Christ Centered Gamer

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... ex/276185/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still think the Bible is pretty straight forward about fornication. I do agree that there's a double standard for women versus men who stumble in this area.

This is a fantastic article. This is exactly what Bruce was talking about in previous threads, so I hope he sees it.

brandon1984 wrote:This is a fantastic article. This is exactly what Bruce was talking about in previous threads, so I hope he sees it.

Yeah, it was a good read. I'm not sure what to say about it without starting another debate (hehe) but I'll try to give my reaction anyway.

This is a step in the right direction, IMO. Not because I think the church should necessarily embrace sex before marriage, but because I think it's a little hypocritical that an organization that claims to be about forgiveness and mercy to shame someone for his or her (usually her) past actions.

I think the double standard is one of the biggest problems in the church. You have leaders like Mark Driscoll spreading sexist garbage all over the place in the name of purity. For example, recently Mark Driscoll wrote a book on marriage with his wife. In it, he recounts how he finds out that his wife had a "sexual experience" (and I believe it was just kissing) with another man before they started dating. When he found out about it, he claimed he would not have married her had he known before they were married, and apparently he refused to speak to her for a while after he found out. This is all presented by Mark Driscoll himself as if he were the one in the right. And the clincher? MARK DRISCOLL WAS NOT A VIRGIN BEFORE THEY GOT MARRIED. Now, I realize Mark Driscoll is not the king of Christendom (probably more dislike the guy than like him), but this is the kind of hypocrisy that runs rampant in evangelical Christianity. It's marketed as purity, but it often manifests itself as sexism/misogyny.

Here is another article about how this junk manifests itself in many Christian circles.

Anyway, I'm going off on a rabbit trail here, and I don't want to start an argument (although hopefully I gave some people some things to think about), so I'll just say "Good read!" and sign off.

EDIT: I forgot to make an important point, and that is that the church is only part of the problem. A giant part of the problem is that our culture is over sexualized. On one hand, you have people telling you it's a sin to see a woman's naked chest (for example). On the other, you have the media exploiting the "forbidden fruit" (for example, pictures of scantily clad women) and using it to drive people into giving them money. It's a vicious cycle, and both sides feed off of each other.

Bruce_Campbell wrote:MARK DRISCOLL WAS NOT A VIRGIN BEFORE THEY GOT MARRIED. Now, I realize Mark Driscoll is not the king of Christendom (probably more dislike the guy than like him), but this is the kind of hypocrisy that runs rampant in evangelical Christianity. It's marketed as purity, but it often manifests itself as sexism/misogyny.

Yeah, this kind of hypocrisy is a huge problem for the church. I think it's been said that one of the greatest hindrances to modern people taking Christianity seriously is the hypocrisy. Quite often these church leaders are pretty whitewashed (although scandals are not uncommon), but even in this situation, the problem of hypocrisy runs right down to every person there. Especially the youth who are forced to be there by their parents.

Bruce_Campbell wrote:Here is another article about how this junk manifests itself in many Christian circles.

Yeah, this sort of problem is severe. It sounds like she tried to dress modestly, but still they perceived her as a kind of problem for the male eye. I think it's good to request that women dress modestly given the oversexualization of the culture as you've mentioned, but at the same time we've got to teach the males to grow up and think with the higher head. Because the distraction of sex isn't going to magically go away, it's got to be faced directly.

I agree. I'm tired of "boys will be boys" and "guys think with their pants, not their brains." Really? That's what we're telling them? That they're helpless against primal urges?

ChickenSoup wrote:I agree. I'm tired of "boys will be boys" and "guys think with their pants, not their brains." Really? That's what we're telling them? That they're helpless against primal urges?

Indeed. I hear that same kind of logic a lot when people are scoffing at teaching teenagers abstinence... As if the raging hormones are the only factor worth considering.