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

[Divide]

Internet is an illusion where invisible people gather and minorites and outcasts can find a home that makes them seem the majority.

I think that's exactly what they do. And then demand the Princess treatment because we can't prove she is not and so we have to give the grade on the curve and marry her if she wants and you have to do anything else she wants too because if you are a Christian then you have been commanded to love her....There's that sense of entitlement again. I met that girl once. Her name was different but it was that girl. I turned her down. I had to.

Girls never change. I suppose it's possible. But I dont have any success stories to tell.

 

[Paidiske]

What would be signs she hasn’t healed?

- Not being able to trust that a man could love her
- treating the relationship as transactional rather than mutually loving
- not being able to negotiate, articulate or hold appropriate boundaries

Those come to mind for a start.

My general comment on the last couple of pages or so is that I'm not calling preferences into question; I'm calling into question the attitude of contempt I see coming through so clearly in many posts.

 

[AlexB23]

What would be signs she hasn’t healed?

Signs she has not healed: If she decides to go back in the industry, or gets "turned-on" by certain guys other than you, or if she is still friends with people who partake in the SW industry.

 

[QuestionQuest74]

- Not being able to trust that a man could love her
- treating the relationship as transactional rather than mutually loving
- not being able to negotiate, articulate or hold appropriate boundaries

Those come to mind for a start.

My general comment on the last couple of pages or so is that I'm not calling preferences into question; I'm calling into question the attitude of contempt I see coming through so clearly in many posts.

Good intake.

 

[IcyChain]

There are just as many situations where a woman can wake up with an STD from her partner. Maybe a godly woman should find out about her male partner's past before making a commitment to him.

Yes, if a man was a prostitute or had a very promiscuous past it would be perfectly appropriate for his fiancé to ask him to take a STD test.

My stance has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the right of a person to take reasonable precautions to prevent himself or herself from being physically harmed.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So there is a duty for men and women to overlook bad decisions, sins and evil committed by someone, if they've genuinely repented? When it comes to marriage?

I have asked this question before: Is Jesus a complete Saviour or not? And does 1 John 1:9 say, "If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive some sins, and cleanse from some unrighteousness except that which might prevent a man or woman getting married"?

There is a pseudo-christian Oneness Pentecostal cult called Gloriavale on the West Coast of New Zealand that is in the news currently because male sexual predators have been abusing and raping young women as young as 13. The victims have been labelled as "harlots" because they did not kick and scream, and told they were impure and not able to marry; while the men are whacked on the wrist with a wet tram ticket, given a light punishment and restored back into full fellowship, often to keep doing it to young women. The young women are expected to forgive these men and not have them reported to the police.

I wonder if that sort of thing is going on undetected in many other churches, because of a climate of fear that a young woman may go to hell if she refuses to forgive the man who raped her?

There is a day coming when secrets will be exposed and the secrets of men's hearts made manifest.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I have asked this question before: Is Jesus a complete Saviour or not? And does 1 John 1:9 say, "If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive some sins, and cleanse from some unrighteousness except that which might prevent a man or woman getting married"?

There is a pseudo-christian Oneness Pentecostal cult called Gloriavale on the West Coast of New Zealand that is in the news currently because male sexual predators have been abusing and raping young women as young as 13. The victims have been labelled as "harlots" because they did not kick and scream, and told they were impure and not able to marry; while the men are whacked on the wrist with a wet tram ticket, given a light punishment and restored back into full fellowship, often to keep doing it to young women. The young women are expected to forgive these men and not have them reported to the police.

I wonder if that sort of thing is going on undetected in many other churches, because of a climate of fear that a young woman may go to hell if she refuses to forgive the man who raped her?

There is a day coming when secrets will be exposed and the secrets of men's hearts made manifest.

I don't understand why you wouldn't be on the side of the men in question, if they have genuinely repented. If your claim is that a woman who willingly prostitutes herself or engages in a lifestyle of promiscuity cannot be rejected because she has been forgiven by Christ, why would the same not apply to those men if they have also genuinely been forgiven?

See in my view I can see the exploitation of those girls and agree it's wrong. I can also say that a man doesn't have to look past the promiscuity of a woman and consider her as marriage material. You're the one who has the position that once we are forgiven by Christ, there must be no earthly consequences.

 

[Sketcher]

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.

That's flat-out not true. The past affects the present and often still is the present. That will affect a couple's ability to keep the commitments they make to each other, and their happiness in doing so.

A woman can be absolutely godly with a pure background and yet be incompatible and make your life hell on earth.

This is true, but it doesn't make a woman with a worse background and continuing issues as a result of that background less of a risk. And that's the salient point here.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't understand why you wouldn't be on the side of the men in question, if they have genuinely repented. If your claim is that a woman who willingly prostitutes herself or engages in a lifestyle of promiscuity cannot be rejected because she has been forgiven by Christ, why would the same not apply to those men if they have also genuinely been forgiven?

See in my view I can see the exploitation of those girls and agree it's wrong. I can also say that a man doesn't have to look past the promiscuity of a woman and consider her as marriage material. You're the one who has the position that once we are forgiven by Christ, there must be no earthly consequences.

The Gloriavale atrocity would have no power if they held it as true for the young women as for the men.

 

[The Liturgist]

Alright, let's test the hypothesis. Let's say there is a man who was a former child molester. He's repented, done his time and is seeing a woman. She is not allowed to reject him for his past, right?

To be fair though, that’s not mere promiscuity, as @Paidiske pointed out.

In Orthodoxy, we do stress forgiveness, although I see nothing wrong with someone not wanting to marry someone who had previously lived an extremely immoral life, for reasons of personal concern, but if that person has repented there are also surely cases where such marriage would be positive.

This is particularly the case if the person repented and was baptized into the Church, in which even canonical restrictions against Holy Orders are set aside (which is how St. Moses the Black and more recently, the saintly Fr. Seraphim Rose, were able to be ordained, despite having committed sins which would have disqualified them according to a strict reading of the canons, had those sins occurred after reception into the church, at least.

If we look at the canon law of the early church, the early church would not receive a prostitute or a pimp, but if those persons repented, then they would be received by the early church. They could simply not join Christianity while maintaining their employment in prostitution, as it were. This canon, which is among the Apostolic Canons, also applied to Gladiators and to teachers of Pagan sophistry.

So if someone has repented from engaging in prostitution or other forms of sexually immoral employment, and been received into the church, or re-received had they apostasized, then they ought to receive the clean slate that forgiveness promises.

In the case of a child molester, they fall under the much more severe canons of the early church that apply to those who engage in arsenokoetia, and there are specific canons that apply to men who have harmed boys in this manner, by engaging in the common Greek vice of pederasty, and these canons are always applied with severity, so that someone who has done such a thing can never receive Holy Orders, for example, because they cannot be trusted with any position in the church.

But there is a huge difference between someone who is sexually promiscuous or who engages willingly in prostitution or obscene forms of dance, and someone who is a child molester. It is not an apples to apples comparison.

We must also consider, and I believe our friend @Paidiske has pointed this out, that many people who engage in prostitution are literally forced to do so, for they have been the victims of human trafficking, which is to say, actual slavery. In such cases as that we cannot say that any moral culpability attaches to the acts that they have been compelled to engage in, and it is the responsibility of the Church to help any people who have been trafficked, who it has the opportunity to help.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The Gloriavale atrocity would have no power if they held it as true for the young women as for the men.

So do you think power should be taken into account when it comes to the abuse of it?

I tend to agree, people who exploit their position for sexual gratification or money are to be held to account.

How much more true is that of women who exploit their sexuality in order to gain attention, power, sexual gratification or money? It isnt only men who abuse their natural gifts and if they can be judged for doing so, shouldn't the women who engage in that also be judged?

It does no good to appeal to Christian forgiveness for one but also exclude the other.

 

[RDKirk]

So do you think power should be taken into account when it comes to the abuse of it?

I tend to agree, people who exploit their position for sexual gratification or money are to be held to account.

How much more true is that of women who exploit their sexuality in order to gain attention, power, sexual gratification or money? It isnt only men who abuse their natural gifts and if they can be judged for doing so, shouldn't the women who engage in that also be judged?

It does no good to appeal to Christian forgiveness for one but also exclude the other.

I'm saying that if they forgave the women to the same extent that they forgave the men, it would have no power. But they forgive the men and continue to judge the women.

Of course, the first problem is that they never judge the men properly in the first place according to 1 Corinthians 5.

 

[The Liturgist]

That's flat-out not true. The past affects the present and often still is the present. That will affect a couple's ability to keep the commitments they make to each other, and their happiness in doing so.

Surely if a couple is compatible with each other, actual compatibility requires an understanding of the past of both partners and their forgiveness of each other.

Also I would say it is quite wrong if we were to presume that people who had engaged in prostitution, which is often an activity not engaged in willfully but rather as a result of human trafficking or various insidious forms of manipulation by evil pimps, are, after having been delivered from that life and having repented from whatever they did willingly, and having been received into the Christian Church willingly, more inclined and more likely to engage in sexual immorality. And if they were moreso inclined, furthermore, one could also argue that this might be due to psychological harm that had been inflicted upon them, during the period in which they were trafficked, and thus there is reduced culpability for such actions.

 

[The Liturgist]

So do you think power should be taken into account when it comes to the abuse of it?

I tend to agree, people who exploit their position for sexual gratification or money are to be held to account.

How much more true is that of women who exploit their sexuality in order to gain attention, power, sexual gratification or money? It isnt only men who abuse their natural gifts and if they can be judged for doing so, shouldn't the women who engage in that also be judged?

It does no good to appeal to Christian forgiveness for one but also exclude the other.

Obviously Christian forgiveness must apply to both men and women who engage in this type of behavior, but it is the case that women are more likely to have been exploited than to have engaged in exploitation, simply because of how the human trafficking industry works, as a criminal enterprise. The fact is that young women, often underaged, as well as underage boys, are often victims of what is slavery, and such poor youths comprise a substantial percentage of those engaged in prostitution in the world.

But for those who do engage in prostitution willingly, if they repent they should be forgiven equally, whether male or female.

 

[The Liturgist]

If she has become a Christian, she is your own sister in Jesus.

Are you going to say she can not be part of the Bride of Christ??

How you judge her is how you judge Jesus.

Luke 7:41-43 >
From this scripture I see how the former sex worker forgiven much might love much, and she might much more greatly appreciate being forgiven.

This is very apt. Our friend @Paidiske told me of this discussion last night, and I am distressed by it, because I see a lack of charity and a lack of forgiveness and a lack of understanding in regards to the fact that so many people who are engaged in prostitution are not engaged in it willingly.

Indeed the number of people who decide one day “I want to be a prostitute” is extremely small. What happens is that people get forced into prostitution, either through human trafficking, or as a result of other situations that create vulnerability to expolitation. And the role of pimps in manipulating the naive youths into prostitution cannot be overstated.

Thus among former prostitutes, I would argue that for those who have been blessed by being able to escape while alive, in a great many cases there is very little moral culpability that attaches.

And for those who did engage in it willingly, who have repented, the Apostle Paul commands us to be charitable. And God Himself in the person of Christ Jesus allowed a woman, who had engaged in some form of immoral conduct, St. Mary Magdalene, to repent of it and to wash his feet, and to be among his disciples.

 

[Sketcher]

Surely if a couple is compatible with each other, actual compatibility requires an understanding of the past of both partners and their forgiveness of each other.

Also I would say it is quite wrong if we were to presume that people who had engaged in prostitution, which is often an activity not engaged in willfully but rather as a result of human trafficking or various insidious forms of manipulation by evil pimps, are, after having been delivered from that life and having repented from whatever they did willingly, and having been received into the Christian Church willingly, more inclined and more likely to engage in sexual immorality. And if they were moreso inclined, furthermore, one could also argue that this might be due to psychological harm that had been inflicted upon them, during the period in which they were trafficked, and thus there is reduced culpability for such actions.

I would advise anyone who would be considering including former prostitutes in their pool of marriage candidates to read/hear the testimonies of former prostitutes who came to Christ, and really read between the lines when they do so they can have an idea of what they would be getting if they decide to date or eventually marry one. I have, and that is a major part of what informs my conclusion.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't understand why you wouldn't be on the side of the men in question, if they have genuinely repented. If your claim is that a woman who willingly prostitutes herself or engages in a lifestyle of promiscuity cannot be rejected because she has been forgiven by Christ, why would the same not apply to those men if they have also genuinely been forgiven?

See in my view I can see the exploitation of those girls and agree it's wrong. I can also say that a man doesn't have to look past the promiscuity of a woman and consider her as marriage material. You're the one who has the position that once we are forgiven by Christ, there must be no earthly consequences.

Forgiveness is based on genuine repentance. Repentance means to completely stop the sinful behaviour. It is more than just say, "I repent". Words mean nothing if not followed by commensurate action. We can't see into a person's heart. Only God can. The Scripture says, "The heart of man is desperately wicked. Who can know it?" Paul told the members of a church he was writing to that once they did all sorts of things that were sinful, but now they were not like that. These people had gone through a radical change when they repented, and it was abundantly clear that they were not that type of people any more. Paul's appreciation of them was that they were totally cleansed and made pure. What this means is that he treated them according to them being new creatures in Christ, and that their past had been erased, and all things had become new to them.

Dealing with a repentant believer on the basis of his or her past is a violation of the Gospel - that Jesus is a complete Saviour and that His death on the Cross totally finished the work of salvation by taking the total guilt, shame, and penalty of sin from those who put their faith and trust in Christ.

Paul's answer to those who desire to further punish people on the basis of their past is: "Who shall lay any charge to God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who gave Himself and died." (my paraphrase). So, if God has justified a repentant believer, who is going to exact the consequences for their past sinful life? Who is going to overrule God?

Who is going to say to a repentant believer: "Your past life as a [whatever] has to be punished, even though God has forgiven and cleansed you from all unrighteousness, it is the decision of this church "kangaroo court" that you suffer the further penalty that you not marry, and be forever treated as a second class church member to be nothing more than a pew sitter until you jump through all our religious hoops to prove that you can be a long-term, stable, hard-core member of our church." Sadly, although many will not admit it, this is the way that many conservative, "sound doctrine" churches treat new converts who have had sinful pasts.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Forgiveness is based on genuine repentance. Repentance means to completely stop the sinful behaviour. It is more than just say, "I repent". Words mean nothing if not followed by commensurate action. We can't see into a person's heart. Only God can. The Scripture says, "The heart of man is desperately wicked. Who can know it?" Paul told the members of a church he was writing to that once they did all sorts of things that were sinful, but now they were not like that. These people had gone through a radical change when they repented, and it was abundantly clear that they were not that type of people any more. Paul's appreciation of them was that they were totally cleansed and made pure. What this means is that he treated them according to them being new creatures in Christ, and that their past had been erased, and all things had become new to them.

Dealing with a repentant believer on the basis of his or her past is a violation of the Gospel - that Jesus is a complete Saviour and that His death on the Cross totally finished the work of salvation by taking the total guilt, shame, and penalty of sin from those who put their faith and trust in Christ.

Paul's answer to those who desire to further punish people on the basis of their past is: "Who shall lay any charge to God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who gave Himself and died." (my paraphrase). So, if God has justified a repentant believer, who is going to exact the consequences for their past sinful life? Who is going to overrule God?

Who is going to say to a repentant believer: "Your past life as a [whatever] has to be punished, even though God has forgiven and cleansed you from all unrighteousness, it is the decision of this church "kangaroo court" that you suffer the further penalty that you not marry, and be forever treated as a second class church member to be nothing more than a pew sitter until you jump through all our religious hoops to prove that you can be a long-term, stable, hard-core member of our church." Sadly, although many will not admit it, this is the way that many conservative, "sound doctrine" churches treat new converts who have had sinful pasts.

So to get this straight, you are saying the sexually promiscuous cannot be rejected for their past promiscuity under any circumstance if they have repented? This is your claim, right?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That's flat-out not true. The past affects the present and often still is the present. That will affect a couple's ability to keep the commitments they make to each other, and their happiness in doing so.

This makes a mockery of what true conversion to Christ is all about. It is the denial of the Scripture: "If any [person] be in Christ, they are a new creature. Old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new."

To say that a person's past affects their future, after they have been converted to Christ, shows a faulty knowledge of what being born again in Christ really means. It also shows a belief that although a person is "converted" to Christ, they are not really fully converted. This is possibly because in many churches "conversion" means putting on the religious badge and joining up with the "Christian club", while the person is not really transformed at all. This is why people can be "angels" at church, and devils at home and at work. Just saying the sinners prayer at the front of the church does not convert a person to Christ. The person has to show the fruit of repentance, which means that there has to be a comprehensive, observable transformation in the person that shows that they have been truly converted to Christ. Just putting on the "christian" Sunday suit and strutting around saying, "I am a Christian now" just doesn't cut the mustard, and the person's unchanged lifestyle merely shows his hypocrisy.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So to get this straight, you are saying the sexually promiscuous cannot be rejected for their past promiscuity under any circumstance if they have repented? This is your claim, right?

Choosing a life partner is much more involved than just looking at the person's past life. As I have said, a woman (or man) can be as pure and holy as the driven snow, yet can be unequally yoked. It all has to do with calling, personality, theology, and whether they actually like each other.

If a prospective life partner is rejected just because of their past, then that does show a lack of discernment about the shed blood of Christ on the Cross and what it achieved for the repentant believer. It demonstrates the belief that many religious people have, that Christ is a complete Saviour only for those who have been brought up in the church, having Christian parents, and no promiscuity in their past. Anyone who has had a deeply sinful past is made to carry the brand for the rest of their lives, even though Jesus died to take way their penalty for their sinful past, and God has totally justified them. For me, a genuinely repentant believer, who shows the fruit of repentance through a total transformation of heart and conduct, is so totally justified by God that they have no past and therefore right out of range of any church or person to have the right to exercise judgment on them.

The bottom line for choosing a life partner is: "Can I live with this person for the rest of my life?" The person's past is immaterial. If we are going to point the finger at another believer, then there are three pointing back at us.