

Click to expand...

Just a point of clarification. Jesus did teach against pre-marital sex. He just didn't call it that. It was called "fornication", which is a general term to describe sex outside of marriage.

Matthew 15:19-20 - For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man...

Also, Paul warned against fornication in Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Romans, and Colossians. Luke warned against it in Acts.

I think there is ample Biblical evidence against pre-marital sex as well as extra-marital sex.

erika said:

My husband was raised Christian. He's the reason I go to Church and am a Christian now and we had plenty of sex before marriage. And I wasn't his first conquest (actually, I'm not sure who conquered who but that's another thread). And he will be the first one to tell you that he doesn't feel some deep shame about it. He is a caring and very loving man (obviously) and used to chastise me for saying GD and other such things when we were dating. You can allege that he's not a sincere Christian because he doesn't brood over his every sinful misstep. You can contend that he should've regretted our lustful beginnings, but he doesn't. And for another Christian to question his faith as a result is both inane and unBiblical. And here's why.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here has said that you (or your character) should brood over past sins. But you specifically said your character is a "sincere Christian and sleeps around...without feeling any guilt or shame". I believe this is the point that several have questioned the sincerity of her Christianity.

As Christians, we have a responsibility to accept the forgiveness that God gives us. To continually brood over past sins is a sin itself. But we also have a responsibility to try to do better, knowing that we will often fail, but we continue to try nonetheless.

Erika, the difficulty is separating statements from questions. You bring up good questions, but I think you're also making underlying statements about hypocracy, and at least what you see as inconsistency.

Do people sin- yeah. Should they feel horrible? The Bible speaks of repentance, which is different than remorse or regret. Repentance is changing direction, not wallowing in despair. Whatever it takes to get there, it speaks of a change in mind that leads to a change in actions. Some people grovel in anguish first, others do not, they just have this lightbulb experience and change course.

People that get caught in sin (presidents, ministers -whomever) may feel terrible that they now have to deal with the aftermath. That isn't repentance. Feeling bad about something may come from a really selfish place. But if they could go back, and knew they could get away with it again, if they would, then there was no real change of heart. They have remorse but not repentance. That is where hypocracy is.

Does someone have to feel terrible and horrible about their past sins? At times that is a sign of sincerity; but the more important issue is who is "lord". If we are lords, then we do what we want. If Christ is our Lord, then to a degree, we're not only thinking, "How does this make me feel?"

The issues expand from there, "How does this impact the other...did I harm them...How does this impact God...did it hurt God?" The Bible clearly tells us that we can "grieve" the Holy Spirit. That means he actually feels pain when we commit certain actions.

In David's repentance after Bathsheba, he said, "I have sinned against you" (Speaking of God) This was not only a sin between him and a woman. His actions impacted the region. He used his servants to fetch the woman. He used what he once called, "the armies of the ever living God" to kill her husband to cover up his sin. His sin defamed God's name in front of his enemies. Until David grasped the scope of his sins, he couldn't repent.

Everything is not only about us and what we feel. What of a president or minister who slept with 100 women or men. What of their spouces? What of their children? What lies did they tell? Who is now jaded? Who is now dealing with their own addictions set in motion by their selfish action?

The more spiritually sensitive a person becomes, the more aware they are of all the dominos set in motion by their selfish actions.

As for wars and other issues, this conversation could expand, but the issue is "What is the eternal weight of all that we say and do---and what is the eternal weight of all that we don't say or do out of selfishness."

If we look at this from a human perspective only, we may think, "Tough...so what!" But if we get a glimpse of this question from an eternal perspective, from God's perspective, then our little failings may impact other people's lives far more than we think.

The Bible says that there is life and death in the power of our words. What we fail to say, and the foolish things we do say, have an eternal impact. We impart hope or despair without knowing it, or fail to impart life because we are selfish and self-centered or care too much about what others think and not what God thinks.

My guess is that you have a sensitivity to hypocracy, which can be a good thing. You ask deep questions, sometimes phrased as an answer. But why did God give you this ability? How do you aim this gift? Obviously, if God shows you things it isn't to bring about futility. That isn't how God operates. But only God can show you this answer, and I think you need to find this answer.

erika said:

For all that's holy, I can't believe what I'm reading. Let me state this as clearly as I possibly can and if it offends, sorry.

My husband was raised Christian. He's the reason I go to Church and am a Christian now and we had plenty of sex before marriage. And I wasn't his first conquest (actually, I'm not sure who conquered who but that's another thread). And he will be the first one to tell you that he doesn't feel some deep shame about it. He is a caring and very loving man (obviously) and used to chastise me for saying GD and other such things when we were dating. You can allege that he's not a sincere Christian because he doesn't brood over his every sinful misstep. You can contend that he should've regretted our lustful beginnings, but he doesn't. And for another Christian to question his faith as a result is both inane and unBiblical. And here's why.

What does Jesus preach in the Sermon on the Mount? What is sin? Is it just hitting someone or is it harboring hatred for your fellow man? Is it banging some girl that you just met or fantasizing about her secretly while you lie next to your wife? Who has sinned? Jesus says all of the above which means that those little impure thoughts are still sins. But that's not the fruit you see, is it? No, the fruit is that person's fidelity to their wife, their addressing of their neighbor. If that fruit looks good, the person's loving God, right? They are faithful, right?

Case in point, after Bill Clinton's liason with Lewinsky got out, he was shown carrying a Bible on the White House lawn. Is this an example of a man's penitent faith or a not-so-clever con? Does it matter why he was carrying the Bible? According to Jesus, it matters to God why we tithe, why we pray out loud, why we abstain from work on the Sabbath. The why matters. And if motive matters yet we cannot possibly know another's true motivation, we cannot actually assess their sincerity or their faith.

Put another way, what does the Bible say is good fruit - helping the poor, orphans and widows? What if I donate money for a tax write-off? The fruit is still good, but what does such an action say about my faith?

And going further, how should we help the poor? Should we fund the government and encourage them to do it or rely on private charities? This is a political matter, one not covered by the Bible.

We are also told to love thy enemy so does that mean we should empty the prisons and pull our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? Again a political matter, but Christians are deeply divided over such issues. "You're not loving your enemy. You're killing him," some say. And yet Luther replies, "I'm not being a good neighbor if I watch others being killed and do nothing."

Since the dawn of Christianity, brilliant men have debated and divided over topics such as war/pacifism, works & grace and what really constitutes loving thy neighbor. So tell me, where's the clear roadmap? Do you really think you see the naked fruit or do you judge based solely on your own worldview and opinions.

There is a reason there are thousands of commentaries on the Bible and so many denominations. Because interpretations vary. So to those of you who take issue with my observations, I ask, are you alone right in your understanding of the Good Book? Do you grasp what St. Augustine did not?

Click to expand...

erika said:

For those of you who are offended by the notion of Christians having premarital sex, the statistics show they are doing it. My question is, does it have to come across pejoratively to be considered by Christian publishers? Must we paint premarital sex as destructive or could the classical Biblical interpretation be challenged in fiction? Just wondering if such an idea would play in Christian markets.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Erika, you do ask good questions and I hope none of this is perceived as being an attack on you or your husband. I don't think anyone intends it as that--I certainly don't. However, both Roger and Nate are spot on.

As Roger noted, there is clear Biblical guidance on the matter of sexual impurity, which is inclusive of fornication, adultery, beastiality, pick your favorite vice. The reason I included your original question above in the quote is because of the phrase "...could the classical Biblical interpretation be challenged in fiction?" Two thoughts on this: (1) there's a reason that certain creedal elements become "classical interpretation"; that is, they're derived from hundreds of years of intent scholarly examination by a collection of dedicated minds greater than mine--or any single mind--could ever hope to achieve. Does that make them infallible? No. Does it make them worthy of attentive, intellectually honest examination? Yes. They've stood the test of time and repeated challenges througout the centuries. Before we presume to challenge them, we need to make sure we understand them as fully as possible and respect them as the synergistic product of godly study, wisdom and prayer that they are, and; (2) with the clear Biblical stance on sexual activity in this particular case, we're not challenging "classical interpretation", we're challenging the Bible itself. We need to be careful with that. The fact that the medium is fiction is secondary.

Nate also raises a great point regarding the underlying motivation of the heart in taking a position on anything spiritual. Are we engaging in apologetics of personal behavior we don't want to let go of or rationalizing the same in our past, or are we genuinely seeking the truth on the topic--the truth that pleases God? Can we really envision premarital sex--given what the inspired Word says about it--as being pleasing to God? Can you picture Him smiling down on a scene of His children engaging extra-marital sex, pre- or otherwise?

All respect to your husband, who I'm sure is a wonderful person (no patronization intended, believe me), but appealing to a lack of contrition for previous actions by a Christian doesn't mean the actions must have been okay. It may mean the Christian has some growing up to do. I, too, was "raised Christian", but I didn't become a Christian until I was 19, just before I got married. If I had engaged in pre-marital sex with my intended, I would simply have been wrong in doing so. God doesn't change His standards based upon our desires or emotions, no matter how strong they are.

(Disclaimer: My apologies to Roger and/or Nate if I adopted their postings inappropriately to support my point.)

Bruce and Nate: you've both made the points I was trying to make, albeit with much more eloquence. Thanks. But I'll bet a box of donuts this topic isn't done yet...

Erika, one of the confusing things about Christianity is that being a Christian doesn't mean we will always see eye to eye with God. - I didn't become a Christian for that reason, I simply went through a process of completely thinking there was no truth in Christianity, to almost becoming a Jew (not eating pork and the whole thing) Then through the Old Testament I came to believe that Jesus was the Christ- the Messiah, and couldn't imagine it could be anyone else. But even when I came to believe in God, and Christ, I for one wrestled with God about stuff. There's a part of our nature that believes we know better how to run the Universe.

Peter tried telling Jesus the Cross was a bad idea and tried to convince him to just be a king. Now, Christ said, "Get behind me Satan (which means adversary)" Spiritual Peter thought he knew better than Christ, but that didn't mean he was right.

And later, when Jesus gave a hard saying, some people walked away, and Jesus said to Peter- and the rest- "Will you leave me too?" Peter said something profound. He didn't say- I agree with all you say, and love all you say- he said pretty much, "you have the words of life, where else are we going to go?"

In a sense he might have said, "Well, you're sometimes rather hard to follow, but I get the fact this is about eternal life, and I'm not going to risk throwing it away simply because I don't like some things you say."

By the way, whenever I wrestled with God, he always won.

erika said:

Yall certainly don't have to worry about offending me, and as hard as this may be to believe, I really have no desire to offend or anger any of you.

But Nateskate's right about my being sensitive to hypocrisy. And it's such a common human condition, one we all share in from time to time. And I'm also not advocating premarital sex, just pointing out that for some people, it's not an issue. Whether these people simply disregard the Biblical admonition against it or just figure that grace covers all, I don't know. Probably depends.

I think it boils down to logic. Are God's rules arbitrary and therefore, often illogical? If yes, then at some point we have to choose between logic and blind faith. But then, reason allows us to come to an understanding of the Almighty in the first place and it is also the tool we use to interpret and understand the Bible. To think that we don't intellectualize the verses is ludicrous. Every single one us uses reason to discern the meaning of the parable, the true intent of the passage. At what point do we abandon that reason? At what point do we toss it angrily aside, as though it betrayed us all along?

I am way off topic here which is annoying, but I get so spun up about Christian dogmatics sometimes. Because dogma is people asserting and how can you make assertions about the unseen, unkowable God? Either you understand His ways or you don't. There really is no in-between. If you don't grasp the Bible completely, you're only grasping nonsensical pieces of an indiscernable puzzle, i.e. nothing. And if "His ways are not our ways", if we cannot know the ways of God, Bible study is pointless and theology a joke. But none of us really believe that. We search for answers because the answers are out there calling to us.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't necesarily disagree with any of you, but I also don't believe God is arbitrary. Thus, where logic and the Bible butt heads, I reexamine the Biblical interpretation because there can be no conflict between the two tools God employs to reveal Himself to us. You may disregard logic, but let's face it, you only do that sparingly because reason gets you through the day and leads you to Church.

All this deification of logic from a woman. Who would've thought? Anyway, that will probably explain both my questions, my thoughts and my writing issues. I really should stay away from the CBA market, yet I am drawn to it. Now that's illogical.

Click to expand...