A New Patch on Old Cloth

Were the ethics and expectations of the Purity Movement reasonable and realistic?

Readership: All;

This post is the fourth in a series of articles that examine several aspects of the Purity Movement.  For an introduction, please read the first post, Picking through the fruit of the Purity Movement (2020-4-20).

16 No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse.  17 Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins.  If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.  No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” ~ Matthew 9:16-17 (NIV)

This passage takes on a fresh new meaning if we interpret the new, unshrunk cloth and the old garment as follows.

The new, unshrunk cloth is a fresh new teaching, or an ancient one, such as sexual purity before marriage, which has fallen out of use, and has been relegated to “social theory”.

The old garment is the socio-sexual/marriage marketplace in western society, in which “dating” is characterized by serial monogamy.

Thus, sewing a new patch on an old garment is like trying to instill Biblical teachings of sexual purity within a cesspool of sexual dissipation.

But this is exactly what the Purity Movement attempted to do in the late 1990s.

Something has to give.

Underneath the introductory post, Jason made the following noteworthy statements (revised for clarity).

“What I immediately noticed about [the Purity Movement] was that it made people “stuck”.

I noticed that, for women, it seemed like the expectations of purity really upped the ante for them.

Women were led to believe “you are the perfect daughter of the king”, and they were told to “trust Jesus” in holding out for “the one”.

It made them wait for “the one”, and then came their complaints all over the place, “how come Christian guys don’t ask us out?”  The real question that was implied was, “How come the church doesn’t have hot guys who are asking us out?”

This essentially encouraged women to blow off any man who didn’t fulfill the princess fantasy, which was 90+% of all eligible men.

The expectations of purity also stifled men in many ways too.  For Christian men, they couldn’t approach a woman unless “God” had put it on his heart to pursue her, and if his pursuit was “wrong”, or the woman didn’t like it, or she didn’t want him pursuing her… God obviously didn’t lie of course… But it was presumed that the man didn’t “listen” to what God was really telling him.

Men seemed to get the blame for it not working.  Women complained loudly on social media and other areas that “no decent men were in the church”

It seemed to make everyone stuck…

Moreover, Christian ethics and expectations were being imposed on young people, but the sexual marketplace (SMP) and the marriage marketplace (MMP) had never changed to accommodate these expectations.  So Christians who pursued a more God fearing approach towards marriage were like a fish out of water, and were left in the dust.

Larry wrote a similar sentiment.

“One Christian mistake was encouraging delaying marriage while also encouraging purity.  Not realistic.”

Yes, we really need to rethink child rearing and education in the West.  […]  Our parents and grandparents married often in their early 20s, or even late teens for females.  It could work again.  This delaying marriage to the late 20s is not good for individuals or for society.

To leave no stone unturned, there were many problems that came out of superposing purity onto the secular SMP.  These have been summarized in a post at Cornerstone, The “Purity” Movement (2020 February 22), which lists the main aberrations as follows.  (Please visit Cornerstone for the full descriptions.)

  • Maintaining the Feminist Life Script
  • An overemphasis on “purity”
  • The emotional bonding between father and daughter was overemphasized
  • Ridiculous standards for suitors
  • Lack of social infrastructure
  • Girls who really wanted to be sluts
  • A difficulty of making a break from “dating” in the form of serial monogamy
  • Women living alone

But the most pressing dilemma about superposing the Purity Movement onto the secular SMP setting was the extended postponement of marriage.  This has been discussed before by Jack (Σ Frame) and Sharkly (Laughing at Feminism).

“According to the US CDC the mean age for first vaginal sexual intercourse is 17 for both males and females.  By age 23, 95% of women interviewed claimed that they’d had sexual intercourse.  Meanwhile the average age of first marriage in the US is 27 for women and 29 for men.  The average girl has had a full decade of fornication before she ever marries, while average men have been screwing around for a dozen years prior to marriage.”

How could we possibly expect any young person to endure 10 years of temptation during peak fertility and still remain pure?  That’s just unrealistic, if not impossible.  It’s a horrible spiritual abuse just to lay this expectation on a young person – that’s the kind of abuse that will surely jerk one off to ћәll in a handjob!

chrysler-hemi-engine-sema-las-vegas-nv-usa-october-close-up-firepower-specialty-equipment-market-association-th-81168451

Concluding Statements

Christian ethics and expectations were being imposed on young people who were not mature enough to take life by the horns.  To make matters more difficult, the SMP and the MMP had never changed to accommodate these expectations.  As a result, the Purity Movement was a witches brew of legalism, unrealistic expectations, frustration, and temptation.

If you think about this, it would take an act of God for a young person to have the wits and wherewithal to come through the worldly western SMP while maintaining sexual purity until arriving in a God-ordained marriage.  They are totally different paths, leading to different outcomes.  Yet, those in the Purity Movement had the gall to make such a presumption on the mercies of God.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to A New Patch on Old Cloth

  1. lastmod says:

    A whole bunch here in the church. A young person? How about any man who is christian or of the faith who burns and is pushed into a corner of “waiting on god to tell you to pursue”?

    And then one side of many men in the church or who are / were christian who had sex, dated, and “quoted scripture with the best of them” and married and had “gods favor” of some amazing christian life.

    Then add into this, pastors, elders, deacons, the praise leader, the pastors son (who deflowered just about any of the higher SMP women in the church) and other deemed “alphas” in said church who would lecture the first bunch above on how to be manly, how to ‘meet cute’ (at the age of 35 or older….really easy, just be alpha bro), how to date, how to this, how to that……but wait on god, pray, serve, tithe, serve, tithe, serve, volunteer, wait…..

    and then it suddenly became when most of these younger people became middle aged, or cresting into it: “well, god doesn’t owe you a wife / did you know there is no marriage in heaven? / with all your service and helps…….women probably assumed you were called to celibacy / god’s timing is best / I know plenty of men who married later in life, there is no difference / ummm…..you need to leave the women alone (younger) / maybe you should ask out divorced mom / single mom / mom who is really overweight but loves jesus more than anything

    The frustration of this movement really hurt more than helped. To the men who had “it” from day one in the faith (looks, the ego, the alpahitude, met ‘cute(s)’ at the right age and time) probably worked for or better for in the end.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. larryzb says:

    “How could we possibly expect any young person to endure 10 years of temptation during peak fertility and still remain pure? That’s just unrealistic, if not impossible. It’s a horrible spiritual abuse just to lay this expectation on a young person – that’s the kind of abuse that will surely jerk one off to ћәll in a handjob!”

    That is a correct assessment. Possibly due to the hormone residues in meats and dairy products, young people, really children, are going through physical sexual maturation at an markedly earlier age than just 2 generations ago. Combine this with the delay in marriage to later ages for both men and women in the past 2 generations, and you have a situation that is quite problematic. Perhaps, it requires an integrated or comprehensive approach that addresses many factors and possible courses of action to make this situation better for the long run. This sexual frustration and consequent fornication causes many problems – physical, sociological, emotional and spiritual for the individuals and in the aggregate for society as a whole. Yet, very few are even addressing it or talking about it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • okrahead says:

      I don’t know if it’s really that much younger… Shakespeare had Romeo at 15 and Juliet at 13 in his famous tragedy. I have seen studies that suggest that girls with absent fathers do experience menarche at a younger age. Considering the fast rising tides of fatherless children in our culture that might explain what you are seeing.

      Like

  3. okrahead says:

    The most hilarious take on the “purity” movement has to be the “born again virgin” ripoff. Girl goes out and rides the carousel. Girl realizes it’s time to move on to Next Life Phase. Girl proclaims religious experience, is once again a virgin (complete with purity ring!). Girl finds thirsty beta to wife her up, refuses to have sex with him before marriage because she’s once again a virgin! Thirsty beta figures it will be worth the wait, because he knows how many guys she’s had sex with and figures she’ll still want lots of sex after wedding. Thirsty beta wifes her up, discovers he’s getting the same amount of sex after the wedding as before.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Did we ever discuss the women that were told to wait for their man till marriage (step1)
    (Step2) Our guys were sold, sex will be great when you get married…(she’ll be your whore)
    Then, (Step 3) the women were scared of sex and the guys were sold a defective bill of goods?
    (The churchian/purity people seemed to weasel their way out of it by quoting scripture and absolving themselves of it. Now those women are 30s-40s and the guys might be divorced)

    Liked by 2 people

    • lastmod says:

      freematt….oh these men should have just prayed more, seeked gods guidance more, should have worked out more, should have read rollo…..should have done this, should have done that………(sarcasm)

      women were overall given a pass for the expectations in a man that went to the level of god himself because of this movement and for many women….it backfired on them too.

      it worked if you had something to begin with, for some it probably did give a framework to guide themselves here…..there was a huge void in the christian world that needed ‘something’ (anything) to try to ‘fix’ this problem that has now been amplified further in the faith after the dust settled from this movement.

      in the end it just caused more singlenesss…..and Matt you’re spot on, The pastors, the real men in the room so-to-speak got a pass for this mistake they passed off as divine.
      The problem was entrusted a kid to tell a generation and half how to do this in a christian sense.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      A lot of different testimonies have surfaced since I started this series. It seems that the purity movement affected different people in different ways. Some people went wild, some turned frigid, and for a small few, things went well as expected.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Scott says:

    Off topic but I found this fascinating.

    Here is a guy who starts his article by informing the reader that he has an iron clad rule:

    “Don’t feed the trolls.”

    And then he goes on to describe his trolling behavior (offering a trolling comment in the form of smart ass false dichotomy to a group of commenters on a conservative Op Ed)

    The lack of insight on the part of boomer/leftist activists is breathtaking.

    https://progressive.org/dispatches/want-me-to-die-they-go-shopping-ervin-200501/?fbclid=IwAR0br_EZaciqr1rfP3MpEZMS684Tr-MWZsr1ddr2yDC_GKpEkizaJ_Uq2YQ#.Xqxei1_GZko.facebook

    Like

    • Jack says:

      Interesting… He trolled, and got trolled in return, and somehow, he takes it all so seriously and way too personally, never realizing that the Constitution has nothing to do with his immediate risk of contracting the virus. Does he honestly expect to receive sympathy in response to his insincerity?

      Like

      • Scott says:

        The tread on FB where this was shared has gone crazy. Here is where I left it.

        The writer, immediately after stating that he does not “feed the trolls” shares the story of his ACTUALLY BEHAVING LIKE A TROLL. That is, he goes into a comments section of a conservative op-ed and starts a flame war with a stupid, unsophisticated false dichotomy and draws fire on himself, thereby confirming his already held belief about “cold-hearted, thick-headed right wingers.”

        The lack of introspection and self-awareness of this writer is breathtaking.

        There is no one–absolutely no one–who is a part of the actual mainstream dialogue or policy making who “wants” him (or anyone else) to die so they can “go shopping.” This is his own internal, psychological process taking over so he can feel self-righteous and bestow himself with victim status.

        There is a huge difference between that hyperbolic argumentation and the actual risk calculating that is going on right now.

        There are many competing interests in this chapter of world history. The economy is not a non-issue, and neither are the lives of the vulnerable. But there will be no disability checks without an economy so people who are dependent on the system better start to realize that. In that regard, the powers that be are debating infection curves, risk algorithms and matrices, masks, no masks, hospital capacities, vaccinations, rural vs urban environments, genetic loads, and so on until we thread the needle just right.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: Only God can grant a successful marriage | Σ Frame

  7. Pingback: The Elimination of the Church | Σ Frame

  8. Raphael Tisserand says:

    “How could we possibly expect any young person to endure 10 years of temptation during peak fertility and still remain pure? That’s just unrealistic, if not impossible. It’s a horrible spiritual abuse just to lay this expectation on a young person”.

    Precisely. We aren’t going to change all of society in our lifetimes so something has to give. Hence why I think some of the biblical laws on sex outside of marriage need to be suspended. What other option is there? The status quo clearly isn’t working.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      Hence why I think some of the biblical laws on sex outside of marriage need to be suspended. What other option is there?

      You have the option to obey God. Clearly, you don’t want to take that option. Since you believe that God’s laws “on sex outside of marriage need to be suspended” (just like churchian feminists believe God’s laws on wives submitting to husbands need to be suspended), you are free to take up your complaint with the Law Maker. God.

      You’re free to give God any and every excuse you can think of, and try to convince God to “suspend” His moral laws.

      Good luck with that.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Raphael Tisserand says:

        There is a difference between te. temporarily suspending a law and abolishing it. The Bible, like any written body of law, sets the norm. But it can’t deal with exceptional circumstances. I don’t see conditions improving anytime soon.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        There is a difference between te. temporarily suspending a law and abolishing it.

        I’m aware of that. So what? You’re still free to give God any and every excuse you can think of, and try to convince God to “suspend” His moral laws.

        Good luck with that.

        The Bible, like any written body of law, sets the norm. But it can’t deal with exceptional circumstances.

        That’s not what Jesus taught.

        Matthew 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

        That’s not what the Holy Spirit teaches.

        Isaiah 24:5 The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants,
        Because they have transgressed the laws,
        Changed the ordinance,
        Broken the everlasting covenant.

        I don’t see conditions improving anytime soon.

        So? I don’t see the heaven and earth passing away anytime soon.

        Have you made explained to God why His law needs to be “suspended”? Have you changed His mind?

        Like

  9. Raphael Tisserand says:

    All political concepts are secularized theological concepts. I’ve had variations on this conversation before with “churchians” and they don’t seem to get what I’m talking about. I’m applying Carl Schmitt’s view of law to the realm of morality. None of them have been smart enough to pick up on the references to States Of Exception, “decides on the exception”, suspending law, etc and I don’t mention exactly where I got those concepts from since Schmitt is rather…controversial in our liberal society. I’m not sure what Schmitt would have made of someone applying his ideas about law to the realm of sex. State of Sexception? Law has limits. Someone has to stand above it. Deus Absconditus remains silent in the midst of this crisis. Who stands above the law?

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      I’m applying Carl Schmitt’s view of law to the realm of morality.

      So what? Is there some reason why God should care what Carl Schmitt thinks about God’s law?

      Law has limits. Someone has to stand above it.

      Says who? Carl Schmitt? One again; is there some reason why God should care what Carl Schmitt thinks about God’s law?

      Deus Absconditus….

      Are you prepared to give account to God for that insult?

      … remains silent in the midst of this crisis.

      God spoke to you through His word. You don’t like what He said. That doesn’t mean He “remains silent”. That means you refuse to listen, and intend to disobey.

      Good luck with that.

      Matthew 13:14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

      ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
      And seeing you will see and not perceive;
      15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
      Their ears are hard of hearing,
      And their eyes they have closed,
      Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
      Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
      So that I should heal them.’

      Who stands above the law?

      Above God’s law? No one.

      I don’t understand why you keep trying to convince people who have no power to “suspend” God’s law. Have you tried convincing God that He should “suspend” His law?

      Like

      • Raphael Tisserand says:

        What starts out as a conversation on the post-Sexual Revolution world and how to live in it always turns into a conversation on the purpose and nature of moral law (and law in general). And there it stalls out, because myself and whatever other person I speak with end up having major disagreements on that subject. Finding a solution to this crisis is impossible under such conditions. The Bible is not a suicide pact. But many of the people I talk to seem to think that it is.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Raphael and Oscar,
        This blog entertains both views (the Biblical perspective vs. the real world). I have the opinion that a thorough analysis of both allows people to make a well informed choice about their lives. Having that choice is one important step towards liberty. Athough it doesn’t always lead to freedom in Christ, there is a higher likelihood.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        And there it stalls out, because myself and whatever other person I speak with end up having major disagreements on that subject.

        The problem is not that we disagree. The problem is that you want to “suspend” God’s moral law, yet you insist on arguing with people who have no power to “suspend” God’s law.

        Have you tried changing God’s mind about His Law? Have you given God all your excuses for why He should “suspend” His law? If not, why not?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Jack,

        This blog entertains both views (the Biblical perspective vs. the real world).

        Are you saying that “the Biblical perspective” is not “the real world”? Who understands “the real world” better than the Holy Spirit that inspired the Bible?

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Oscar,
        By saying “real world”, I do not mean to imply that the Bible is false by comparison. There is a vast difference between the world we live in and the life of faith. Those who take the Bible seriously will find that our experience of the world does not match what the Bible says. The Bible says that Christians are in the world, but not of it. (See John 17.) Answering the question of how this dichotomy plays out in the life of a believer is the foremost question of our lives.
        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2017&version=NKJV

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        The Bible is not a suicide pact. But many of the people I talk to seem to think that it is.

        If you’re a Christian (and that is in no way evident in your obstinate, blasphemous [“Deus Absconditus”], disobedience), then the only reason you are a Christian is because millions of Christians before you would rather die than disobey God.

        Rev 2:10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

        Have you convinced God to “suspend” His moral law yet? If not, then why not?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        There is a vast difference between the world we live in and the life of faith. Those who take the Bible seriously will find that our experience of the world does not match what the Bible says. The Bible says that Christians are in the world, but not of it. (See John 17.)

        Exactly. Faithful believers of every generation found that “there is a vast difference between the world” they lived in “and the life of faith”.

        How did faithful believers who came before us deal with that difference? Did they demand that God’s moral laws be “suspended”?

        Liked by 1 person

  10. redpillboomer says:

    “According to the US CDC the mean age for first vaginal sexual intercourse is 17 for both males and females. By age 23, 95% of women interviewed claimed that they’d had sexual intercourse. Meanwhile the average age of first marriage in the US is 27 for women and 29 for men. The average girl has had a full decade of fornication before she ever marries, while average men have been screwing around for a dozen years prior to marriage.”

    Yes, women’s average age of being 27 years old for their first marriage, to me, is the eye popping stat. My 30 year old son just got married to his 27 year old girlfriend/Fiance, however they have been together now for six years since they met in college. Most of the marriages that I’ve been aware of lately have looked a lot like my son’s–been together, lived together or whatever, then finally had a ceremony to announce to the world that they were officially married when they had been effectively pseudo-married for years. My daughter is 29 and she gets married next year when she’s thirty, but she’s known the guy, they’ve been bf/gf for five years, living together, again a pseudo-marital situation.

    Now, the other 27+ year old women I’ve known from an educational program I’ve participated in for a number of years, their situation looks quite different. They’ve been serially monogamous or riding the CC since they were teenagers or early twenties. One, a very beautiful 27 year old, at the time that I coached her during the educational program we were both in, had at least two Chads she hooked up with during the twelve months. She’s now 30, and I have no idea how many men she’s had in the last three years. Now that I have a Red Pill mindset about me (Blue Pill when I coached her), I can see the archetypal pattern she fits: Very beautiful when she was in her early twenties (9/9.5 with a bit of an exotic look to her–man magnate), Intelligent (Bachelors and Masters), Articulate, dresses nicely/not like a slut, etc. NOW, JUST THREE YEARS LATER at 30, looks beginning to fade a bit (still a 7-8, but that exotic look is gone), her N-Count easily double digits, possible STD/STI (she indicated this to me back when I coached her; why I don’t know), she’s got a bit of that look the manosphere refers to the ‘1000 cock stare,’ college debt she hasn’t paid off yet (or seemingly made much progress with it), lives at home now with her parents, on every damn dating app in existence (exaggerating a bit here for effect), etc. etc

    My point in sharing this, I think if we had back-in-the-day ‘standards’ of marriage operating still, she would have been married in her late teens or early twenties, probably had 2-3 kids by 30, being a wife, mom, etc. Instead, she fits the archetype now of a woman at the Wall desperately trying to stick the landing with a man who fits whatever she considers now as ‘marriageable,’ (a guy with resources, status, at least to some degree decent looks, etc). Where the hell is Alpha Chad now? Nowhere to be found; actually off banging replicas of herself from a decade ago. Apparently from what I can tell from a distance, Ms. at one-time exotic beauty is striking out in her efforts so far to find a man that will wife her up. To me, this is a tragedy in our society multiplied many thousands of times over.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      effectively pseudo-married for years.

      The problem with this, though, is that quite a few of these situations never actually become marriages. One party or the other decides at some stage — typically either when the man proposes (and she says no) or when the woman asks the “where is this going?” question and the man demurs — to end the situation because they are not ready, or it isn’t the right time, or they may find someone better, or they have doubts because they are still attracted to others, or because the limerance has long worn off and they have a cruish/limerance on someone else ort because they are still young and hot enough to try their hand again, or, or, or …

      The breakup rate of cohabitation situations exceeds the break up rate of marriages considerably. The separation rate is five times higher than that of married couples. Also, only slightly over 50% of cohabiters get married to the person they are living with.

      https://www.thespruce.com/cohabitation-facts-and-statistics-2302236

      Why is it so ubiquitous then? Because people have bought into the idea of a trial marriage.

      The success rates are predictably much higher if the couple is already engaged and has a wedding date and so on when they move in together, because that already indicates a very high level of commitment prior to cohabiting. For other couples? Not really.

      What can happen in many cases is that there is a cohabiting situation taking place that lasts, say 4-6 years, starting around age 24-26, and the woman emerges from that single and not engaged and, depending on her age and whether she was the one wanting out or not, re-engages the market accordingly, only this time with a lot of cynicism about men, relationships, commitment and the like. It is not atypical for a woman coming out of one of these situations to go through a “sowing the oats” period, as well, to reassure herself that, despite her recent rejection, she still pulls hot guys.

      So the “marriage other than in name while we are still in our 20s” option isn’t what a lot of people think it is, either, and really doesn’t lead, on an aggregate basis, to significantly different long term outcomes that are positive for the people taking this route.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Raphael Tisserand says:

    I didn’t coin the term Deus Absconditus. It’s a very old theological term. The Hidden God, from a verse in Isaiah. God can’t be seen or touched, and rarely responds directly to inquiries.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      I didn’t coin the term Deus Absconditus.

      So? You used it. You called Him “God who in his remoteness seems to ignore human suffering”, when His word says:

      Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

      God can’t be seen or touched, and rarely responds directly to inquiries.

      God already told you what to do in His word. You insolently demand that God “susped” His law. Fine. You’re free to give God any and every excuse you can think up for why He should “suspend” His law.

      Have you tried to change God’s mind? If not, why not?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Raphael Tisserand says:

        The Bible is a book. It can’t think or speak. It can’t clarify its own rulings or react to new circumstances. No written law can address every possible circumstance.

        “Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong?
        Destruction and violence are before me;
        strife and contention arise. So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted”-Habakkuk 1:3-4

        Alas, God doesn’t directly speak to us the way God did in those days.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        The Bible is a book.

        The Bible is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

        Alas, God doesn’t directly speak to us the way God did in those days.

        God already spoke to you through His word. You don’t like what He said, you refuse to listen, and demand that God “suspend” His law.

        Have you convinced God to “suspend” His law yet? If not, then why not?

        Like

  12. Raphael Tisserand says:

    We are going in circles now. I’m just going to reiterate that no written law is sufficient in all circumstances. You’re just going to tell me to talk to God.

    “God already spoke to you through His word”.
    “Have you convinced God to ‘suspend’ His law yet?”

    These contradict each other. A written book can’t be convinced of anything because it’s an inanimate object. You can’t talk to a book and have it speak back to you. You seem to think that the Bible is the only way God speaks.

    Are you a Muslim? Sunni Islam believes that there is a Heavenly Koran that is coeternal with God and goes so far as to believe that the Heavenly Koran is an attribute of God. I find a lot of Christians get dangerously close to this Muslim Doctrine in their veneration of the Bible.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      You’re just going to tell me to talk to God.

      I never told you to do anything. I asked you if you’ve convinced God yet to “suspend” His law. You still haven’t answered that question.

      These contradict each other. A written book can’t be convinced of anything because it’s an inanimate object. You can’t talk to a book and have it speak back to you. You seem to think that the Bible is the only way God speaks.

      I never said “that the Bible is the only way God speaks”.

      Are you a Muslim?

      No.

      See how easy it is to answer questions? Now, have you convinced God yet to “suspend” His law? If not, why not?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Raphael Tisserand says:

        God doesn’t involve Himself in day to day affairs of the world. The Church and the government present God on earth. The Church shares in God’s Sovereignty and can suspend moral law. The Church has the authority to decide on the exception.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        God doesn’t involve Himself in day to day affairs of the world.

        Says who?

        The Church has the authority to decide on the exception.

        Says who?

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        The Catholic Church is (at least on paper) the most monarchical, authoritative, dictatorial Church, claiming the authority to bind-and-loose given by Jesus Christ himself and even they don’t claim they can suspend the moral law.

        Like

  13. penumbrated says:

    “There is a vast difference between the world we live in and the life of faith. Those who take the Bible seriously will find that our experience of the world does not match what the Bible says. The Bible says that Christians are in the world, but not of it. (See John 17.)”

    Precisely. Both on a micro level as we soldier on with our individual sins, and on a macro level as we interact (or not) with the church; depending of course on what definition of the the term “church” that one subscribes to.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s