Tags
casual sex, courtship, dating, divorce, marriage, red pill, relationships, sex, virgin, virginity
I don’t know about you, but back when I was a teenager (in the late 80s, egads!) there was this mentality that to be a virgin was some kind of curse or something, and the social pressure from peers was that virginity was something to be ditched at the first possible opportunity.
If you don’t believe me, just watch the teen movies of that era. In almost every one, there is a character on a quest to lose their virginity like it is some rite of passage. Characters who are virgins are portrayed as dweebs or squares or horribly uncool.
When I talk to teenagers today, it seems not much has changed. There may be some here and there who are taking virginity pledges and such, but for the most part it seems the attitude that to be a virgin is somehow a bad thing remains. That “experience” is preferable to innocence.
Frequent commenter Artisanal Toad raised an interesting point on his blog recently when he brought up an Old Testament passage that says, to paraphrase, when a girl loses her virginity, in God’s eyes the couple is married for life, unless the father objects to the match. In either case the man is required to pay the father the “bride price” in exchange for the daughter’s virginity.
Think about that for a minute. That would mean every girl reading this who is not a virgin is actually still married to the guy she lost her virginity to! Even if he or she went on to marry someone else! Uh oh, if this is the case, that means there are many awkward conversations to be had! (And yes, this rule seems only to be applied to women losing their virginity, not to men, unless the girl is also a virgin and then they are married.)
I hope he won’t mind my reposting the diagram from his site explaining this rather radical idea under today’s sexual norms, for those who are having trouble following this here:
Wow. I don’t know about you, but I find that absolutely mind blowing!
Now I am not sure if this is the case post New Testament, and since I cannot ask God directly about the in’s and out’s of the fine print, I don’t want to split hairs over if this is or is not the case anymore. However if nothing else it does make me wonder, if women today operated under that assumption that whoever they choose to lose their virginity to would be their husband from that point on till death do they part, how would that change things? Would women still be in a rush to “get it over with” as soon as possible? Or would they be a lot, lot, lot more thoughtful about the matter?
In our culture, the current assumption by and large is that partners WON’T be virgins when they marry. Or even when they meet. Sadly, this is largely the case even among church going folks. I do in fact know several couples who are each other’s first and only, and who are still together and going strong, but it’s exceedingly rare anymore.
How sad. I know I will be encouraging my own girls to wait, to value their virginity and innocence, to resist silly peer pressure, and to wait for a man who is ready and willing to commit to her for life, someone who will love her, honor her, cherish, and keep her all the days of her life.
I hope other girls/teens/young women will also rethink this idea of the “virginity curse” and buck the trend. Wouldn’t it be great if our society got to a point where it was “cool” to be a virgin until one was married? That it was considered a special and sacred moment once more?
Because it truly is a rite of passage, which is very likely why the tradition of weddings became such a big deal. That ceremony is supposed to signify this Old Testament idea — that to lose one’s virginity = marriage. Yep! That’s what the white gown and the standing up and the father giving away and the vows and the big party after are all about. Believe it or not!
Obviously we as a society are so far from that, the idea almost seems nutty. But if you ask me, it actually makes a whole lot of sense! And if one is a believer, it’s something to ponder very carefully indeed. I doubt God’s view of the matter has changed all that much.
In the case a believer has already crossed the line, I am not sure what the solution might be. Except to repent and sin no more. Like the bible also advises, if you can’t be celibate, find someone and get married, and spend the rest of your days happily knocking boot with your chosen life mate! Yep, it’s as simple (and complex) as that!
Let those who have ears hear.
Also interesting, numerous studies have found that people who marry as virgins have a much, much lower divorce rate, another advantage of waiting. See for yourself!
Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, “Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 845-855.
Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 503.
Tim B. Heaton, “Factors Contributing to Increasing Marital Stability in the United States,” Journal of Family Issues, 23 (2002): 392-409, p. 401, 407.
Jay Teachman, “Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2003): 444-455, p. 454.
Anthony Paik, “Adolescent Sexuality and Risk of Marital Dissolution,” Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (2011): 472-485, p. 483, 484.
9Paik, 2011, p. 479.
Having sex with a virgin does not make you married according to the bible or anything else. Toad is constantly mutilating scripture to justify his perverted beliefs.
@ 6873, as I said, I am taking kindof a “what if?” approach to the idea. Agreed I would have to do much more in depth study to find if the claim is sound or not, but I think in general we’re very far off as a society from what God commands as far as sexuality. I see this even within Christiam circles. And like all of the Good Father’s rules, they are meant to guide us and protect us from harm. So even if Toad is wrong, I do believe it’s still good for young women to wait. 🙂 that’s my intention, to float the reasons for and advantages of going so out there.
I’d be the first to admit Toad has some pretty radical theories! I suspect even he would be hard pressed to say they were anywhere near “the usual.” But he raises points for pondering just the same.
A healthy attitude toward sexual gratification or are we just stripping out just enough sexual activity for procreation? One is a controlled behavior seeking pleasure, like eating when you’re not hungry, while the latter is the prior disguised as serving ideology? Shouldn’t individuals measure what warrants pleasure and why?
“Shouldn’t individuals measure what warrants pleasure and why?”
If it feels good, do it.
That sure has been the recipe for all of the most successful human societies.
If it feels good, do it.
That sure has been the recipe for all of the most successful human societies.
Perhaps for the ones that live in grass/mud huts it has
In the present, women are postponing marriage as much as possible to retain independence as long as possible. It’s as if riding the carousel is socially condoned, although unstated.
In Christ’s time, it was normal to be betrothed by twelve and married a few years later. This had the added social boneus of removing temptation. However, I don’t know how they handled postponing pregnancy till girls physically matured.
Another point about virginity, it helps determine paternity. This is a more serious issue than most people will consider.
Hey Bloom! Thanks for the link.
6873 is pretty typical of the churchian reaction, because what I’m pointing out what the Bible says and it is so offensive that they can’t do anything but attack the messenger. I guarantee you that if they could, they would immediately point to whatever passage of Scripture proves I’m wrong.
The thing is, they can’t do that because I’m right. This isn’t the proverbial fart in a Baptist prayer meeting, what I’ve done is dump a steaming pile of shit in front of them. What do they do? They ignore it and pretend it isn’t there. Seriously, it’s *so bad* and the Bible is *so clear* on this that there’s nothing to say. Other than do what 6873 did… Having sex with a virgin does not make you married according to the bible or anything else. Toad is constantly mutilating scripture to justify his perverted beliefs.
It’s the normal female/SJW reaction. Deny the charge and attack the messenger. No argument, no rebuttal, just deny and attack.
Problem is, if 6873 were to actually read Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, it’s right there in black and white. Seduce a virgin and you’re married to her, the only question is whether her father will annul the marriage. Grab a virgin and take her by force, and if you’re discovered, she’s your wife and not even the father can annul the marriage. I explained it in detail in this comment on Dalrock’s blog. Hey! Look! An elephant, right here in the room with us! Everyone looks around and says “what elephant? We don’t see anything.”
If I’m wrong, this should be pretty easy to refute, right? Surely if I’ve got it wrong then Scripture is clear enough that all somebody has to do is point to the passage in Scripture that says I’m wrong. 6873 says I’m trying to justify my perverted beliefs. Right. That’s why I said:
Yes, the message hurts. I know because after reflecting on the text I had to admit that even though I thought I did everything right, I “married” another man’s wife and lived with his wife in an adulterous relationship for many, many years. And my beautiful children? That makes them bastards. So, yeah, it hurts, but if anything, the fact I was frivorced means I was saved from having to make the really difficult decision of repenting of my adultery. That’s Romans 8:28 “And we know that God causes all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
That points to the real problem. If one recognizes that I’m right and that is what the Bible actually says, it means they have to do something about it. Repent. Stop committing adultery. For the guy living with some other man’s wife (which is just about all of them), it means they are living in an adulterous relationship and they have to stop.
When we see a woman leave her husband and children and shack up with another guy, it’s easy for the churchian to say it’s adultery and the guy needs to stop banging another man’s wife. Not so easy to take when I’m the guy playing the role of Nathan speaking to King David: “You are that man!” (2nd Samuel 12)
The Bible says what it says and it does not say what it does not say. That was the point Jesus was making in Matthew 19. The Pharisees asked what the grounds for divorce were. Everybody *knew* that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 said the husband could give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away if “she is not pleasing to him because he has found some indecency in her.”
So, why did Jesus quote Genesis 2:24? That’s the grant of authority to the man to initiate marriage. Then Jesus said “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” In other words, it isn’t just that there are no grounds for divorce, it’s that divorce is not part of God’s plan. Why? Because the grant of authority to initiate marriage does not contain a grant of authority to terminate marriage.
So the Pharisees said ‘Well, if there’s no divorce, then why did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ Jesus corrected them and said “For the hardness of your hearts Moses permitted you… but from the beginning it has not been this way.” So, yeah, Moses permitted you to do this and that’s the way it is *now* but it was never part of the plan from the beginning. Then, Jesus instructed them that the “indecency” found in the wife that Moses cited as the grounds for divorce had to be sexual immorality in order for the divorce to be legitimate.
Years later with the church up and running, the most amazing thing happened. In 1st Corinthians 7;10-11, Jesus pops in and forbids His servants to get divorced. When He gets done, Paul offers one exception to the prohibition, the case of the Christian married to an unbeliever who refuses to live with them. And that whole “except for sexual immorality” from back in Matthew 19:9? Not for Christians. The only exception to the rule of “no divorce” for Christians is if they’re married to an unbeliever who refuses to live with them. Imagine that. Jesus puts His servants back on the original plan.
Yep, back when I pointed that out it went over about like loud a fart in a prayer meeting. First the noise got their attention and then the stench of their sin hit them. Since I made the noise, I was called a liar, a false teacher, one who twists Scripture, etc., oh- and let’s not forget- a “heretic.” As if I care what the catholics think.
That was where I started. Then, I noticed that the grant of authority to initiate marriage in Genesis 2:24 was not limited to a single wife. Uh-oh. Here we go again. I looked hard at what the Bible actually says about polygyny and wow… God regulated the practice in His Law, God condoned it (2nd Samuel 12:8), God commanded it (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) and God even participated in it, because in Jeremiah 31:31-32 we see that God said He was the husband of two wives, Israel and her sister Judah.
The screaming really got louder this time. “Toad is a blasphemer!” At that point they were looking around for rocks, but it got even worse.
Well, sez I, if a guy has more than one wife… what are the odds that sooner or later he’s going to want them all attending his bed together? Does anybody really think men *don’t* want that? I still remember the reaction when I said something like that and pointed to the popularity of lesbian porn… the outpouring of rage was off the scale. This time I was a vile toad, a twisted serpent leading the brothers into sin, encouraging homosexuality.
But, I looked through Scripture carefully and guess what I found? It turns out that men with men is forbidden, men with animals is forbidden and women with animals is forbidden (and they’re all death-penalty offenses) but there was a thundering silence on the part about with women with women. In fact, there is not one single mention in all of Scripture on the subject. Nothing. Nada. And what does Romans 4:15 and 5:13 say? That if it isn’t prohibited, doing it isn’t a sin.
That’s when they started throwing rocks. And guess what? The responses were so silly that it was child’s play to destroy them. My favorite is that polygyny and women with women is forbidden by the “VERY WORDS” of Jesus in Matthew 19:4-5. That’s irony, serious irony for anyone who has actually studied this subject. It brings a whole new meaning to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Why? Because there is a command in Deuteronomy 4:2: “you shall not add to the Law and you shall not subtract from the Law.” So, the question is whether that’s what Jesus meant when He quoted Genesis 2:24 (if you’re paying attention, you already know that Jesus meant the exact opposite of what they claim). As it turns out, if Jesus actually *meant* for that to be a prohibition on polygyny (something God the Father regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in) and a prohibition on girl-girl sexytime, then Jesus violated Deuteronomy 4:2 by adding to and subtracting from the Law. That’s a sin, and if He sinned He wasn’t the Messiah, His death on the cross was meaningless and Christianity is a lie.
You should have hear the screams of outrage when I pointed that out. If that energy could have been harvested it would have run California for a week. However, my study kept bringing me back to the whole issue of what is marriage and how does it start. I had the feeling I was missing something and when I got to Exodus 22:16-17 I found it. Because of all the study I’d done prior to that, I knew what it meant. Oops. Call me Pandora. Or maybe Cassiopeia.
And what does that all mean? The unthinkable. Everybody in the church is so busy pointing fingers at one another (“He’s a porn addict” and “Abuse” and “She’s a feminist”) that they completely overlook one simple fact: Studies by the CDC and others demonstrate that in the general population only about 5% of people are virgins when they marry. Among highly religious groups that number goes up to 20%, which means (at best) 8 out of 10 couples in your church are not actually married to each other, they are living together in a state of adultery.
That isn’t an opinion, that’s just the application of what the Bible says to the situation in front of me. People in the church have been claiming “having sex does not mean you’re married” even though that’s the opposite of what God said about having sex with virgins.
Feminists: “I lost my virginity, but I’m not married, I still have the box it came in!”
God: “If you break it, you signed the agreement to marry her using her blood.”
Now that I’m convinced I really am free from she who must not be named, because she was never my wife to begin with, the truth has set me free. Of course, all the churchians told me I was already free because the ruling of the little state-court judge that granted her a divorce was the end of the matter, because for a churchian obviously a government judge’s decision trumps God’s Word. Every. Single. Time.
What do you think, Bloom? Should I try missionary dating in dyke bars? The reaction from the church to me strolling in with a few of them couldn’t possibly be worse than what they already say about me. Besides, my mom now has a whole herd of little old ladies praying for me daily.
Wait! Bloom- I’ve got it!!! I can make a documentary!
Wanted: Female creative talent needed for a documentary movie project about marriage, divorce, polygamy and lesbianism in the evangelical Christian church. HWP Bi-girls with a Christian background preferred; please, no rape victims, drama queens or visible tattoos. The theme of this project will be politically incorrect and very offensive to most Christians. All actors will be exposed to various passages from the Bible as well as extreme hypocrisy on the part of Christians. Some actors will be forced to witness adultery and legal child abuse while on location. Counseling services will be provided.
We are also currently looking for a church that has a beautiful building, a sanctimonious pastor and a judgmental congregation to use as a location for the project. Resume’s and church nominations may be sent to artisanaltoad@gmail.com
Interested parties may refer to the script from a previous PSA found here to get an idea of how politically incorrect this project will get:
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/casting-call/
the social pressure from peers was that virginity was something to be ditched at the first possible opportunity
This is an example of the “crabs in a bucket” phenomenon. I will write a post in the future about it.
@ toad, you certainly have stirred a hornet’s nest. As I said I’d have to do much more study myself about all that, so I can’t really say if I agree or disagree with all you have laid out there, except I do know today’s casual sexual norms are for sure not how God laid that out. We all fall short, myself included. I am not so much interested in condemning anyone as encouraging them to steer clear of the wrong path. I hope this post reaches the heart of young women who have not yet crossed this threshold and encourages them to wait.
It isn’t about condemning, the point is for Christians there is an obligation to obey God’s Word, even when it hurts.
Think about it: the Christian guy who is a sincere Christian, married a decent woman, has 3.4 kids and a dog… leads a Bible study, is one of the deacons in his church, a well-respected guy in his community… and an adulterer?
No way! He got married in a church and everything! He’s got pictures to prove it! Until I bring up the point about his wife being married to another man… and he sees his whole world going down in flames. It’s worse than a divorce rape.
And if he’s got the willingness to study the passages in question, he quickly comes to the conclusion that he married another guy’s wife. Now what’s he going to do?
And when the statistics saying that of highly religious groups 80% of them are NOT virgins when they marry, that means there’s a whole lot of pain to spread around, so why even study something like this when (especially if he *knows* he didn’t marry a virgin) it simply isn’t going to end well?
Kind of like the people in the time of King Josiah… that got to look around and realize that everybody was committing idolatry. But this is worse than that, worse even than the guys in Ezra, because their wives are Christians too.
80% of the problem can be solved by the woman taking it to daddy, confessing what she did and asking him to bail her out. If that doesn’t work, getting a certificate of divorce from her husband (who probably isn’t a Christian) works just as well.
In fact, I’d say the odds of a woman truly being stuck in a marriage (they were both Christians when they split up) are pretty low. For the woman involved, it becomes a litmus test for how serious she is about obedience to the Word. Kind of like submission to husbands. “I’ll submit in everything… except *that*” For the guy involved, it’s being stuck on a train and getting to watch the wreck coming in slow motion, not being able to do anything about it.
Prisons are filled with people who did something stupid without thinking, sometimes without even knowing what they were doing was wrong. All the more reason to teach the children well and teach them correctly, because this pain can be laid squarely at the feet of the church that has taught the opposite of what the Bible says for generations.
@ Toad I am sure you do get folks stirred up! 🙂
Hey! I’m not the one that did it… I mean, I did my part, but I didn’t know and nobody ever taught me and they were always telling me the Old Testament stuff isn’t worth studying… and I’m supposed to man up and marry a slut and redeem her… and Yada, yada, yada.
And in the end I have to take responsibility for what I’ve done and all the wasted years. Knowing the role I’ve played, even in ignorance, I figure I also have a responsibility to promote myself as a really, really bad example, and I’m *motivated* to put on a show.
I’m already working on the script for this documentary and making my to-do list. Kind of like a shopping list, but worse. Gotta outline it and God only knows how many churches we’ll be thrown out of before it’s done. I’m thinking about 5 women and 8 men and if we can get everybody up to speed the actors that aren’t in the scenes can handle the cameras. In fact, the script will just be outlines until I have my talent.
Gonna really have to get up to speed on hidden cameras and mikes.
Toad,
You are very much a provacateur.
I do have a theory about why lesbianism was not addressed in the Bible, it didn’t happen. The Old Testament is written to inform women how to maximize their ambition to fulfil thier imperative through heterosexuality. In short, they wanted to make babies more than at present.
As a theory, it can’t be proven or disproved. There are no women from that time to ask.
As for being a provacateur, it is a good thing. Churcians are promoting feminine dominance in marriage and what amounts to harlotry in single women.
@ toad, oh dear!
@ toad the Old Testament is certainly worth studying, although my understanding is that much of it is superceeded by the New. As for polygamy and lesbianism, all that is way out of my knowledge to be able to say one way or another…
The church condemnation of female-female sexual contact is something that only became significant around the 7th century. Unfortunately, when the Reformation happened, the Protestants repeated the error.
Another example of Old vs New John 8:2-11.
Plus Toad and Gumedo, from what I hear it’s difficult enough for many to find one woman worthy of marriage much less several!
But back to the topic of our cultures current take on virginity…. 😉
Per the topic:
I think it would be a good thing if girls didn’t feel pressure to lose their virginity, as I did in my youth (we’re the same generation, Bloom 😉 ).
It’s interesting in the internet age, there seems to be a bit of a dichotomy. Remember the auction of Natalie Dylan’s virginity (and she was actually kind of repulsive, but in looks and actions)? I guess if people are bidding six and seven figures for the privilege it sends SOME message that virginity is important. In a rather odd and kafkaesque way.
A virginity auction? I missed that somehow!
Times like this make me glad I don’t have a TV. Look at how disturbed I already am by the state of things, and that’s based on only knowing what reaches me under my self imposed rock! If I knew the full story, I don’t think I could cope.
La la la…. Denial is a lovely thing!
I didn’t see it on TV (I don’t watch television either). It was online though, 2008.
When I was involved in my internet debate site.
🙂
Bloom, re: John 8:2-11, no. First, if they were caught in adultery, why did they only bring the woman? Where was the man? Second, “let every matter be decided by the testimony of 2 or more witnesses.”
We don’t know what Jesus wrote. What we do know was that when it was over, there were none to accuse her (no witnesses). She was free to go.
Backstory: Judea was an occupied territory and the Romans held the power of the sword. Broad authority was given to the local structure, but Jesus was not one of the judges. Had Jesus given His approval to put the woman to death, He would have been responsible to the Romans for an execution they did not approve of, subject to the accusation of the Pharisees that He had usurped their authority. It was a trap and the life of the woman involved meant nothing to these men.
Examples of real changes from the Law to the Church period with the advent of the Holy Spirit are 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, the prohibition on using the services of a prostitute. Under the Law, there is no prohibition on any woman being a money-for-sex prostitute and no restriction or prohibition on a man using her services, be he single or married. The prohibition Paul put in place applies only to Christians (only a Christian can join the members of Christ to a whore).
Another example is the right of a man to divorce his wife provided in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (which, per Jesus, would only be legitimate if the husband divorced her for sexual immorality) was taken away in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. Two Christians married to each other are forbidden to divorce. Instead of an exception for sexual immorality that applied only to the woman (only a man had the authority to divorce his wife for cause, no woman had such authority), 1st Corinthians 7:12-15 grants the authority to both men and woman who are Christians to be free from a partner who is not a Christian and refuses to live with them.
Then there is the discussion in Romans 14 concerning meat sacrificed to idols and the keeping of the Sabbath. These are actually changes to the ceremonial Law, not the moral Law. There are any number of commands in the NT that go beyond the commands of the Law, such as Ephesians 4:18: “Do not be drunk with wine, it is dissipation, instead be filled with the Holy Spirit.” An interesting command, because if one receives the Holy Spirit when one is saved, what does it mean to be filled with the Holy Spirit?
That can be answered by a careful study of the parable of the virgins, another one of the passages that most people get completely wrong. Hint: all the virgins were Christians (they all had the Holy Spirit- oil -and all their lamps burned. But, the 5 wise virgins had an extra flask (an extra filling) of oil. Their instruction to the foolish virgins to go purchase their own implies they had to purchase theirs, that is, they had to pay a price for it. The gift of the Holy Spirit that comes with Salvation is free, so this is something different, a filling of the Holy Spirit that cost them something.
At the end, the five foolish virgins all had an extra flask of oil that they had to *purchase* and when they got to the door, which was closed, the word the Bridegroom used when He said “I don’t know you” doesn’t mean what you think it means. There are two words used that are both translated as the English word “know” one subjective, the other objective. In that passage the Bridegroom used the subjective word.
It’s the same word John the Baptist used when he said of Jesus, “I didn’t know Him.” Of course he (objectively) knew who his cousin Jesus was, but he didn’t (subjectively) know Him. The 5 foolish virgins were locked out, not because they were not Christians, but because of the difference between the 5 wise virgins who did all they could do when they could do it. They walked with Jesus on a day-by-day basis and leaned on Him. The 5 foolish virgins got their fire insurance and sat on their asses doing nothing until it was almost too late. Why should they be rewarded in the same way that the 5 wise ones were, who had done all they could when they could?
It’s a warning to make hay while the sun shines because night is coming. Winter is coming… but perhaps the greatest source of hope is the implication that the foolish virgins, at the 11th hour, were still able to “purchase” their extra flask of oil. That it’s not too late.
Fuzzy. Indeed, I am a provocateur, but there are reasons why and they have a lot to do with the events of my life that shaped me.
I was going to say something different but, as I typed that, I was handed a folder of old documents. One of the documents is a copy of the first “sermon” I ever preached, the eulogy for my first-born daughter. The year was 1998 and I thought the last copy had been lost many years ago. She would have turned 18 a few weeks ago.
I didn’t proofread this, so forgive any typos, but I didn’t want to read it again. The circumstances surrounding Ruth’s death that I called “traumatic” were bad enough, but the people in my life at that time were planning on turning her funeral into a circus. Several pastors each felt they should be in charge until I told them their services would not be needed because as her father it was my responsibility. I was there to bring her into the world (literally- I caught her when she came out) and it was my job to say goodbye.
They suggested I wasn’t emotionally prepared or equipped to handle that job considering the circumstances. I suggested that if they kept running their mouths I might consider kicking their asses to be very therapeutic, considering the circumstances. Unfortunately my father intervened and showed them the door.
We kept it simple and short and I said some things I thought should be said. On reflection, I think they’re still worth hearing, so I’m sharing it with you. You can get married and bring children into the world, but the way the world works is sometimes you have to see them leave you behind and all you get to do is say “goodbye for now.”
______________________________
“She came into our lives and stayed for a short while, then she departed. The circumstances surrounding her life and death were traumatic and we shed a lot of tears. It was one of those events that causes one to examine what is important in life.
“Our lives today are hectic and fast paced. We live in a culture focused on entertainment, and it is increasingly difficult to have moments of quiet examination. It seems to me that our lives are becoming devoid of opportunities to really examine things of importance, as opposed to things that are merely urgent. Unfortunately, it often takes a death to remind us of our frailty, and of the ephemeral nature of our lives.
There are only 4 basic questions that all of life boils down to, and philosophers and theologians have been arguing the answers for thousands of years:
Who am I?
Who made me?
What is my purpose in life?
What is my destiny?
We seldom ask them, seldom think about them, but we all want answers. That desire for answers comes to the surface at times like this. So many people have told me something along the lines of “Well, you know, these things happen and we just don’t understand why they happen right now…” or something else along the same theme. That isn’t quite true. In fact, it isn’t true at all. At least not for me.
I’m reminded of an old Highland Legend.
A married couple of the Scottish Highlands had three times lost their only child, each one dying at an early age. Upon the death of the last child, the father became boisterous, and complained in the loudest tones at the injustice of it all.
The death of the child happened in late spring. Now, in more temperate areas the sheep would have already been out on pasture. But up in the heights, the storms still raged and the sheep were still confined to the barn. In a dismal, stormy evening, the man, unable to stifle his complaints, went out the door loudly voicing his laments, on his way to get a lamb for the funeral feast.
At the door of the barn he found a stranger standing before the entrance. He was astonished to see someone out on such a night, so far from any inhabited place. The stranger was plainly attired, but he had a countenance expressive of nothing but mildness and benevolence; and addressing the father in a sweet impressive voice, asked why he was out on such a night in such a tempest.
The father was filled with awe for which he could not account for and said he came for a lamb.
‘What kind of lamb to you mean to take?”
“The very best I can find,” he replied; “as it is to entertain my family and friends; and, I hope you will join us and share of it.”
“Do your sheep ever make any resistance when you take away a lamb?”
“Never,” was the answer.
“How differently I am treated,” said the stranger. “When I come to visit my sheepfold, I take, as I am well entitled to do, the best lamb to myself. And my ears are filled with the clamor of discontent by these ungrateful sheep, whom i have fed, watched and protected.”
The man looked up but the vision had fled…
******************
Many of us have sat on a pew and sung songs about being the sheep of His pasture. So, let me clue you in on what that means. Sheep are dumb. Silly. prone to all manner of idiotic behavior. I have some livestock, and I still have one sheep along with the goats and cows. Some of you have had occasion to chase those goats or sheep back into their pasture for me, for which I am grateful.
I’ve learned about sheep. And I can say that I am one of the Lord’s sheep. He is the shepherd and I am one of His sheep. That describes a relationship. And if our Shepherd decides to come and take, as is His right, one of His lambs, who am I to complain? Who am I to ask “Why?” Will the pot speak back to the potter?
The Scriptures are explicitly clear on this particular point: that our Lord loves us. That He loves us so much that He was willing to be tortured and killed in order that we might live. That point is also the one issue most people cannot resolve.
They say “If the Lord truly loved us, how could he do this to us? How could He allow this to happen?” That depends on your point of view. If your conviction is that the Lord loves you, and that He holds you in the palm of His hand,, then you will not question that love simply because you feel some pain. The relationship defines how the pain is perceived.
On the other hand, if you somehow believe you are independent, in charge of your own destiny and march to the beat of your own drummer, then there will be a different understanding. If your idea of God is that He is somehow removed, that He does not have a hand in guiding and shaping the events of our daily lives, then there will be some hard questions. My perception is that such a “god” is nothing more than a cosmic jack-in-the-box. Useful for Sunday sermons but not for much else.
The Shepherd can’t leave the sheep alone because they’re stupid. Even though the shepherd is always there, the sheep are constantly being enticed away by the siren call of all the things around them. Sometimes the sheep wander. Sometimes they stray. Sometimes they get hurt. But you have to understand that the Shepherd never hurts them and the love of the Shepherd is always real. If the sheep keep their eyes on the Shepherd and listen to His voice they will avoid the pitfalls.
But that doesn’t mean there won’t be pain. The pain is simply put in its proper perspective when it is understood the relationship of the Shepherd to His sheep. So, I can say “Yes, I do understand. The Shepherd of our souls has come to gather one of His lambs. Who am I to complain?”
Job understood who his shepherd was. Job, after receiving the news that he had lost all his children and all his herds and flocks fell on his face and worshiped. He said:
Naked I came from my mothers womb,
And naked I shall return there.
The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away.
Blessed be the Name of the Lord.
Job then received physical afflictions which left him with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. His wife said to him “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!”
But he said to her: “You speak as one of the foolish women speak. Shall we indeed accept good from god and not accept adversity?”
Job, of course, didn’t have the Scriptures to guide and comfort him. Job lived before the time of our great Redeemer and so didn’t know the peace of knowing forgiveness and acceptance.
But, I can think of a more modern day Job. His name was Horatio.
He lost his son to illness and so made plans to take his wife and two daughters on a trip to Europe, in order to get away from the pressures of business and grief. Shortly before the trip there was a fire, also known as the great Chicago fire, and it burned up all of Horatio’s properties on the waterfront. They were about to leave when Horatio learned there was to be a meeting of the city commissioners to settle questions of property ownership in the burned sections of town. If he wasn’t at the meeting he would lose title to his properties. It was decided to send his wife and daughters on the ship and he would catch a later ship and meet them in England.
On the voyage across the Atlantic the ship encountered heavy fog and collided with another ship. Horatio’s wife was saved but his four daughters were drowned. He received the telegram with all this news. On the passage over to England to be reunited with his wife he made a request that the captain of the ship diverted its course in order that it might pass the spot where his daughters were lost and he asked that he be notified when the location was reached.
The time came and Horatio went up to the bow and looked at the spot where he had lost his 4 daughters. He spent time with the Lord and later he wrote this song (and yes, I made them all stand up and sing it):
Artisanal Toad,
Thank you for sharing that. I don’t practice. Maybe you can put me in this camp.
No one has mentioned that there is a big difference between losing virginity to your sweetheart and losing it to the first alpha cad. I am afraid there is a lot more of the latter going on than anyone will admit.
That is not good.
Gumdeo,
So, discussion only surfaced in the seventh century? That’s in line with widespread acceptance of hard lifetime monogamy. More fuel for my silly theory.
I will be a virgin until I marry 🙂
Yay, Molly!!! 🙂
Molly,
The gromm is going to be very frustrated and anxious. P;lease, no long engagements,
🐻 🙂
I have only seen it from from one source but, the story was that very few couples have sex on their wedding night. A long and stressful day might be why.
Fuzzie and Bloom ❤ ❤
Artisanal Toad, that was beautiful and humbling and…words fail me.
Thankyou so much for sharing that with us.
Molly: Hurray! Good for you. I agree with Fuzzie. No long engagements.
😉
Toad,
I appreciate your post. My question is how does one reconcile with Deuteronomy 24:1-4? It doesnt appear to require a divorce at that point, only that it is an option should the husband find it displeasing. Please point me in the right direction if there is an answer!
Toad wants to have group sex with lesbians, so he lies and ignores the fact that the Bible prohibits female homosexuality:
Romans 1:26-27New International Version (NIV)
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Toad says the act of having sex makes a person “married.” No!
Hebrew marriage required a marriage contact, and usually payment of some kind was involved:
http://www.bible.ca/marriage/ancient-jewish-three-stage-weddings-and-marriage-customs-ceremony-in-the-bible.htm
Toad misuses Exodus 22:16-17 to say a virgin have sex creates a marriage. Here it is:
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall [a]pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.
As you can see, having sex did not make them married- the father can still prohibit the marriage! Paying the bride price (the marriage contract) makes a the marriage.
RPG, I can’t argue with Toad that polygyny was at least tolerated by God in the times prior to Christ, I don’t understand why but it was so. It is also true that it is was a stumbling block for Solomon; his wives/concubines (700 I think), drove him mad. The Levites were also forbade from being the husband of more than one wife, so it wasn’t always treated in a positive light by God. As for Jesus’ position, I can’t find any scriptures where he spoke on the matter in a positive or negative manner, but did speak of the “one flesh” concept in Matthew. All of that aside, it would seem that our nature and I believe God’s intent, is for us to be join physically and spiritually to one person during this earthly life. If marriage should reflect the relationship of Christ and the church, then shouldn’t our earthly marriages be the union of two chaste people, giving all of themselves to the other? It baffles me that we give this sacred act away at wholesale and then later when we decide time is running out and need to “marry”, expect someone to make a lifelong commitment while getting only a half-measure in return. I think this lack of exclusivity, is a large gaping hole in most “marriages” that satan will exploit at the right time . . . sometimes years down the road. I can honestly say that none of my peers who entered marriage with a sexual past have survived or if they have managed to stay “married”, they don’t cherish their spouses as they should . . . myself included. Its a sad state.
True Joseph. Your comment made me think, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eves…
RPG, I forgot to mention that Paul alludes to this belief as well in 1 Timothy 3:2 when discussing the qualifications for leadership in the 1st century church body. Although it wasn’t a commandment from the Lord, it was Paul’s belief from his apostleship that it was not good for a leader to have more than one wife, whether it be by polygyny or remarriage, depending on the context in which the passage is read. We simply have to give all of ourselves to our spouses if we expect all of the bounty of marriage in return, man NEEDS exclusivity!
“No one has mentioned that there is a big difference between losing virginity to your sweetheart and losing it to the first alpha cad.”
If she doesnt marry the sweetheart, and it is quite a given that he will forever have this ‘special place in her heart’ and the mental point ‘my man’ in her will remain at least partially occupied by him, does it then make a big difference to be a husband of someone occasionaly pining after an alpha cad or after a sweetheart? , in a way being in a position of the next guy anyways.
I agree with Toad about polygyny and that sex creates marriage. But I disagree with him about lesbian sex.
Christians who support lesbian sex say that we should not interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to sex between women, because Moses does not condemn it. They say that Romans 1:26 refers to men having anal sex in women. But… the law does not condemn this either. Wouldn’t that be hypocrisy? ‘-‘ Whatever the interpretation of Romans 1:26 Paul added something to the law.