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

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It gets so tiring the way people on the Internet immediately rush to strawman absurdities and think that's a valid argument.

I find it kind of absurd how you don't follow the logic of where your view would lead. If celibate marriage is superior and this is what you recommend, doesn't it follow you are perpetuating infertility? I am maintaining that it is the norm to have children within marriage and that celibate marriages are the exception, not the norm and they can't be expected. Paul certainly didn't think a spouse had a right to deprive the other of sex and nor do I find any inclination in the sort of birth control practiced today would be accepted by Saint Paul. Certainly within the tradition as a whole it has been frowned upon.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

My primary focus is my lineage and our furtherance. I don’t take these conversations seriously. It’s a lot of talk.

Then what's the problem with my view that it's normal within marriage to have children and that this is the Christian expectation of marriage? What are you arguing for?

I have no interest in changing your position at all. That’s an assumption on your part. And when it comes to intergenerational wealth each branch must do their part. I will not carry the others or permit a union that would enrich them at our expense.

~bella

I mean this is just basic familial loyalty which is also part of the Christian tradition. There's nothing wrong with it. I just don't get what you're attempting here.

 

[RileyG]

I find it kind of absurd how you don't follow the logic of where your view would lead. If celibate marriage is superior and this is what you recommend, doesn't it follow you are perpetuating infertility? I am maintaining that it is the norm to have children within marriage and that celibate marriages are the exception, not the norm and they can't be expected. Paul certainly didn't think a spouse had a right to deprive the other of sex.

Not to mention, Josephite marriages existed in Catholicism, and there are cases in Orthodoxy where the couple will enter a monastery despite still being legally married. They now live a celibate life.

It’s just assumed married couples have sex….because that’s the norm.

Again, not that I care about what couples do in their bedroom. It’s private. Period.

 

[RDKirk]

I find it kind of absurd how you don't follow the logic of where your view would lead. If celibate marriage is superior and this is what you recommend, doesn't it follow you are perpetuating infertility? I am maintaining that it is the norm to have children within marriage and that celibate marriages are the exception, not the norm and they can't be expected. Paul certainly didn't think a spouse had a right to deprive the other of sex and nor do I find any inclination in the sort of birth control practiced today would be accepted by Saint Paul. Certainly within the tradition as a whole it has been frowned upon.

Who said that celibate marriage was superior? Who said I recommended it?

If you can point out where those statements occurred, I'll apologize for saying that you're just strawmanning.

 

[The Liturgist]

Are you saying we should use the exceptions within marriage as a standard and rule for what is good?

Of course not.

Did God design marriage as an institution to be childfree predominately or result in children?

God designed marriage as a means of reproduction, but where a woman cannot reproduce for some reason, she can still mother, or in other ways care for children, so my point was that we should not say that the worth of a woman is in her reproductive ability but rather in her maternal ability, because there are so many children who need mothers and so many women who want to be mothers who are, due to medical problems, unable to conceive, who want children, who would be very good mothers, and therefore just as the value of the husband in marriage is in his ability to engage in paternity, the value of the wife in marriage is in her ability to engage in maternity. It is not devalued if they are unable to reproduce themselves due to a situation which is not of their own making, such as one or the other being infertile. In some cases, God has blessed the infertile with fertility, but at present, there are so many orphaned and abused children, especially older children who need parents, that married couples who are unable to conceive should strongly consider that it might be their sacred vocation to adopt children. That was my point.

Nothing I have said besmirches women who haven't had children but we cannot use them as the standard for most women to follow lest the human race perish.

Forgive me if I used too strong a word in critiquing your post, but it appeared that you were saying that women who are unable to reproduce are somehow less worthy than those who are able to reproduce, which is inconsistent with Orthodox doctrine. Obviously most women are fertile and most women do not have a monastic vocation (although more men and women should consider monasticism, and those who are married should reproduce more abundantly).

 

[The Liturgist]

Since she's a stranger to me who I don't care about.

Surely as Orthodox Christians we should care about and pray for the salvation of all, as we do in the Divine Liturgy?

 

[RileyG]

Of course not.



God designed marriage as a means of reproduction, but where a woman cannot reproduce for some reason, she can still mother, or in other ways care for children, so my point was that we should not say that the worth of a woman is in her reproductive ability but rather in her maternal ability, because there are so many children who need mothers and so many women who want to be mothers who are, due to medical problems, unable to conceive, who want children, who would be very good mothers, and therefore just as the value of the husband in marriage is in his ability to engage in paternity, the value of the wife in marriage is in her ability to engage in maternity. It is not devalued if they are unable to reproduce themselves due to a situation which is not of their own making, such as one or the other being infertile. In some cases, God has blessed the infertile with fertility, but at present, there are so many orphaned and abused children, especially older children who need parents, that married couples who are unable to conceive should strongly consider that it might be their sacred vocation to adopt children. That was my point.



Forgive me if I used too strong a word in critiquing your post, but it appeared that you were saying that women who are unable to reproduce are somehow less worthy than those who are able to reproduce, which is inconsistent with Orthodox doctrine. Obviously most women are fertile and most women do not have a monastic vocation (although more men and women should consider monasticism, and those who are married should reproduce more abundantly).

QFTW

 

[bèlla]

Then what's the problem with my view that it's normal within marriage to have children and that this is the Christian expectation of marriage? What are you arguing for?

Why do you assume I’m arguing? You’re so accustomed to contrariness you don’t recognize agreement when you see it. We have never disagreed on feminism or a woman’s role. I’m being fair minded and inclusive in light of the present. Would you have me to burden my brethren who can’t do the same? There’s no grace in your response and that needs to change. Everyone isn’t in the position you express and to think otherwise is unfair,

I mean this is just basic familial loyalty which is also part of the Christian tradition. There's nothing wrong with it. I just don't get what you're attempting here.

Why do you think I’m attempting anything? You shouldn’t lead with accusation. Once again your mistrust reared its head and you don’t understand how it sounds so I’ll explain. Women with means aren’t going to listen to accusations or accept responsibility for things they haven’t done.

My daughter doesn’t have to buy a home or the land. She will never have a mortgage in her life. That is my gift to her. In like fashion, her children will be taught at home at my expense with the option of going to school when they’re older. I share that to illustrate the danger of putting people in boxes and assuming they feel as you do. It’s better to ask in the long run.

You leave no room for the other in your discourse and have all the answers to your detriment and believe you’re right.

~bella

 

[The Liturgist]

QFTW

Do forgive me, I don’t know what that means

 

[RileyG]

Do forgive me, I don’t know what that means

Quote for the win.

I agree completely with you.

 

[The Liturgist]

Quote for the win.

I agree completely with you.

Ah, I googled it and was even more confused because their biased AI, which is much less useful in my experience than any other LLMs, suggested it means “Queer, Femme, Trans, Women”, an “affinity group” whatever that is, and that left me really scratching my head!

Now, I might be an old fogey but I do know what “for the win” means as a result of my background in operating systems development, which overlapped with Linux geeks and other groups such as gamers and people in that group, such as GPU driver devs (which is not my strong suit alas; had I focused on that I could have made a bit more money but I had hoped that GPU-like CPUs such as the IBM POWER Cell and the SPARC Niagara would do what the likes of Nvidia are presently doing. But alas IBM and Sun and Digital and sgi and even to a large extent HP (at least their good stuff, the PA-RISC and to a lesser extent Itanium products) lost the good fight, although ARM and to a lesser extent MIPS (which was interestingly the basis of sgi’s CPU architecture for IRIX if I recall) did survive to defend the wounded honor of Reduced Instruction Set Computing, UNIX, and elegant filesystem architecture in the form of sgi XFS and Sun ZFS (and IBM jfs).

 

[RileyG]

Ah, I googled it and was even more confused because their biased AI, which is much less useful in my experience than any other LLMs, suggested it means “Queer, Femme, Trans, Women”, an “affinity group” whatever that is, and that left me really scratching my head!

Now, I might be an old fogey but I do know what “for the win” means as a result of my background in operating systems development, which overlapped with Linux geeks and other groups such as gamers and people in that group, such as GPU driver devs (which is not my strong suit alas; had I focused on that I could have made a bit more money but I had hoped that GPU-like CPUs such as the IBM POWER Cell and the SPARC Niagara would do what the likes of Nvidia are presently doing. But alas IBM and Sun and Digital and sgi and even to a large extent HP (at least their good stuff, the PA-RISC and to a lesser extent Itanium products) lost the good fight, although ARM and to a lesser extent MIPS (which was interestingly the basis of sgi’s CPU architecture for IRIX if I recall) did survive to defend the wounded honor of Reduced Instruction Set Computing, UNIX, and elegant filesystem architecture in the form of sgi XFS and Sun ZFS (and IBM jfs).

Oh no! I never meant queer, femme, trans, women.
I just agreed with your post is all!

Peace

 

[Richard T]

It isn’t a question of His redemptive work but what each one can handle. The same holds true for criminals, compulsive liars and the like. Just because they‘ve changed doesn’t mean you want to spend your life with them and we have a right to choose. It’s a lot to take on. If the question was posed in the singles forum you’d get a similar response and you know it.



I would rather have a man who’s respectable with character than the other. Just because you didn’t know the Lord doesn’t mean you lived your life without a care. People have standards and I value that. And there’s nothing wrong with being respectable and living upright. It’s more admirable in my eyes.

~bella

 

[Richard T]

Thanks for your comments. Yes, your are right the redemptive work is equal, and the sanctification process too would be quite different versus someone that was more normal. I always maintain that there is free will in selecting a mate. Still, it is a bit of an over generalization though to think that a certain class of people and their negative characteristics apply to all individuals equally. It probably is better to distinguish as to why they engaged in their negative behavior and what consequences are lasting that would carry over into marriage. I might argue that the conditions in a poor nation have women make choices that are different from those in the USA or a Western nation. I too have seen ex-pat stories of such marriages really working. Many though also carry false motives and fail. Ai could not find any study that looked at divorce rate among former sex workers, yet alone converted former sex workers. To me that would be interesting to study.
There is good evidence that divorce rates trend higher as one has more and more premarital partners. This is for all people though not just Christians and of course suffers from the same issue of group statistics being over-generalized to any particular individual. Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce - PMC

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Can you explain how the historic Christian interpretation is wrong? Or how you reconcile Paul's view of marriage with modern progressive ones you are suggesting we learn from? Ones which go against hierarchy? Or offer roles to gender? Why are you refusing to engage on this? I think it's because Paul is quite clear and you disagree with him as well as the entire Christian tradition.

I'm not refusing to engage with this. I answered it all already, both on this thread and other threads. I have engaged with you enough on the topic. And frankly, I'm finding the obsessive way you keep driving at it to be really off-putting, your lack of boundaries inappropriate, and your inability to read the room weird.

My marriage has zero to do with the topic at hand.

Because you are advocating modern relationships versus the historic Christian understanding. You are suggesting that we have something to learn from non-Christians and the things you have suggested are directly against what is taught by the faith.

For the seventh time, I said:

"I didn't say it was superior. I said YMMV because people of all walks have successful relationships. Logically, that means I think that we all have something to learn from everybody in forming successful relationships.."

And if you think the general snapshot of things I listed with zero detail beyond simply listing them which included things like the role of partners in a family unit, consent and autonomy, and division of labor, and the establishment of a mutually beneficial hierarchy is directly against what Christianity teaches...? Well, then I don't know what to tell you. You are wildly in the minority on that one because most of us think Christianity teaches about those things.

Do you believe your view represents the historic Christian view? You interpreted Saint Paul's command to women to submit as something mutual yet the text no where implies mutual submission but hierarchical submission. This is made clear from Paul's other remarks where he comments that man is the head of woman.

I believe my view represents an accurate Christian view, yes. You have made clear you do not think it's accurate. For some reason, you've taken what my views are and how I conduct myself in my marriage with my husband extremely personally to the point where you have become hyperfixated on it. I have no idea why. I do not care why. I'm not married to you, so how you think I should be in my marriage you have no part in really does not matter to me.

I doubt that. Would your views be acceptable in any century prior to ours? Would any Christian recognize your views on egalitarianism as the norm? No they wouldn't. But you are avoiding biblical interpretation because you know you cannot rework Paul into your modern progressive paradigm.

I don't care what is acceptable in the centuries preceding the one we are currently in. In prior centuries, my holding a job, having a credit card, owning property, voting, were unacceptable. People's understandings change. Societal biases change. Information sharing develops accountability and cultivates intellectual integrity. We live in a world where education, literacy, access to information, and others seeking the same information are freely and wildly available. Obviously, that's going to lead to different and/or better understandings of passages than in centuries past. Maybe 100, 200 years ago, men and preachers can tell their illiterate wives that the Bible commands them to submit, have babies, and not question their husbands and get away with it.... Things are different now. A guy says that, his wife can pick up the Bible and say "well, actually..."

The question which you need to answer is this, why is Christianity wrong and modern progressive perspectives on marriage correct?

First off, I'm not accountable to you, so I don't NEED to answer anything to you.

Secondly, you'll be happy to know, I answered this already. For the eighth time:

"I didn't say it was superior. I said YMMV because people of all walks have successful relationships. Logically, that means I think that we all have something to learn from everybody in forming successful relationships.."

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm not refusing to engage with this. I answered it all already, both on this thread and other threads. I have engaged with you enough on the topic. And frankly, I'm finding the obsessive way you keep driving at it to be really off-putting, your lack of boundaries inappropriate, and your inability to read the room weird.

No you haven't engaged with it because you can't engage with it.

And if you think the general snapshot of things I listed with zero detail beyond simply listing them which included things like the role of partners in a family unit, consent and autonomy, and division of labor, and the establishment of a mutually beneficial hierarchy is directly against what Christianity teaches...? Well, then I don't know what to tell you. You are wildly in the minority on that one because most of us think Christianity teaches about those things.

Most Christians on this forum are wrong about the topic. Go figure.

I believe my view represents an accurate Christian view, yes. You have made clear you do not think it's accurate. For some reason, you've taken what my views are and how I conduct myself in my marriage with my husband extremely personally to the point where you have become hyperfixated on it. I have no idea why. I do not care why. I'm not married to you, so how you think I should be in my marriage you have no part in really does not matter to me.

Then demonstrate your view. Don't just assert it. Demonstrate egalitarianism and that hierarchy within marriage should be abolished.

I don't care what is acceptable in the centuries preceding the one we are currently in. In prior centuries, my holding a job, having a credit card, owning property, voting, were unacceptable. People's understandings change. Societal biases change. Information sharing develops accountability and cultivates intellectual integrity. We live in a world where education, literacy, access to information, and others seeking the same information are freely and wildly available. Obviously, that's going to lead to different and/or better understandings of passages than in centuries past. Maybe 100, 200 years ago, men and preachers can tell their illiterate wives that the Bible commands them to submit, have babies, and not question their husbands and get away with it.... Things are different now. A guy says that, his wife can pick up the Bible and say "well, actually..."

That's a very progressive attitude.

First off, I'm not accountable to you, so I don't NEED to answer anything to you.

Well you can't answer because you have no justification from tradition or scripture for your position on marriage. Until you're willing to engage with a textual analysis and dialogue there is no point. Go, be a modern woman but don't pretend to follow Christianity at least on the teaching of marriage. Paul didn't say men and women mutually submit to each other, he told women to submit to their husbands.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

No you haven't engaged with it because you can't engage with it.

I have. Repeatedly. For a refresher, reread the thread. Or go outside, enjoy the fresh air, and move on from your hyperfixation on my dynamic with my husband.

Most Christians on this forum are wrong about the topic. Go figure.

If that's what you want to believe, then fabulous.

Then demonstrate your view. Don't just assert it. Demonstrate egalitarianism and that hierarchy within marriage should be abolished.

I've already discussed this. Would you like me to post for the ninth time what I actually said?

That's a very progressive attitude.

I mean... Not really, but Ok.

Well you can't answer because you have no justification from tradition or scripture for your position on marriage. Until you're willing to engage with a textual analysis and dialogue there is no point. Go, be a modern woman but don't pretend to follow Christianity at least on the teaching of marriage. Paul didn't say men and women mutually submit to each other, he told women to submit to their husbands.

I do follow Christianity and you're wrong for implying I don't. Wrong ethically, morally, and per the rules of the forum. And I did answer. You just conveniently ignored it. I told you eight times.

Why the idea that you might be wrong in your interpretation or why the idea of mutual submission leads you to leads you to the complete emotional breakdown we're watching play out here, I have no idea. But reacting like this to the idea that your word shouldn't just be blindly accepted because you're a man? It's a really disproportionately hysterical reaction. Calm down. Eat a Snickers.

I have to tell you, though, your behavior is a textbook case about why mutual submission is so important and Biblically sound. Sometimes people act in a way that's entirely illogical or operating outside of their own best interests. Without a partner there to take the wheel and steer the ship as the level-headed one, chaos ensues. Though granted, in my situations it's like super big things, like I know something my husband doesn't and I make the decision, or I'm sick so he runs the household... It's not generally a step taken because the partner went into apoplexy because we don't agree on something relatively minor.

 

[Godcrazy]

If an attractive women that was a former sex-worker becomes a Christian woman would you date her and consider marriage with her ?

I`m late in the game, sorry, of course you can marry, she has turned to God, she is born again, she is trying to do his ways now. Mercy and forgiveness in abundance, remember Jesus how he forgave the woman that lay with many men. He said, not even I condemn you, go,and sin no more. See, that is exactly what Jesus thinks about it

 

[Godcrazy]

I have. Repeatedly. For a refresher, reread the thread. Or go outside, enjoy the fresh air, and move on from your hyperfixation on my dynamic with my husband.

If that's what you want to believe, then fabulous.

I've already discussed this. Would you like me to post for the ninth time what I actually said?

I mean... Not really, but Ok.


I do follow Christianity and you're wrong for implying I don't. Wrong ethically, morally, and per the rules of the forum. And I did answer. You just conveniently ignored it. I told you eight times.

Why the idea that you might be wrong in your interpretation or why the idea of mutual submission leads you to leads you to the complete emotional breakdown we're watching play out here, I have no idea. But reacting like this to the idea that your word shouldn't just be blindly accepted because you're a man? It's a really disproportionately hysterical reaction. Calm down. Eat a Snickers.

I have to tell you, though, your behavior is a textbook case about why mutual submission is so important and Biblically sound. Sometimes people act in a way that's entirely illogical or operating outside of their own best interests. Without a partner there to take the wheel and steer the ship as the level-headed one, chaos ensues. Though granted, in my situations it's like super big things, like I know something my husband doesn't and I make the decision, or I'm sick so he runs the household... It's not generally a step taken because the partner went into apoplexy because we don't agree on something relatively minor.

I am late in the game, however, I had thoughts about this the other day.
It is so clear how all humanitarian, respecting others, being fair to others and everything comes from christian values. I think then this is even more important in a marriage.
you go before the other to think about the other, show respect, kindness, courtesy, love.
You put the other before your self, and you take the others thoughts and feelings and needs into account. you treat each other like you would like to be treated.
Never is that to dominate another, to run your will through without taking your spouse feelings and thoughts and needs into account ever or without talking about everything. that is love, anything else is not. that is treating the other like you would like to be treated.
you think about what is best for you all, what is the most logical, you make sure no one is run over. you think about what is the healthy option. all that takes good communcation and never run anyone over. you do everything with love. when you show love to one another in all situations you will never have a power struggle. And it is clear that some parts of the bible has to be seen in a context of when it was written to who which century. But you can still catch the important stuff. One thing is clear though. anything not done with love, is out.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I am late in the game, however, I had thoughts about this the other day.
It is so clear how all humanitarian, respecting others, being fair to others and everything comes from christian values. I think then this is even more important in a marriage.
you go before the other to think about the other, show respect, kindness, courtesy, love.
You put the other before your self, and you take the others thoughts and feelings and needs into account. you treat each other like you would like to be treated.
Never is that to dominate another, to run your will through without taking your spouse feelings and thoughts and needs into account ever or without talking about everything. that is love, anything else is not. that is treating the other like you would like to be treated.
you think about what is best for you all, what is the most logical, you make sure no one is run over. you think about what is the healthy option. all that takes good communcation and never run anyone over. you do everything with love. when you show love to one another in all situations you will never have a power struggle. And it is clear that some parts of the bible has to be seen in a context of when it was written to who which century. But you can still catch the important stuff. One thing is clear though. anything not done with love, is out.

So that, more or less, is what I'm getting at. The other poster passionately disagrees.