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

[Confused-by-christianity]

Amongst other things, yes. But definitely both of those would need to be in there.

in my personal life - i didn't think about it too much ...

i thought, between the sexes, people had been raised as consumers ... their consumer brain got put to work choosing a partner - they looked for a partner like they looked for a product.

I thought it would be better to not see people as a product and to take everyone on a case by case basis.

Open mind, suspend our criterea, "know" each person. in the end - i found someone that we shared a spiritual affinity

 

[Divide]

Likewise but realistically why would it be normal love making. That's not what they are paying for. That would be reserved for flings. Movies distort truth lol

That's one of the things I never got. I've never paid a woman for sex. WHy? They're giving themselves away. That's not commerce and yet it's the oldest occupation in the world, Lol!

What type of man pays women for sex? Insecure men? Oh wait! I remember what I heard. You don't pay her for sex. Youpay her to go home, lol! I can see that one.

 

[IcyChain]

A woman's past is immaterial when it comes to choosing a life partner.

Yeah that’s all fine and dandy until you wake up with herpes, warts or HIV.

 

[Divide]

Yeah that’s all fine and dandy until you wake up with herpes, warts or HIV.

That's right! And how come it's illegal now to say that Treacherous women do exist?! You can't say that anymore! Or they will take offense and get their feeelings hurt. Political correctness and all that. They are allowed to whine now! What's the logic there?

Princesses do exist and are female.
I am female therefore I am a princess and you Christian so boi you better give me the princess treatment?

That sounds like what a woman might think like. I notice they only act like that online and never in real life.

 

[IcyChain]

That's right! And how come it's illegal now to say that Treacherous women do exist?! You can't say that anymore! Or they will take offense and get their feeelings hurt. Political correctness and all that. They are allowed to whine now! What's the logic there?

Princesses do exist and are female.
I am female therefore I am a princess and you Christian so boi you better give me the princess treatment?

That sounds like what a woman might think like. I notice they only act like that online and never in real life.

I am all about forgiveness but that doesn’t mean I have to contact a disease.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

A woman's past is immaterial when it comes to choosing a life partner. It is whether the two of you are compatible and are able to happily make the same commitment to each other. A woman can be absolutely godly with a pure background and yet be incompatible and make your life hell on earth.

Do you believe it is the duty of all Christians to ignore someone's past if they've repented of the action?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't understand the point you're making.

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."

So, yeah, we already know all the reassurance, grace and acceptance rests on those who have engaged in sin, and everyone has sinned...so why does that lessen the motivation for maintaining the Christian standard?

Given that past promiscuity cannot be used as a metric by which your future spouse can reject you, and since all sin is equal and you can avoid temporal consequences for promiscuity, why would most actually adhere to the Christian standard? Especially in modernity?

Let me ask you, gluttony has the consequence of getting oneself fat right? Which can lead to romantic rejection, even after converting. Why do you believe sexual promiscuity cannot have the same consequence? Why do men and women have to accept promiscuity?

 

[Divide]

I am all about forgiveness but that doesn’t mean I have to contact a disease.

Exactly. That's why men can not be afraid to say no to a woman.

And when a man has said no to one woman it doesnt mean it doesnt like women.

I have a car I'll sell you for $200. There's two of them and you get one for 200. One is a 1976 Pinto and the other one is a 2018 Continental. Which one do you want? Take your pick. Lol.

 

[RDKirk]

Given that past promiscuity cannot be used as a metric by which your future spouse can reject you, and since all sin is equal and you can avoid temporal consequences for promiscuity, why would most actually adhere to the Christian standard? Especially in modernity?

Let me ask you, gluttony has the consequence of getting oneself fat right? Which can lead to romantic rejection, even after converting. Why do you believe sexual promiscuity cannot have the same consequence? Why do men and women have to accept promiscuity?

Well, that's an interesting comparison. Most people gain weight after marriage. Many actually get fat. So, now their sinning in the marriage, isn't that worse than someone having committed that sin before the marriage?

By your thinking, shouldn't Christians divorce their spouses if their spouses gain weight?

Here is the thing: There may well be earthly consequences to the actions of an unbeliever. Those consequences may be life-long. But under the ethics of Christianity, Christians should not add moral consequences after a person has become a believer and repented.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well, that's an interesting comparison. Most people gain weight after marriage. Many actually get fat. So, now their sinning in the marriage, isn't that worse than someone having committed that sin before the marriage?

By your thinking, shouldn't Christians divorce their spouses if their spouses gain weight?

No they shouldn't, though I would say gluttony would put unnecessary strain on a marriage, especially if one partner eats without restraint.

My point was to show that the consequences of sin do matter and someone can be judged for it. We would not shame a man or woman who wasn't fat for rejecting a man or woman who was, even if the latter had repented and was working on themselves.

So why would promiscuity be any different? Is promiscuity less of a sin than gluttony, therefore there can be no stigma attached to it?

 

[RDKirk]

No they shouldn't, though I would say gluttony would put unnecessary strain on a marriage, especially if one partner eats without restraint.

My point was to show that the consequences of sin do matter and someone can be judged for it. We would not shame a man or woman who wasn't fat for rejecting a man or woman who was, even if the latter had repented and was working on themselves.

So why would promiscuity be any different? Is promiscuity less of a sin than gluttony, therefore there can be no stigma attached to it?

Here is the thing: There may well be earthly consequences to the actions of an unbeliever. Those consequences may be life-long. But under the ethics of Christianity, Christians should not add moral consequences after a person has become a believer and repented.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Here is the thing: There may well be earthly consequences to the actions of an unbeliever. Those consequences may be life-long. But under the ethics of Christianity, Christians should not add moral consequences after a person has become a believer and repented.

Those moral consequences are simply a result of one's actions. There is definitely no burden to accept or ignore the past of a person when it comes to marriage.

 

[RDKirk]

Those moral consequences are simply a result of one's actions. There is definitely no burden to accept or ignore the past of a person when it comes to marriage.

No. First, a moral consequence is never the result of a person's actions, it's the result of a judgment by another moral agent of that person's actions.

Second, our own moral authority explicitly prohibits us from adding moral consequences beyond those He has forgiven.

 

[chrisovery]

Are you claiming that Christ does not have the power to change people?

 

[IcyChain]

Here is the thing: There may well be earthly consequences to the actions of an unbeliever. Those consequences may be life-long. But under the ethics of Christianity, Christians should not add moral consequences after a person has become a believer and repented.

That’s all good.

I’m still testing a former hooker for stds.

 

[RDKirk]

That’s all good.

I’m still testing a former hooker for stds.

I said at the beginning of the thread that it's simple, but it's not easy.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No. First, a moral consequence is never the result of a person's actions, it's the result of a judgment by another moral agent of that person's actions.

Second, our own moral authority explicitly prohibits us from adding moral consequences beyond those He has forgiven.

So in your opinion, when it comes to marriage, one's past actions, once repented of, cannot be used against the person in order to reject them?

Does this cover all sin and all evil actions?

 

[RDKirk]

So in your opinion, when it comes to marriage, one's past actions, once repented of, cannot be used against the person in order to reject them?

Does this cover all sin and all evil actions?

What is your interpretation of Matthew 18:21-35?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What is your interpretation of Matthew 18:21-35?

That we should forgive our brothers and sisters. But we don't have to marry them

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That we should forgive our brothers and sisters. But we don't have to marry them

As far as I can tell, no one here is saying that any Christian has to marry any other Christian. The whole locus of this thread, also as far as I can tell, has mainly been to exemplify a proper answer to the question: "If I wanted to, would it be ok to marry a Christian woman who was a former SW?"

And that was it. But here thus far, it seems tangents in this thread have been introduced and gotten out of hand, devolving more or less it into a needless "contest of rights."