Current sexual promiscuity would be an issue. I would argue that past sexual promiscuity, now repented of, in and of itself is neutral. There may be negative consequences for the person concerned. There may also be grace in which God has worked through that history for good. You'd have to actually get to know the person.
This is an interesting line of reasoning. Since sexual promiscuity can be regarded as neutral after repentance, does that therefore mean the actions themselves were insignificant? You're saying there will be negative consequences, but one of those consequences can't be romantic rejection?
No.
It can be, sure. What I'm looking at is the motivation for that rejection. If it's basically a devaluing of the person, I'd say, from a Christian point of view, that's a problem.
Sexual relations outside of marriage don't devalue us in your opinion?
Not inherently, no. I'm not saying it's the right choice, I'm not saying it's wise behaviour, I'm not saying it's not sin; but I'm saying that it doesn't undermine our dignity as bearers of the divine image, or (for Christians) as full participants in the reign of God.
And it is inappropriate for a Christian, to use past promiscuity as a metric by which to reject someone for marriage? Because their inherent value remains intact?
I would argue that if a Christian rejects someone with a promiscuous past, because they believe that past has in some way degraded their value, (and there were some posts before my initial post which certainly seemed to at least suggest that kind of attitude), that would be inappropriate.
By value do you mean value as a potential mate or value with regards to how we are before God? Are the two interchangeable in your opinion?
Let me turn this around. Why should it matter? Someone has been promiscuous in the past. They are no longer. Let's further posit no ongoing health issues or trauma due to that past which would bring significant baggage into a new relationship. What is it about that past that devalues them as a prospective mate, when weighed against questions of character, godliness, compatible life goals, etc?
Insecurity on part of the partner who was not promiscuous matters. One fir instance could imagine a woman, deeply uncomfortable being with a man who has been with women more beautiful than her and the sex they gave being above the sex she can give.
At least somewhat interchangeable. If you truly believe their past has not damaged a person's value before God, why should it lower their value as a potential spouse? The rejection as a spouse on those grounds alone suggests a lingering sense of unworthiness over that person.
Genesis 29:31 > the LORD wanted Jacob to love Leah, even though she was not attractive like Rebecca. But his love depended on if a woman was very beautiful.
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?
Yes, it does, but it doesn't speak to the value or worth of the person who was promiscuous. This is why I was attempting to tease open the question of motivation.
"Needs" might be a strong term. I'd suggest that that kind of insecurity is likely to come out in some way, regardless of the past of her husband, and that it would probably benefit her to address it.
Maybe... but I'd say that kind of insecurity is usually pretty deep-seated and not really about the other person at all.
Let's say for the sake of the argument she wouldn't feel insecure had he been a good Christian.
So Christ's forgiveness doesn't cover child molesters? Is their value degraded forever?
If she has become a Christian, she is your own sister in Jesus.
Sometimes.
I'm not sure it's even helpful to frame this as a question of fault. But if we look at the situation where a formerly promiscuous person is seeking healthy, Christian relationships, the attitudes of others may well be the primary obstacle to fulness of life for all concerned.
