California Church Holds a Free Wedding and Reception for Cohabiting Couples
- Posted on October 4, 2011 at 1:45am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Young evangelicals, as we’ve reported, aren’t necessarily less likely to engage in pre-marital sex. But what about adult Christians? Even among older, more experienced, evangelicals, cohabitation and sex before marriage aren’t necessarily an anomaly.
So, to remedy these un-Biblical practices, one Long Beach, California, church decided to offer a free wedding to unmarried couples who had been living together.
Pastor Mike Goldsworthy of Parkcrest Christian Church made the offer to his congregation just two weeks ago, pledging both a wedding and a reception to the couples who agreed to take him up on the offer.
Goldsworthy said, “If your only barrier is the cost of a wedding, we will remove that.” And remove it the church did. This past Sunday, four couples — some of whom had been living with one another for years — took the plunge and were married in what the Los Angeles Times called an “unconventional” ceremony. The Times has more:
On Sunday, the four grooms lined up at the front of the Parkcrest chapel’s pews, grinning broadly as their brides marched down the aisle. Some were handed off by their children to their husbands-to-be.
“Gentlemen, go forward and receive your bride,” Goldsworthy said. In a brief address, he said the weddings were “more than a mere formality.” They marked an important commitment to God, Goldsworthy said, and a public announcement of the couples’ relationships.
Three pastors officiated, taking turns to allow for vows to be exchanged individually. It was the first time the church had financed weddings for its members, but for the pastor and the congregation it was a celebratory milestone.
Goldsworthy explained the importance of living by the Bible’s guidelines (both cohabitation and pre-marital sex either lead to or surpass a violation of Christian values). ”We believe that God’s plan for a couple is not to be living together, but marriage,” he explained.
The church has not ruled out doing this again in the future.
(H/T: Los Angeles Times)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 667 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 525 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 375 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 364 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 326 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 247 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 255 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 247 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (69)
donaldchar
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 3:30pmYes, the wedding can strengthen a marriage. But is it necessary? The annals of history, both Biblical and secular, (I haven’t read other religious texts thoroughly) seem to show that weddings are desirable, but the lifelong commitment is the point. Sati (bride-burning in India) is one horrifying extreme that some demonic cultures have embraced. My bride and I went to the altar nearly 35 years ago with the agreement that if the “D” word ever entered our minds, we’d chuck it out; somehow, we WOULD work it out. And we always have. Some of the most precious periods of our marriage have been after we worked through our differences. We’re convinced that any marriage is savable if both partners get off their self-made pedestals and choose to love each other. With God all things are possible. The One who’s all-powerful, all-wise, and wants all marriages to succeed is on your side if you’re on His.
Report Post »donaldchar
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 2:56pmPremarital sex? Let’s start with Adam and Havah (Eve). When God told them, “Have at it!” (OK, He said, “Be fruitful and multiply!”) they’d had no
Report Post »altar or
audience [besides the Godhead] or
sacred vows, and – and -
and their reception was kinda sparse.
Weddings are nice and beneficial in all ways when they’re taken seriously.
Traditional vows are wisely worded, and can be improved upon, but mostly the modern modifications appear to be self-centered and self-serving (the main reason for “prenups,” with the other reason in my initial comment above)
Lastly, most folks are deceived into believing that “Love is a special way of feeling.” It ain’t. Love is commanded, like in “Love one another as I (Jesus) have loved you.” Love is a choice to lift other persons up and to serve them the way you want to be served. Where would we be if we all did that?
Whoopee!
Redscot
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 4:23pmOh brother! Foobear, shut the heck up and stop bothering people. You are a vexation to the soul. I have helped put on weddings that did not cost a lot of money. I have attended quite a few. I am a widow on the north side of age and do not plan on ever marrying again. I would lose more financial than I would gain. I was married – 30 years. As someone who has the right to talk about marriage, I can say one thing. Marriage is for the sake of children. If you do not have children or do not plan on having them, do not bother. I am religious but not even a free wedding is enough to induce me to do it again. I love a man and live with him. He has a similar attitude. We have a loving committed relationship. We each have kids (9) & grandkids (18) adding everyone together. So, I have so knowlege and wisdom of the subject matter. Foobear, grow the heck up and get out of people’s personal life. You have no knowledge and less wisdom to share. Go play with yourself.
Report Post »BoricuaEn Arizona
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 6:23pmYou are “religious”.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 10:35pm@Redscot: “You are a vexation to the soul. I have helped put on weddings that did not cost a lot of money.”
I’m confused… did I say that weddings are expensive or something? Or are you just switching topics mid-sentence.
I think weddings are a good thing, and teen pregnancies generally a bad thing.
I just think that Christians are confused about what is and what is not in the Bible. If it “vexes” you to hear that, that’s just the feeling people get when they find out that their beliefs have been built on a foundation of sand.
Report Post »Exiled
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 6:49amFoobear: I don’t think it was necessarily the thoughts behind your comments, but the fact that they went on – page after page after page. This is just a blog. Summarize your thoughts or people tend to throw you into the “ranting crazy person” bucket – even if your ideas are sound.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 10:17amExiled, it’s a two page essay… hardly a unabomber manuscript.
Report Post »donaldchar
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 2:13pmYou are “religious” but don’t talk like Jesus.
Report Post »Bad “experiences” do not trump good ones.
Wisdom based on bitterness is not wisdom we should follow.
Many, many marriages are doomed to fail because they violate the basic principle:
Prepare to marry a good spouse, not by looking for one but by preparing yourself to be one for them;
like attracts like.
bellasbrat
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 3:24pmMy pastor did it first……3 months ago. Married 28 couples the first time. It was so successful, he did it again a week later. And he offered to pay for marriage licenses for those who couldn’t afford it.
Report Post »donaldchar
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 2:14pmThanks for that little tidbit – this info will bless me and others for a long time…
Report Post »Sick-N-Tired
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 2:37pmFolks, until we remove that earned income credit there is EVERY REASON not to get married anymore. When a single mom living with the baby daddy, gets to claim head of household and get that extra 3 or 4 thousand in earned income credit, WHY GET MARRIED!! The govt can help them have their children and not pay for them. WAKE UP AMERICA!!
Report Post »What started in the 70s as a way to help, has become the NORM. Did you know that even the illegal aliens have figured this one out? They file taxes with a TAX ID – not a social security number. Everyone lauds the fact that they are paying their taxes…ya right. 4 years ago the amount of earned income credit was 937 million going to people WITHOUT a SSN. It is now 67 billion going to people WITHOUT a SSN. WAKE UP AMERICA!
pat
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 3:03pmwe are awake-we just feel helpless-apart from our votes and getting the word out
Report Post »american_rose_126
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 2:23pmI think this is wonderful, and I think more churches should be doing this…it takes away so many excuses. It’s easy to say, “we can’t afford a wedding right now, there are no venues, etc…” The ‘reasons’ we don’t get married are many and varied–but it is not healthy or right. Both parties suffer. I’m a liberated woman–but I’m not ashamed of my need and desire for security in a relationship–to have the stability of marriage. And for a man to really step up and take on that responsibility is a great act of strength and character. Both men and women benefit and grow and flourish in loving, secure, relationships. It is the best way. And it’s never too late to do the right thing. Honor yourself, honor the love of your life, and honor God. You will be blessed.
Report Post »pat
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 2:22pmto Foobear: …always the slam on the Mormons. so old. so cliche. there arent a finer people..why not focus on all the Good they do? in all your researching maybe try mormon.org!! enlightening. or maybe you would rather just spit out vitriol?
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 10:46pmI like Mormons. Speaking broadly, they’re happy, decent, moral individuals.
Just like the Roman Catholics, though, Mormons are crazy when it comes to sex. Roman Catholics err too far on the side of chastity (for their priests, especially), while Mormons use sex to recruit teens into the church and push marriages at an age younger than most in our culture.
Report Post »Exiled
Posted on October 5, 2011 at 6:46amReally? I must have missed the whole “recruitment by sex” thing. That’s a shame.
Report Post »MUDFLAPS
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 1:48pmill bet the church gets them a room too. with pennicillin.
Report Post »rdietz7
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 12:47pmFoobear is an annoying know it all crazy person. Nuff said.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 10:42pmThe fact that you didn’t quote any scripture as a counterexample, Diet, says plenty.
Report Post »rdietz7
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 12:36pmHaving a baby, going to school, get married and be buried are all highly over priced.
Report Post »gingerbread
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 11:26amNow, that seems to be a very good idea. Basically, marriage is a commitment to be true to each other for the rest of your life. I realise that even a marriage doesn’t prevent one of the couple to break their vows. That’s the reason for divorces. Which I’m also for.
Report Post »JESUSWON
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 10:42amListen Grudywoof, “The Grace of God that brings Salvation has appeared to all Men”, therefore all of us are without excuse. I know a guy that woke up in the middle of the night screaming to the top of his lungs as he held on to his wife “Hell is real! that place of torment is real!, Satan would never show anyone that place of suffering! You see this guy had been running from the call God had on his life untill that night, as he shook all the way down, falling to his knees crying out for Jesus Christ to forgive him. The Lord in His Gentil yet Powerful voice, spoke his name and said, “I HAVE FINALLY GOT YOUR ATENTION, HAVENT I”, with tears pouring out of his eyes he said, yes Lord you have, please for give me. At that point he felt as if he was going to float from the floor to the ceiling because of the weight of the guilt and shame(SIN) was at that moment taking off of him! You see, there is no such thing as a “dead Atheist” and there is not a person who CHOOSES to spend an Eternity in Hell seperated from Christ who want’s to be there! Today if YOU hear His voice, harden not your heart! By the way, Merriage is a beautiful thing, because it’s a God thing!
Report Post »mamabearCali
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 10:14amI think it was a kind thing to do. Honest loving marriage is an amazing thing. Two people choosing to make vows and walk hand in hand the rest of their lives facing it together. To facilitate that is a kindness. I am not Catholic, but kudos to this church for being kind and offering solutions to make doing the right thing a little easier.
Report Post »Solzhenitsin
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 1:06pmThis wasn’t a Roman Catholic church.
Report Post »bellasbrat
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 3:27pmIf this is anything like what my pastor did, it wasn’t done out of kindness. It was done to put an end to at least that part of sin in these couples’ lives!
Report Post »endgamer
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 10:00amI will NEVER get married again.. Free or not. The implications are immense, and people change when marriage is involved. The Tax incentives? Discounts on insurance? No thank you..I’ll pay more for the easy out clause.. I can simply walk away if she turns into a psycho right now. Marriage in the states eyes is a union of property and divorce is the division of property..and who pays who for alimony ( welfare) & child support.. That’s it.. Ask an attorney.
Report Post »pat
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 2:11pmof all the comments, yours is the saddest. i had a miserable 1st marriage but am now married to an amazing man who treats my kids and me with love and kindness. if i had adopted your anti-God mentality my life would be less rich and my kids would likely take my negativity into their relationships. i hope you will explore the rightness of this covenant/commitment with some humility and then find someone you can live happily with for this life and beyond
Report Post »Exiled
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 8:16amIt’s people like Foobear that cause there to be a character limit on these posts.
Report Post »Exiled
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 8:09amWait, so there are people that PAY for their religious leader to marry them? Really? I didn’t have to shell out any money for my ceremony – at least not to the church. Odd that a church (and from the sounds of it, most churches) charge to do this sort of “God’s work”. Just out of curiosity, how much did YOU pay for whomever did your wedding?
Report Post »inpennanow
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 8:39amGood question. The article specifies “both a wedding and a reception” would be covered, however, perhaps it’s a reference to having a church filled with flowers and other incidentals?
Report Post »Theswerd
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 2:32pmI think the main reason to pay for the ceremony etc is that they will be using the facility. There will be extra power usage, probably water and such in the kitchen, plus any staff that help set up and tear down. And if you wanna get elaborate with it, there could be the chance of damage to the building. Same issues you would have with renting a ballroom, really. I don’t see it as anything to get excited about, just common sense. Now… some places charge outragous prices… That I don’t care for. But a small fee for the use of the space? Works for me.
Report Post »captainbars
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 7:31amYeah it sounds good but only 4 came forward; in my opinion if they really wanted to marry they’d find a way. A lavish wedding reception & honeymoon is something the majority can’t afford & Christians shouldn‘t berate people who don’t have a preacher with all the trimmings. Same goes for the wedding dress; exorbitant prices for a dress you wear only once & cheaply decorated. You’re just as married as when a JP or magistrate officiates. I respect those who obey the laws of God by abstaining from sex before the marriage & use their imagination for ceremonies that won’t take years to pay so others can attend. I also applaud those who show up at the local magistrate in their best clothes for a 5 min ceremony. What really counts is the following years; marriage is something the two have to work at to maintain a quality relationship. Communication is the key; talk about everything, treat each other with love & respect, both should work together to be the “boss,” establish goals before the marriage, try to out-serve each other, never ever say anything negative about each other or the in-laws even in private, compliment your spouse daily, tell your spouse 3 or 4 times a day you love them & put feeling into it, call your spouse at lunch 1 or 2 times a week & tell them how wonderful they are no matter how long you’ve been married. Do you get it yet? You have to stir a boiling pot or the meal burns.
Report Post »grudgywoof
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 7:14amNon Christians should not marry….marriage is a Judeo Christian thing and has to do with faith in God between a man and a woman and really nothing else. If you are an atheist just do what you want because you are going to hell anyway.
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 8:02amNice. We live under a period of grace and there are plenty of chances for people to come to know the Lord…after or before marriage…
We came to know the Lord after 24 years of marriage…
You sound like the white washed sepulchers that Jesus talked about.
Report Post »grudgywoof
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 11:04amGlad to hear you and your husband found Christ. I am being sarcastic in that non believers should not get married and my point is if you are an athiest why would you care? Explain to me where I’m wrong here. It’s a free country and any couple can marry, I‘m just pointing that without God in your life what’s the difference? There’s a difference between an athiest and someone who just never considers God and I bet that was your condition when you got married.
Report Post »jackbauer2012
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 5:53am@Foobear,
Honestly do you think anyone is going to read that ongoing book that you posted. lol
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 7:30amEh, better that than make a brief comment that people will all write a short, wrong, response to.
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 3:38amIt’s always “good” that bastards are legitimized.
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 3:43amThats a retarted word ! get my piont! A$$………………….
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 4:28amThats a retarted word ! get my piont!. First of all, you don’t have a basic command of the English language.
It’s – “That’s” , not Thats. “retarted” is spelled – retarded. piont is spelled point. Your comment is a sad joke because it’s so poorly written.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 5:36amThat was really tacky! Who said the children weren’t legitimate? Many older couples live together so they don’t lose their benefits, widow’s pensions, etc. I think this was an excellent idea and more churches should consider doing it – weddings are expensive and this gesture removes the problem.
Report Post »jackbauer2012
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 5:48am@Diane TX
Shame on your for bringing the children into the debate in a way that focuses the attack on the innocent. It wasn’t very smart of you. And since you seem to be smart enough to have a command of the English language you should have been smart enough to know how to frame an attack. Or perhaps you are just an angry and hateful person. Either way this shows a lack in the strength of your character and self discipline to a point that your weakness (more than your poor choice of words) is offensive me.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 7:05amWhip out the dictionary, and look up “bastard”
It is the child of unmarried parents.
Now go check the statistics on children raised by parents versus those raised in the home of both a mother and father. See who is more likely to finish high school, go to college, commit crime, have drug and alcohol problems…..
It has everything to do with the topic. So many people on the blaze have been submitted by the political correct kool aid. Stop drinking the stuff, as it is destroying your ability to use logic, or do critical thinking.
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 7:34amRanger,
Maybe it’s because a$$es like you have been calling them hurtfull names all they’re lives ! !
And DIANE spelling was poor,sorry But kiss my ————My writting does not have to be perfect ,for my point to be right _ itch !…………………
SamIamTwo
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 8:06amI‘m a bastard child from the 40’s and had they had the abortion laws like they have today, I’d not be here, nor would my two children and one grandchild.
I have no ideal what you are trying to imply.
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 8:09amrangerp
I must be the anomaly. Went to college, got a fine job, great family of my own, retired and working on my second retirement. Double dipping the system as a bastard. LMAOAY
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 8:11amthe hawk
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me…One tough bastard child, you need not worry about those of us from the 40′s.
Tango Down
Report Post »Stay Chill
Sam
Zorro6821
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 8:57amActually, for tax reasons, living together makes more cents. Our tax code penalizes marriage. Just Sayin
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 3:26amHey–if there doing something useful that’s awesome. Much better than forcing their congregants to sit and listen to them wax eloquent about their odd political beliefs derived from natural law and wild metaphysical speculations.
Report Post »nmontague
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 3:06amAll Churches should be doing this. In fact, they should be marrying people for free all the time. Why should someone have to pay to be married? The wedding bullcrap you see on tv shouldn’t be happening. You shouldn’t be spending tens of thousands of dollars to get married. We need to start encouraging people to keep things simple. Focus on the importance of the covenant. And ministers especially should be calling people into repentence in this regard and not benefiting financially from such extravagence.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 2:48amTo Billy Hallowell, author of this article: something is not an “un-Biblical” practice just because someone told you that it is. It’s only an un-Biblical practice if it actually, you know, goes against what the Bible says.
Pre-marital sex is NOT against what the Bible says. In fact, if you read the Old Testament, there’s quite a bit of sexual mummery in it that would absolutely shock Christians today, even though the Bible itself is either neutral on the subject, or calling it “righteous”!
It absolutely sickens me when so-called Christians look at behavior praised as righteous in the Bible and call it “un-Biblical”. Read your Bibles, people!
For example, consider the case of Judah and Tamar, told in Genesis 38. The Jewish people have a tradition called Levirate Marriage, which essentially says that a childless widow has the right to marry the brother of her husband, and the kid she makes with the brother is officially the dead guy’s kid. There’s a lot of practical reasons why this is so (it resulted in having someone to care for the widow in old age, and simplified inheritance issues), but it was also a religious and sacred thing to do. So much so that to refuse to marry your dead brother’s sister got you called in front of the town council and yelled at (Deut 25:9). Jesus upheld Levirate Marriage in Matt 22:23-34.
Con’t.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 2:56amIn the story of Judah and Tamar, Tamar is denied her rights under Levirate tradition (this is before the Law was established, but it was already a sacred tradition then). So she disguised herself as a prostitute, slept with Judah, got knocked up with his kid, and when he got all pissed off about her getting knocked up without his permission, she produced his staff (essentially his credit card) and showed the room that he was the one that slept with her.
Rather than condemning her for having sex outside of the bonds of holy matrimony, Judah was shamed by his prior failure to uphold Levirate marriage, and proclaimed in front of the crowd, “She is more righteous than I!”
Her children from this rather questionable union included the honored ancestors of David, and thus Jesus himself.
So it’s quite dishonest to say that extramarital sex is always a sin. MANY sexual activities in the Bible are listed as a sin (adultery, bestiality, incest, homosexuality), but in order to be instructed by the Bible you also have to see what sorts of activities were NOT condemned as being sinful – sleeping with your female servants (Abraham himself), taking female prisoners of war to be a wife, orgies (the crime in the case of the Foreign Women was that they used the orgies to seduce men away from God), and so forth.
Con’t…
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 3:05amA common objection is that the word “fornication” means premarital sex, and fornication is listed as one of the things we shouldn’t do, so the case is clear, correct?
This is not correct. The word which people incorrectly translate as fornication is the word “pornea”, which is sort of a catch-all phrase for sexual immorality. And unless you believe in assuming your conclusion, there’s no evidence in the Bible to support the conclusion that pornea is particularly talking about premarital sex. By contrast, when Jesus says the only excuse for divorce is “pornea” we can clearly see it does not mean premarital sex.
Paul prefers people marrying rather than to burn, and I think that’s good advice, but people tend to misunderstand that as ‘burning in hell’ rather than ‘burning with lust’ which is the correct translation. But then again, he also thinks that chastity is preferable to marriage, and thinks women in general are nothing more than a distraction away from God.
Note that most Biblical leaders would rather have their teeth pulled out than publicly admit that there’s no definitive verse in the Bible about people having sex before marriage. The closest relevant quote is a Mosaic Law against Seducing a Virgin, which is punishable by paying the woman’s brideprice – $0 in modern value – not death as with Adultery.
When Calvin built Geneva Theocracy, it drove him mad he couldn’t find a relevant verse… so he just banned it anyway.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 3:53amTo conclude my exegesis, let’s look at a few more relevant quotes on the subject:
In 1 Corinthians, Paul suggests that people marry rather than engage in pornea. This is assumed by many to the the sort of “slam dunk” verse they’ve been looking for before they realize that Paul was writing to people in Corinth, who had serious problems, so to speak, with the temple prostitutes there.
In 2 Samuel 12, Nathan confronts David over his sexual immorality with Bathsheba (who was the wife of one of his valiant and honest soldiers). Many people perhaps intentionally misread this to mean all extramarital sex is banned, when in fact (as I’ve said before), adultery IS explicitly banned in the Bible, but no such general prohibition exists. In fact, in 7-9 (which fundies like to pretend doesn’t exist) we see “Thus says the LORD GOD of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master‘s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!”
Paraphrased, God himself says to David, *if the current women you have weren’t enough, I’d have given you more*. (See why fundies like to pretend it doesn’t exist? It doesn’t fit into their narrative of what God expects from us, sexually.)
Con’t.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 4:05amFinally, we have Song of Songs / Song of Solomon which, traditionally, Rabbis wouldn’t let kids read until they were married. (The first NC-17 rating was on a book of the Bible?)
Quote (from the unmarried woman to her lover) from SoS 5:
“I slept but my heart was awake.
Listen! My beloved is knocking:
“Open to me, my sister, my darling,
my dove, my flawless one.
My head is drenched with dew,
my hair with the dampness of the night.”
I have taken off my robe—
must I put it on again?
I have washed my feet—
must I soil them again?
My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening;
my heart began to pound for him.
I arose to open for my beloved,
and my hands dripped with myrrh,
my fingers with flowing myrrh,
on the handles of the bolt.
I opened for my beloved,
but my beloved had left; he was gone.
My heart sank at his departure.”
The Bible is in this case celebrating something that would give modern day fundamentalists cerebral hemorrhages. Exegesis over.
The sad fact of the matter is, if you want your kids to engage in sexual immorality, the way the church is set up (and even worse, the Mormon Church) is the perfect trap. Kids are told they have two options if they want to satisfy their raging hormones – 1) Premarital sex and go to Hell, or 2) Get married early and possibly have a miserable marriage after both parties grow up a little bit. We won’t even talk about 3) Porn and self-abuse, as that is way worse
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 4:20amCon’t
…or considered way worse, for some reason. Some fundies even consider their husbands watching porn to be grounds for divorce! (Sigh… read your Bibles, fundies. Read your Bibles.)
The absolute best way to get teenage males wound up over sex is to stick them into a hothouse environment (our current culture), send them to social mixers (Mormons are the absolute best or worst at this, depending on your perspective), and then deny them sex until marriage. So teens react either by leaving the church, doing it in secret and/or shame (Bristol Palin’s strategy), getting married as a teen or college age kid, or burning with lust – the very thing St. Paul warned us about!
I believe in moderation in all things, except love for God. Christians (and Mormons, too) make far too big a deal over premarital sex, and have thereby messed up a lot of peoples’ lives in the process over the years.
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 8:14amOnly God understands Human Nature and has more grace than any of you combined.
Report Post »jkendal
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 9:54amWow, I don‘t think I’ve read a more messed-up interpretation of the Bible.
Report Post »Just, wow…..
foobear
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 10:39pm@JKendall: If by “messed up” you mean “doesn‘t agree with what you’ve been told”, then sure.
It is painful to discover the truth… but the truth will set you free.
Report Post »LukeBlueFive
Posted on October 7, 2011 at 1:12amFooBear, I‘d like to thank you for reminding Christians to question what they’ve been taught, searching the Bible whether these things be so (Acts 7:11). However, there are many concerning claims in your posts that I would like to address here.
1. The Bible does not condemn sex before marriage, but is either neutral about or supportive of it.
In Genesis 38:24, Tamar is condemned to death for being a harlot and conceiving a child out of wedlock. If the Bible is in support or is neutral on the subject of sex out of marriage, why would this be the case? It is only after she proves that Judah is the father that she is allowed to live (v. 26). Also, Judah does not praise Tamar’s actions in verse 26, but rather admits his failure to fulfill his promise and raise up seed for his deceased firstborn son. Nowhere in the Bible is Tamar commended for taking things into her own hands, though this is done to several women in both the Old and New Testaments, such as the Egyptian midwives (Exodus 1:20), Abigail (1 Samuel 25:33), and Rahab (Hebrews 11:31).
Furthermore, many others in Jesus’s heritage led markedly sinful lives. The harlot Rehab and the Moabitess Ruth (Matthew 1:5), the adulterer David and thousand-wived Solomon (1 Kings 11:3), are among His ancestors. However, this does not mean that harlotry, adultery (Exodus 20:14), marriages to pagans (2 Corinthians 6:14), and polygamy (Matthew 19:6) are encouraged in the Bible.
Continued…
Report Post »LukeBlueFive
Posted on October 7, 2011 at 1:13amFinally, if your claims about the Bible’s view of sex outside of marriage are true, then why did you skip over Deuteronomy 22:13-21, which happens to be right before one of your (unlisted) references? This passage states that if a man marries a woman and can prove that she was not a virgin when they got married, then she shall be stoned by the men of the city (v. 21).
Show me a verse from the Bible that clearly states that sex outside of marriage is acceptable, much less encouraged. What about Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, who was “defiled” by a Hivite by having premarital sex (Genesis 34:2), whom her brothers later killed, since he had treated her as a harlot? Or what about Tamar, the daughter of king David, who was raped by her half-brother Amnon and subsequently was never married as a result (2 Samuel 13:20)? What about the men of Gibeah, who rape-murdered the concubine of the Levite in Judges 19?
Report Post »LukeBlueFive
Posted on October 7, 2011 at 1:13am2. Fornication does not mean premarital intercourse.
I ask, then what does it mean? You defined it as “sexual immorality,” but married men looking at porn doesn’t fit that description (since divorce is allowed only in cases of fornication, by your own admission, and you don’t think their wives have cause for divorce). I wonder what your definition of “sexual immorality” actually includes. Furthermore, why does Ezekiel 16:15 equate the acts of a harlot with fornication? I guess they just provide “sexually immoral” services that don’t include intercourse, however that works.
Contrary to your low opinion of the apostle Paul, he thinks very highly of women (Phebe: Romans 16:1; Priscilla: Romans 16:3-4). However, he warns that getting married and being a good spouse necessitates a certain care for worldly things, which would be unneeded otherwise (1 Corinthians 7:33).
3. God “expects” us to have multiple spouses and “celebrates” this.
I don’t know what perversion of the scriptures you read from, but mine is quite clear on the topic . Men are told clearly and repeatedly that they are to have only one wife at a time. Every man or woman is to have, at most, one spouse (1 Corinthians 7:2). Marriage is to between between exactly two people (Matthew 19:5).
Report Post »LukeBlueFive
Posted on October 7, 2011 at 1:14am4. Song of Solomon celebrates intercourse between an “unmarried woman and her lover”.
I‘m confused where you’re even getting this stuff from. In Song of Solomon 4:8, 11; 5:1, etc., the woman clearly calls her beloved her spouse. I don’t know how much clearer she could be; the only one who seems to be suffering from cerebral hemorrhages is you. I rest my case.
In conclusion, I think you (and everyone who reads your post) should take your advise and check the facts. If I have done my job, there should be little question as to which side the facts support. Rather than explaining the Bible, as your usage of the word “exegesis” would imply, you have veiled its meaning. As you stated at the beginning of your post, claiming something is true doesn’t make it true, unless you are God. I have to ask you, FooBear, by who’s right do you blaspheme the name of the most holy God with these unbiblical profanities?
If the Bible states what I have just shown it states, then Christians are not making a big enough deal about sex before marriage! There is a proper way to deal with it, but it does not involve leaving our sons and daughters to their own devices and somehow hoping everything turns out all right. What has messed up many people‘s lives is their refusal to do things God’s way.
On a side note, lust is not a good foundation for a relationship, much less a marriage. It is never described positively in the Bible. See 2 Samuel 13 for what can happen if it
Report Post »foobear
Posted on October 7, 2011 at 2:40amLuke, you’re being confused by two different things. Women’s virginity was prized at the time, and ruining a woman’s virginity by seduction caused the offender to owe the brideprice to the father. If a woman faked being a virgin, that was likewise a crime. It certainly doesn’t prohibit the marriage of all non-virgins, as you claim, or the various prostitutes and widows listed in the OT certainly would not have been able to remarry, certainly least of all Tamar whom you try to use as a counterexample.
Polygamy is certainly endorsed by the OT. The NT doesn’t address it much. You can read Paul’s “unius uxoris vir” (husband of one wife) as an argument against polygamy, but a better translation is a “faithful husband’. You can google the term to read more about the debate over the term. (The RCC completely perverts the meaning by claiming it endorses clerical celibacy.) Jesus himself appears to support Levirate marriage, which only works if polygamy is Legal. And as I mentioned, God himself offered additional wives to David, which makes any statements about “God’s plan” being, frankly, quite wrong.
The woman in the Song of Solomon is not married to her lover during the scene listed, as she is living with her parents, not with her lover (as she would be if she was married).
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 2:04amI believe this could very well turn lives around. I know from experience sometimes you get so wrapped up in having babies, working and trying to live you forget to do the right thing..I say “right on” to this church.
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 1:51amThats a good thing ! Hope the did’nt get marriage licenses ! T HEY DONT NEED THEM !
Report Post »The right wingers say marriage is between a man and woman ! Actually it’s between the Government and aman and a woman ! What the Hell the Government doing in our Marriages ?
It’s a union between GOD–Man and Woman…..always has been !
riseandshine
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 3:49amI agree
Report Post »