Would you marry a woman who was a former stripper or X-rated star if she turned into a Christian ?

[Paidiske]

So where does the adultery of one passed onto another come into play?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. (I'm also not sure what you mean about passing on adultery).

Assessing whether or not someone is a good fit for you isn't assessing their worth as a person necessarily. But a bad fit for you is of low worth as a partner to you. It's not a statement of the person's worth as a person or as a Christian or as a member of the fellowship.

It's not very clear - when people talk about someone's worth - that these two senses of worth aren't, at least, blurring. If someone's not a good fit, why not just say that, rather than expressing it in terms of "worth"?

I don't understand why you would feel offense at a discussion about hypothetical women?

It's not offense. But I am trying to point out that your responses come across as very hostile.

You sound like your mad at me. Why get mad at me because I say it is good to be careful and to treat any potential Marriage seriously?

No, not mad at you. Pointing out that there are some red flags in your posts is very different to being mad. And yes, it is good to be careful and treat any potential marriage seriously, but the red flags come in with the denigrating language.

 

[Sketcher]

It's not very clear - when people talk about someone's worth - that these two senses of worth aren't, at least, blurring. If someone's not a good fit, why not just say that, rather than expressing it in terms of "worth"?

Generally speaking, people talk about potential mates in terms of worth, whether the metric is sexual history or not. Generally speaking, if someone has something you value, you ascribe the worth of that aspect to their worth as a mate. Some traits really turn a person on, other traits really turn a person off. In fact, it can be visceral, for example when women say "eeewww" or "he creeps me out." That's more than dispassionately saying that you feel unsafe around the guy or that you don't think he's a good fit. It's the culture we live in, and quite possibly the nature we live in.

But of course, we know that people do in fact have inherent worth. Even that creepy, gross man has worth before God, he still bears His image. He might have very low worth as a husband to a lot of women out there, but he still has worth as a person, and if he becomes a Christian, he has his worth as a Christian. But that doesn't mean that the single ladies at church are obliged to say yes when he asks them out on dates. Far from it. They are allowed to have their standards and preferences. And so are the men.

 

[Paidiske]

Generally speaking, people talk about potential mates in terms of worth, whether the metric is sexual history or not.

Do they? That makes me glad to be well and truly out of the dating game. I find it a highly tasteless way to speak of people.

he has his worth as a Christian. But that doesn't mean that the single ladies at church are obliged to say yes when he asks them out on dates. Far from it. They are allowed to have their standards and preferences. And so are the men.

Sure. And nobody's denying that. What I think this thread is reflecting on is what shapes those standards and preferences, and if all of those influences are healthy or, indeed, godly.

 

[Sketcher]

Do they? That makes me glad to be well and truly out of the dating game. I find it a highly tasteless way to speak of people.

Yeah, people talk about "high value men" and "low value men" all the time now it seems, men and women. I find that kind of cringey myself, but it's just another way of saying what people have always meant.

Sure. And nobody's denying that. What I think this thread is reflecting on is what shapes those standards and preferences, and if all of those influences are healthy or, indeed, godly.

Can you believe that someone who has the standard or preference that their future spouse not be a former sex worker can have that standard or preference for wise, healthy and godly reasons? I know the opposite is out there and we don't need to flip the script by talking about that. I'm asking you if someone can have that preference for wise, healthy, and godly reasons.

 

[Paidiske]

Can you believe that someone who has the standard or preference that their future spouse not be a former sex worker can have that standard or preference for wise, healthy and godly reasons?

Yes, and I have acknowledged that throughout my posts in this thread.

However, I'd add the caveat that I would find it hard to believe the reasons are wise, healthy, and godly, if they're simultaneously speaking of the other person as being of low worth or value. That's not godly.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's a completely different scenario, and an utterly ridiculous comparison.

Is the value of Christ's forgiveness and washing of sin greater in one case? Is one sin something that mars one forever and the other just neutral and of no consequence?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Sometimes.

I'm not sure it's even helpful to frame this as a question of fault. But if we look at the situation where a formerly promiscuous person is seeking healthy, Christian relationships, the attitudes of others may well be the primary obstacle to fulness of life for all concerned.

Yes the attitude of others will be an obstacle to their fulness. Is that not a result of their sinful actions though? One which they must accept and move on with? If it is difficult to actually keep the Christian standard, why would we put the burden on those who have kept it, rather than those who have not?

I just find it rather interesting that there is this presumption that one has to be a Hosea, but we don't actually have to be Hosea if we don't want to. Nor is there any guilt or anything wrong with the man or woman exercising said judgement.

 

[Paidiske]

Is the value of Christ's forgiveness and washing of sin greater in one case? Is one sin something that mars one forever and the other just neutral and of no consequence?

Let's be real. Someone who's sexually abused children is not even allowed to attend church without significant limitations and boundaries being put in place (I've had to manage such a "person of concern" in my parish, and so I know a bit about how that works). They may lose custody of their own children. Our society and the church recognise that the very low rates of true reform, and the very high rates of recividism, make those people a very high risk for ongoing abuse.

That is not, in the slightest way, comparable to someone whose sins have been neither abusive nor illegal, and whose risk of relapsing into such sins is minimal.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Let's be real. Someone who's sexually abused children is not even allowed to attend church without significant limitations and boundaries being put in place (I've had to manage such a "person of concern" in my parish, and so I know a bit about how that works). They may lose custody of their own children. Our society and the church recognise that the very low rates of true reform, and the very high rates of recividism, make those people a very high risk for ongoing abuse.

That is not, in the slightest way, comparable to someone whose sins have been neither abusive nor illegal, and whose risk of relapsing into such sins is minimal.

So you're of the opinion promiscuous people won't relapse once repented, but child molesters will?

Given that promiscuous people have easy access to sex and have learned to enjoy and seek it out, why wouldn't they relapse easier? It's harder to be a child molesters given all the risks and safeguards around children, especially if they're publically known.

Why is one sin something you are allowed to judge someone as unfit marriage material, but the other isn't?

 

[Paidiske]

Yes the attitude of others will be an obstacle to their fulness. Is that not a result of their sinful actions though?

Well, yes. That's not the question, though. The question is what is the most Christian attitude for others to have?

If it is difficult to actually keep the Christian standard, why would we put the burden on those who have kept it, rather than those who have not?

Why assume a "burden" here?

I just find it rather interesting that there is this presumption that one has to be a Hosea,

Not what anyone has been arguing.

 

[Paidiske]

So you're of the opinion promiscuous people won't relapse once repented, but child molesters will?

Well, yes, or at least the risk is less, but that's only part of my argument. Another part is, if someone isn't even allowed to attend a church service with children present, that's going to be a significant barrier to raising children in a practising Christian home. For starters.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well, yes. That's not the question, though. The question is what is the most Christian attitude for others to have?

Why assume a "burden" here?

Not what anyone has been arguing.

Is it nit what people generally seem to be arguing for? You have said that promiscuity is a neutral action, one for which you cannot judge someone ad being unfit for marriage. The burden then is on the person who wasn't promiscuous to accept the one who was.

Now the most Christian action or desire in this cade could be to have a wife or husband who has not had sex with other people. It isn't necessarily to marry a prostitute.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well, yes, or at least the risk is less, but that's only part of my argument. Another part is, if someone isn't even allowed to attend a church service with children present, that's going to be a significant barrier to raising children in a practising Christian home. For starters.

Yet you're of the opinion women can freely dismiss a child molesters as marriage marterial, even if they like every other aspect of his character. I just see an inconsistency here, which privileges certain sins above others. You've gone so far as to suggest casual sex and promiscuity is just a neutral action that in no way degrades us to which we cannot be judged as unworthy as being wives or husband's.

 

[Paidiske]

Is it nit what people generally seem to be arguing for?

If that's the case, you've missed the point. Nobody's saying "you have to marry a former prostitute." What I'm trying to argue for is, not assuming that a former prostitute is automatically going to be a bad wife because of her sexual past.

You have said that promiscuity is a neutral action, one for which you cannot judge someone ad being unfit for marriage.

Not exactly. I've said that past promiscuity may be neutral in the present, when assessing someone's potential to be a good life partner.

The burden then is on the person who wasn't promiscuous to accept the one who was.

But why is it a burden? If that person is currently a good fit, in character, in life goals, in personality, if they're otherwise attractive and desirable, why should their past be a burden?

Now the most Christian action or desire in this cade could be to have a wife or husband who has not had sex with other people.

Why?
I would argue that the most Christian desire would be to find the person with whom both of you can grow together in godliness and faithfulness. And when it comes to that, their sexual history is simply beside the point.

 

[Sketcher]

Yes, and I have acknowledged that throughout my posts in this thread.

However, I'd add the caveat that I would find it hard to believe the reasons are wise, healthy, and godly, if they're simultaneously speaking of the other person as being of low worth or value. That's not godly.

Again, worth is all in the context. We can talk about the created worth God gives every person all day, but in a dating context it's really meaningless. It's essentially saying, "Well, they're valuable because they are human." Obviously so, but just as obviously, people are going to have higher standards and preferences than the other person just being a human, or even a live human. One's worth as a significant other is much more specifically defined than that. And what single people are looking for is someone who has high worth to them as a significant other. Not all humans have that same worth. I have some male friends who have good value to me as friends, but who have zero value to me as potential wives (they would have much higher value to some women as potential husbands). And there are a lot of women out there but not all of them have equal value to me as potential wives. They might have higher value to some other guy who's wired differently than I am. But I know what it is that I value, and I have my reasons for it. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Paidiske]

Yet you're of the opinion women can freely dismiss a child molesters as marriage marterial, even if they like every other aspect of his character.

You might note that I've very clearly articulated the opinion that anyone can freely dismiss anyone. I am not telling people "you must marry - or be willing to marry - xyz."

I just see an inconsistency here, which privileges certain sins above others.

Perhaps that's true. I do think that abuse of any kind, and especially child sexual abuse, is of a completely different nature than promiscuity. Not all sin is the same in terms of its severity or consequences. But part of what I'm trying to point out is that child sexual abuse comes with a whole bunch of other life baggage which may make the choice of a child molester as a spouse unwise or undesirable.

You've gone so far as to suggest casual sex and promiscuity is just a neutral action that in no way degrades us to which we cannot be judged as unworthy as being wives or husband's.

Well, fundamentally, I think that's true. Casual sex in our past - once repented of - does not degrade us in a permanent way. It's exactly the idea that someone who had sex before marriage is permanently "degraded" or unworthy that I'm pushing back against.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It very much can be ok to marry them if they have enough fruit showing to give a man hope.

But is is practical is my question? When people sin it does spiritual damage to them. And it has the effect of pushing them further away from wholesomeness (and God) than another girl who had not experienced those type of things. It affects them. With God's grace and instruction those obsticles can be overcome, but not if her heart isnt in it. Men have to be careful about that because when the honeymoon is over, a contentious home can be a dreadful thing.

The heart is deceitfully wicked and it behooves men to be picky with women.

No one here is advocating that a Christian be loose and fancy free when choosing a mate. So, let's clear the air of that notion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you're of the opinion promiscuous people won't relapse once repented, but child molesters will?

Given that promiscuous people have easy access to sex and have learned to enjoy and seek it out, why wouldn't they relapse easier? It's harder to be a child molesters given all the risks and safeguards around children, especially if they're publically known.

Why is one sin something you are allowed to judge someone as unfit marriage material, but the other isn't?

... I'd like to point out here that just because some guy or gal is a virginal Prince or Princess Charming when getting marriage does little these days to guarantee that either or both stay that way through the rest of the marriage. Either can still sin and betray the other at almost any point.

Moreover, in light of this thread, I think it's time to point out that for every female SW out there, there are many more men who have supported her trade in "the industry" whether directly or indirectly, especially where [inappropriate content] has been the mode of engagement and not just those who have traveled the nighttime streets or utilized brothels.

So, I think we can stop the double-talk in this thread that comes by insinuating the notion that there is a bunch of ultra-righteous men out there who've been unjustly pushed to accept women as wives who have had sinful, dysfunctional backgrounds. I think we all know that isn't happening.

p.s. I also find it odd that in this thread, it is mainly those of us who are older and married who are generally suggesting that there isn't anything wrong with applying grace and mercy to a Christian who formerly worked in the "industry." But those on this thread who are apparently single, and primarily male, are those who are contesting the general application of Jesus' grace and mercy where consideration might be given for sisters in Christ who have come out of a "Mary Magdalene" sort of life.

 

[Paidiske]

p.s. I also find it odd that in this thread, it is mainly those of us who are older and married who are generally suggesting that there isn't anything wrong with applying grace and mercy to a Christian who formerly worked in the "industry." But those on this thread who are apparently single, and primarily male, are those who are contesting the general application of Jesus' grace and mercy where consideration might be given for sisters in Christ who have come out of a "Mary Magdalene" sort of life.

If I were single, and dating, I'd be far more likely to consider a man with sexual sin in his past, than one who considers himself "burdened" with my unworthiness in the present. Just sayin'.

 

[timothyu]

where consideration might be given for sisters in Christ who have come out of a "Mary Magdalene" sort of life.

Possession?