Bouncing between Mr. Atheist and Girl Defined over Raunch Culture!

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are we too Raunchy in our culture? In relation to comments which Mr. Atheist [an atheist] and Girl Defined [two Christian gals] make in the video provided below, what do you think about the presence of 'Raunch' in your respective culture?

And...here we go!!! Uh, huh! :cool:

 

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What a disaster of a video. I don't care for the arguments on either side, but I'm a little bit stunned by the irony of a progressive man screaming about feminism and misogyny while simultaneously delivering a condescending lecture to a pair of women about what they should and shouldn't consider sexual objectification.

We have a word for that in feminist circles.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What a disaster of a video. I don't care for the arguments on either side, but I'm a little bit stunned by the irony of a progressive man screaming about feminism and misogyny while simultaneously delivering a condescending lecture to a pair of women about what they should and shouldn't consider sexual objectification.

We have a word for that in feminist circles.

I was wondering when a more balanced and wise voice would show up. But what is that word ... specifically? ^_^ No, on second thought, don't say it. We'll just stick to the finer points of discussion in the video.

So, what do you personally think about the amount of 'Raunch' in American culture? Too much? Too little? Fine, but needs to be regulated?

On my part, I think there is a place for sensuality, but in a more specific, controlled, defined [pun!] social interaction between men and women (husbands and wives, really). I'll comment more on the video later. Right now, lunch is calling ... :ebil:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What a disaster of a video. I don't care for the arguments on either side, but I'm a little bit stunned by the irony of a progressive man screaming about feminism and misogyny while simultaneously delivering a condescending lecture to a pair of women about what they should and shouldn't consider sexual objectification.

We have a word for that in feminist circles.

Ok. Let's see. First up in the video, at least for me, is the little bounce between Safe Sex vs. Purity. And here (somewhere in minute 5 and 6?), Mr. Atheist 'downs' Girl Defined for their reliance upon the concept of Purity and he feels that their calling upon such a notion is nothing short of a dissing of the rest of humanity. I fail to see how it is. But, I know everyone out there in Forum land has a different perspectve on what's Apropos, sexually speaking.

I for one would lean toward Girl Defines idea that purity is underserved and undervalued. I can also empathize with Mr. Atheist cry that to put too much emphasis on purity may be to alienate other people. I don't know. As a Christian, there is a social price that comes with trying to be pure in a society that has kicked propriety, purity and fidelity to the curb. But, that's my take on this first point ...
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I was wondering when a more balanced and wise voice would show up. But what is that word ... specifically? ^_^ No, on second thought, don't say it. We'll just stick to the finer points of discussion in the video.

So, what do you personally think about the amount of 'Raunch' in American culture? Too much? Too little? Fine, but needs to be regulated?

On my part, I think there is a place for sensuality, but in a more specific, controlled, defined [pun!] social interaction between men and women (husbands and wives, really). I'll comment more on the video later. Right now, lunch is calling ... :ebil:

I have been leaning further and further in the radical feminist direction recently, so I am increasingly troubled by the consent issues involved in a society that normalizes sex to the degree that ours does. I think the liberal in the video is a little bit naive when he claims that inappropriate contentography isn't inherently problematic, because it's commodification. It just ties into the idea that the body is something to be bought and sold.

Anyway, I think it's a complicated question, since as far as I'm concerned, there are significant underlying problems on both sides. I loathe purity culture in particular--I've whined in the past about St. Mary of Egypt, one of the patron saints of chastity who led an almost comically promiscuous life before converting, so we shouldn't view purity as a physical state that can be lost. There's also an odd story somewhere in the Patristics literature about a Christian monastic woman who got challenged by another monastic to strip naked and go walk through a town to show that she was not proud, which obviously paints a very different picture of what Christian sexual morality ought to look like. This becomes doubly true when dealing with the Martyrs themselves, where nakedness would play a different type of role altogether. So I think this modern stress on what you wear being important goes up against the whole Christian witness. Clothes can be taken from you. They shouldn't define you. They shouldn't be necessary to show that you respect God.

That said, I do think chastity is extremely important from the religious perspective, because it means defining yourself in relation to God instead of looking for meaning and validation from sexual relationships. I dislike the sort of Pelagian notion that sexual purity matters for its own sake, and that being "pure" makes you better than someone else. I think it's a better lifestyle, with significantly less room for dysfunction and bad life decisions, but I don't think that ties directly to the value that a person has.

As for the amount of "raunch" in American culture, I'm of two minds about it. I think it's good that this stuff is out in the open and we can have honest discussions about it. I also think we have deeper issues with self-worth, commodification, market-mentality, and so forth and so on that makes a lot of what is going on in the sexual sphere problematic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have been leaning further and further in the radical feminist direction recently, so I am increasingly troubled by the consent issues involved in a society that normalizes sex to the degree that ours does. I think the liberal in the video is a little bit naive when he claims that inappropriate contentography isn't inherently problematic, because it's commodification. It just ties into the idea that the body is something to be bought and sold.

I think you may already know that I got in touch with my feminist side not so long ago when I researched some material by left leaning feminist, Ariel Levy. I liked a lot of what she had to say. I do realize that her notions about “Female Chauvinist Pigs” may not necessarily be what you have in mind when referring to the radical feminist direction, but just the same, I like her view point, such as it was a decade ago. She, too, didn't like the idea that the body, especially the female body, should be subject, even willingly so, to commodication, especially just for male consumption and outside of the lines of healthier social patterns.

Anyway, I think it's a complicated question, since as far as I'm concerned, there are significant underlying problems on both sides.
I quite agree.

I loathe purity culture in particular--I've whined in the past about St. Mary of Egypt, one of the patron saints of chastity who led an almost comically promiscuous life before converting, so we shouldn't view purity as a physical state that can be lost.
As a person whose 'used' the Hugh Hefner apparatus of mental dysfunction, I've come to increasingly value a kind of purity culture preference, even if it's not necessarily of the kind often profferend these last 20 years among some evangelical Christians. Perhaps we might say mine is more 'Augustinian' in nature, although I wouldn't rely on his take. I have other sources, some feminine—and some just plain ol' productive, positive and poignant provided by my wife. And then, there's just all that stuff one has to plow through in the Bible about how God really DOES seem to want us to do this “holy” thing, a notion that belongs to purity and one that barely is on the charts socially, as far as I can tell.

There's also an odd story somewhere in the Patristics literature about a Christian monastic woman who got challenged by another monastic to strip naked and go walk through a town to show that she was not proud, which obviously paints a very different picture of what Christian sexual morality ought to look like.
Kind of sounds like a story might hear about King David dancing naked or Isaiah the Prophet being told to stroll around in the buff. However, I have a feeling that these instances, even the one you've cited from the Patristic literature, isn't really akin to what's going on in the various, say, “Free the Nipple” movements.

This becomes doubly true when dealing with the Martyrs themselves, where nakedness would play a different type of role altogether. So I think this modern stress on what you wear being important goes up against the whole Christian witness. Clothes can be taken from you. They shouldn't define you. They shouldn't be necessary to show that you respect God.
True enough, especially since what defines “Raunchiness” isn't simply an axiological matter of whether one has clothes on or not. One can entertain and promote a raunchy attitude and way of thinking even with clothes on.

That said, I do think chastity is extremely important from the religious perspective, because it means defining yourself in relation to God instead of looking for meaning and validation from sexual relationships. I dislike the sort of Pelagian notion that sexual purity matters for its own sake, and that being "pure" makes you better than someone else. I think it's a better lifestyle, with significantly less room for dysfunction and bad life decisions, but I don't think that ties directly to the value that a person has.
Sure, from God's point of view, it seems human significance isn't diminished by sexual identities, but being raunchy might get one's 'rights,' as they exist in God's eys, quickly diminished, especially if our being raunchy negatively affects other people (or especially, our children).

As for the amount of "raunch" in American culture, I'm of two minds about it. I think it's good that this stuff is out in the open and we can have honest discussions about it. I also think we have deeper issues with self-worth, commodification, market-mentality, and so forth and so on that makes a lot of what is going on in the sexual sphere problematic.
Yeah, I suppose it's better for it all to be out in the open, but I cringe to say that. I'm not sure 'better' is an appropriate word for this social situation. Perhaps it is one that has 'utility,' but in a society that essentially would like the Christian enclave to shut its “noise hole” about all things sexual or moral, I'm not sure how much of this being 'out and open' is really allowing for the utility of social address and moral redress.

I do think men are to blame for the infrastructure of most of this … they've provided most of the money and commercial impetus into dragging women into the "Raunch Machine" that the U.S. has had, in gradually increasing amounts, for about the last 100 years.

Now, I'm going to look for another point to address from the video. Wish me luck! :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

ChristopherHays

Active Member
Sep 19, 2019
180
86
27
Los Angeles
✟13,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I’m an Atheist and I would still say the culture is too “raunchy.” I live in LA and there are literally middle schoolers walking around the mall with professional makeup, belly button shirts, no bra etc. I don’t necessarily think those things are wrong but they’re definitely wrong for middle schoolers. I also feel parents should be able to take their kids to the mall or set them in front of a tv without seeing seductive adds everywhere.

Can we all just agree that millennials on YouTube aren't good sources for advice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

J03y

Cheeky lil roo
Aug 28, 2019
62
36
27
Swansea, New South Wales
✟19,276.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
AU-Labor
I have my own issues with Jimmy (Mr Atheist) because I find him kinda reactionary to his restrictive upbringing - he lements him struggling throughout his Mormon childhood often - and overcompensates by being more of a libertine than a liberal. On the other hand, I'm actually very new to this purity culture phenomenon; my mother was rather conservative, as are my fiance's Muslim parents and all were aware what we were up to when we were 14 so I don't have much context to go by. However, it seems rather shaming and far from forgiving, and I don't think is an effective means of spreading the good news, if anything it might push people away, as was the case with Mr Atheist.

As for the culture being raunchy... I don't know how easy that is to measure. Brazillian culture is incredibly more religious than in more developed nations and their carnivalles and parades involve incredibly revealing costumes. On the other hand, there are cases where I don't consider raunchy but others do, my girlfriend finds that the beach is really racey because young men tend to go down there shirtless.

As for the implications from a feminist theoretical perspective, several different schools of feminism would take different takes, namely libertarian feminism (which seeks to to away with the limitations of gender roles, so people can be judged individually regardless of their sex or gender) verses cultural feminism (which seeks to elevate the role of feminity with masculinity, often framed from a view of a class struggle). More consicely, it's a view that dignity and liberty compromise eachother, which isn't a dichotomy that I accept.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Ok. Let's see. First up in the video, at least for me, is the little bounce between Safe Sex vs. Purity. And here (somewhere in minute 5 and 6?), Mr. Atheist 'downs' Girl Defined for their reliance upon the concept of Purity and he feels that their calling upon such a notion is nothing short of a dissing of the rest of humanity. I fail to see how it is. But, I know everyone out there in Forum land has a different perspectve on what's Apropos, sexually speaking.
If someone staying a virgin until marriage is "pure" then everyone else is "impure". "Impure" is a diss. He mentioned the "chewed up piece of gum" as a reference to some of the abstinence-only sex ed out there that teaches girls that if they have sex before marriage, then that's what they are. That is a specific analogy that is used. I've also heard girls compared to old shoes that have had a lot of boys wear them.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
As a person whose 'used' the Hugh Hefner apparatus of mental dysfunction, I've come to increasingly value a kind of purity culture preference, even if it's not necessarily of the kind often profferend these last 20 years among some evangelical Christians. Perhaps we might say mine is more 'Augustinian' in nature, although I wouldn't rely on his take. I have other sources, some feminine—and some just plain ol' productive, positive and poignant provided by my wife. And then, there's just all that stuff one has to plow through in the Bible about how God really DOES seem to want us to do this “holy” thing, a notion that belongs to purity and one that barely is on the charts socially, as far as I can tell.

I'm not really sure what type of purity culture you're talking about. I'm in favor of the sort of picture Paul paints in Corinthians--or not in favor of it, I should say. Wacky, wacky Corinthians. ^_^ I am all for adhering to a sort of biblical, Pauline virtue ethics, though I wouldn't really consider that purity culture.

I find the focus on female chastity extremely problematic, especially combined with the idea that when men behave badly, it's normal and to be expected. I ran into this recently here with some Trump supporters who couldn't understand why I had a problem with the sort of sexual remarks Trump makes. It is bizarre to be a Democrat screaming at Republicans about sexual morality, but as long as large swaths of the Christian world are out to lunch on the issue of male chastity, I think this is going to be an issue. (I know this is not you, but it's definitely one of the big issues I have about purity culture in general.)

I also dislike the idea of "saving" yourself until marriage, both because it's not that hard to slip and make a mistake, and because sexual violence is an unfortunate reality. A woman who was planning on waiting until marriage can get drunk and make a mistake, and decide that now that sexual purity is no longer an option, there's no reason to not abstain any further. This type of culture doesn't teach people how to handle mistakes, which is a serious problem.

Kind of sounds like a story might hear about King David dancing naked or Isaiah the Prophet being told to stroll around in the buff. However, I have a feeling that these instances, even the one you've cited from the Patristic literature, isn't really akin to what's going on in the various, say, “Free the Nipple” movements.

Agreed, it is very different.

Sure, from God's point of view, it seems human significance isn't diminished by sexual identities, but being raunchy might get one's 'rights,' as they exist in God's eys, quickly diminished, especially if our being raunchy negatively affects other people (or especially, our children).

I don't really know what you mean by "raunchiness." It's such a strange word, haha. I think that a lot of what goes on is exploitative (and not exclusively of women), and that it's really difficult to lead a permiscuous lifestyle and not end up hurting people, yourself included.

I was specifically thinking of the tendency to judge women in particular based on sexual status. The Madonna-harlot dichotomy.

Yeah, I suppose it's better for it all to be out in the open, but I cringe to say that. I'm not sure 'better' is an appropriate word for this social situation. Perhaps it is one that has 'utility,' but in a society that essentially would like the Christian enclave to shut its “noise hole” about all things sexual or moral, I'm not sure how much of this being 'out and open' is really allowing for the utility of social address and moral redress.

Well, I'm thinking more about things like the modern discussion of sexual harassment and assault, which I don't think would have been possible even a couple decades ago. Sexual abuse was just not the type of thing that people were comfortable talking about before, so as much as the modern secular world irritates me, I don't pine for the good old days of being silenced.

Things are more than a bit odd right now, but the progressive world at least is kind of confusedly creeping towards a new type of sexual morality. It's also getting increasingly puritanical in a way that I find fascinating.

Now, I'm going to look for another point to address from the video. Wish me luck! :rolleyes:

Have fun, haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If someone staying a virgin until marriage is "pure" then everyone else is "impure". "Impure" is a diss. He mentioned the "chewed up piece of gum" as a reference to some of the abstinence-only sex ed out there that teaches girls that if they have sex before marriage, then that's what they are. That is a specific analogy that is used. I've also heard girls compared to old shoes that have had a lot of boys wear them.

It does go both ways, since you can detect the mockery in his voice when says that Bethany hadn't even kissed anyone until her wedding night.

I dislike the word "pure" intensely, but the fact of the matter is that our society doesn't view abstinence as a legitimate choice. Virgin-shaming is every bit as real as the opposite, so I think social pressure to conform and have sex is something we really need to start discussing. Sometimes it seems that celibate people are viewed as being engaged in shaming merely by existing, and that is a problem. (As is the site's profanity filter. :doh:)

There is also the question of whether there are still good reasons to wait until marriage (or at least a stable, committed relationship) to have sex. This is one of the areas where I think his chauvinism is really showing, since it's primarily women who face the consequences of casual sex. Purity culture is poisonous, but I think we should be teaching our children not to have sex if they're not ready to deal with the potential aftermath.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I’m an Atheist and I would still say the culture is too “raunchy.” I live in LA and there are literally middle schoolers walking around the mall with professional makeup, belly button shirts, no bra etc. I don’t necessarily think those things are wrong but they’re definitely wrong for middle schoolers. I also feel parents should be able to take their kids to the mall or set them in front of a tv without seeing seductive adds everywhere.
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear someone who doesn't quite lineup with me on religion still reflect some of my own sentiments about the excessive 'raunch culture' that has grown up around us (in the U.S., anyway) over the last several decades. And there is especially something wrong with all of us if we're acculturating our young people (minors even) to imitate all of this.

Thank you for your comments on this, Christopher!

Can we all just agree that millennials on YouTube aren't good sources for advice?
^_^ Yes, you're right about that!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If someone staying a virgin until marriage is "pure" then everyone else is "impure". "Impure" is a diss. He mentioned the "chewed up piece of gum" as a reference to some of the abstinence-only sex ed out there that teaches girls that if they have sex before marriage, then that's what they are. That is a specific analogy that is used. I've also heard girls compared to old shoes that have had a lot of boys wear them.

Is this what Girl Defined actually is shown to have said in the OP video?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not really sure what type of purity culture you're talking about. I'm in favor of the sort of picture Paul paints in Corinthians--or not in favor of it, I should say. Wacky, wacky Corinthians. ^_^ I am all for adhering to a sort of biblical, Pauline virtue ethics, though I wouldn't really consider that purity culture.
[edited for clarity] Yes, that is more or less what I have in mind when I say 'purity culture,' which from what I gather is somewhat different than what has been passed off as such in some overly exuberant churches. And your analogy with Corinth is apt. In fact, I find it amazing how similar we today in the U.S. are in various respects to the Corinthians. I've actually thought we should change the titles of these two related letters from Paul to 1st and 2nd Americans.

I find the focus on female chastity extremely problematic, especially combined with the idea that when men behave badly, it's normal and to be expected. I ran into this recently here with some Trump supporters who couldn't understand why I had a problem with the sort of sexual remarks Trump makes. It is bizarre to be a Democrat screaming at Republicans about sexual morality, but as long as large swaths of the Christian world are out to lunch on the issue of male chastity, I think this is going to be an issue. (I know this is not you, but it's definitely one of the big issues I have about purity culture in general.)
If it's any consolation, my primary thrust is on male concupiscence (yes, that is a pun!) and the male driven commercial sex industry that culls out and attracts financially starved women. It's just that some attention (correction?) is to be applied to women because, well, let's face it, they are the fairer sex and some of them are being excessively complicit in the various male-driven sex industries. And it only takes one Playmate to hook a bunch of male kids ... for life.

Yes, large swaths of the Christian world are "out to lunch" and haven't yet even really addressed the presence in our culture of the male Double - Standard.

I also dislike the idea of "saving" yourself until marriage, both because it's not that hard to slip and make a mistake, and because sexual violence is an unfortunate reality. A woman who was planning on waiting until marriage can get drunk and make a mistake, and decide that now that sexual purity is no longer an option, there's no reason to not abstain any further. This type of culture doesn't teach people how to handle mistakes, which is a serious problem.
This is probably the one point on which I will somewhat differ with you. I think the idea of waiting for marriage is beneficial, but only for Christians. I mean....hey...I'm not expecting this Pauline type purity culture thing to be mandated by law, especially not across the board. What I don't want to hear, however, is the voice of non-Christians shouting down Christians who do think it is the wisest choice. On the other hand, I would socially advocate for Christians to become much, much better educated about sexual matters and various issues about physical and relational compatibility.

On the issue of "mistakes," I'm not harping. Virginity before marriage is something Christians should strive for but not preach to the world to conform to. And I think you're quite right in saying that what should be promoted is a cultural value on acknowledging mistakes as mistakes and how to handle them in wise and helpful ways, part of which should provide 'the church' with opportunities for service and restoration rather than platforms for unnecessary political reform parading as agendas pertaining to moral control in society.

I don't really know what you mean by "raunchiness." It's such a strange word, haha. I think that a lot of what goes on is exploitative (and not exclusively of women), and that it's really difficult to lead a permiscuous lifestyle and not end up hurting people, yourself included.
At the least, I mean by raunchiness what Ariel Levy means by it, and as you may know, she is a non-christian, Jewish, Lesbian feminist. So, if I can agree with at least her definition, I feel I'm on to something.

I was specifically thinking of the tendency to judge women in particular based on sexual status. The Madonna-harlot dichotomy.
uh.....but Madonna is a harlot! Oh...oh, wait a minute, you mean the other Madonna, don't you? :sorry:

But seriously, the Bible does judge women who persist in a particular lifestyle or immoral attitude just as surely as it does men (who it may identify as 'harlot-mongers'.......ew!) And yes, yes, I know all of this is troublesome emotionally these days, but it is for most of us. We all have to pull the immorality 'out' of us if we want to be Christian. I don't expect non-Christians to be able to do that very well, if at all.

Well, I'm thinking more about things like the modern discussion of sexual harassment and assault, which I don't think would have been possible even a couple decades ago. Sexual abuse was just not the type of thing that people were comfortable talking about before, so as much as the modern secular world irritates me, I don't pine for the good old days of being silenced.
Oh, I just define all of THAT STUFF as standard, required Ethical education for everyone. So, yeah, all of that should be out in the open to scare off any perps who think abuse and physical force are somehow 'meet' for social interaction.

Things are more than a bit odd right now, but the progressive world at least is kind of confusedly creeping towards a new type of sexual morality. It's also getting increasingly puritanical in a way that I find fascinating.
If we count the thinking of persons like Ariel Levy, then yes, I suppose so. But I'm not seeing it take hold on a wide scale yet, unless you're somehow counting the #me2 movement. You may have to enlighten me further on what way you're seeing this 'progressive creeping' which you're talking about.

Have fun, haha.
Found one. Mr. Atheist seems to eschew the idea that having to go to the Bible to support a notion about sexual propriety means the notion itself should be seen as questionable [between minute 6 and 7]? NOT! What's questionable is 'how' people apply hermeneutics to their understanding about social principles seen in the Bible, not whether or not they go to the bible for social principles. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The "purity" bit, yep.

Care to cite the specific place in the video?

So, you don't think Hugh Hefner was a "chewed up piece of gum" stuck to the bottom of Satan's Left boot? I do. And I'll say it again...
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Right around 5:40. You used the word "purity" in your post. You weren't citing them yourself?

Ok. What is your gripe, specifically, because we've already been around with some of these issues in the past? What is it about me or my post that you'd like for me to lay down on the ground, roll around and holler out to the world, "Oh God! I'm such a hypocrite! Boo-hoo-hoo! Somebody kick me!"?
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Ok. What is your gripe, specifically, because we've already been around with some of these issues in the past? What is it about me or my post that you'd like for me to lay down on the ground, roll around and holler out to the world, "Oh God! I'm such a hypocrite! Boo-hoo-hoo! Somebody kick me!"?
I don't understand why you aren't simply addressing the first post I made on it. How many posts until you do? It's a little annoying, but you should relax.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If someone staying a virgin until marriage is "pure" then everyone else is "impure". "Impure" is a diss. He mentioned the "chewed up piece of gum" as a reference to some of the abstinence-only sex ed out there that teaches girls that if they have sex before marriage, then that's what they are. That is a specific analogy that is used. I've also heard girls compared to old shoes that have had a lot of boys wear them.

Ok. Let's relax.

Yes, I agree with you (and @Silmarien) that to say that some person's remaining a virgin until marriage constitutes "purity" is somewhat dubious. If anything, the writers of the Bible are concerned with a daily appropriation of 'holiness,' both before, during and after marriage. And just because some person doesn't have sex before marriage doesn't mean they're not failing on some other moral front that would be considered a sin in the eyes of God.

So, sure. We're all 'harlot-y' in the eyes of God, no matter when and where and how we live, church going or no church going, and we all need the daily Grace and Mercy of Jesus to renew and redirect our ever wandering attention away from the crap, crap, crappiness of The World, such as it is under Satan's Regime.

Does Girl Defined go a little overboard with their askance upon their viewers to 'remain virgin,' though? Well, I don't know. Sure, I'll be the first one to tell them that, "Ladies, I was actually a virgin physically till the day I met my wife, and she's the only one I've EVER had sex with, BUT ... there sure have been a lot of Hefnerian Hussies who have [unfortunately] filled my mind. So, what does it mean for me, spiritually, ladies of Girl Defined if the J. Geils Band keeps playing over and over and over again in my head?" Am I pure? Have you been "pure"?

And I could go on and on, plying them with various Socratic laced questions to cull out and tease out the discrepancies of their thinking. But, somewhere in there will still remain the fact that God, biblically speaking, REALLY IS wanting us each to be as holy (and sexually pure) as possible in our day to day decisions and interpersonal interactions as we possibly can throughout our lives. "Be Holy, for I am Holy." A notion that is apparently completely lost on...Mr. Atheist.

o_O
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0