Article says you can become a Virgin again

[Full O Beans]

Saul/Paul saw Jesus on his own testimony.
Saul/Paul was taught by Jesus on his own testimony.
Saul/Paul claims his revelations were given to him on his own testimony.

As for quoting Messiah, if we are talking Matthew and John (real disciples, not imposters) - the answer is no, Paul hardly quotes Messiah. I won't say dogmatically, but from memory I don't think there is a single one.

Paul's words are inspired by Jesus Himself---Paul's Saviour, Lord and King. The truth about God overrules facts.

 

[psalms 91]

Saul/Paul saw Jesus on his own testimony.
Saul/Paul was taught by Jesus on his own testimony.
Saul/Paul claims his revelations were given to him on his own testimony.

As for quoting Messiah, if we are talking Matthew and John (real disciples, not imposters) - the answer is no, Paul hardly quotes Messiah. I won't say dogmatically, but from memory I don't think there is a single one.

I guess all the first century saints were fooled and of course God doesnt lay it on men to recognize the Holy Spirit when they see it. I think I will rely on those who were there and their testimony

 

[tango]

No, it is not silly. It is a bittersweet joy afforded to a man or woman who has not obeyed God and remained pure before marriage, to be made right with God and given a new life, a new paradigm and a new start!

Maybe it is a bittersweet joy but this sense of claiming something in the spiritual when just about anyone (within the church or otherwise) hearing the word would associate it with the physical makes me think the headline is little more than click-bait. Honestly, when I see that kind of headline I half-expect it to be an article about what might best be described (in an attempt to stay PG-rated) as female reconstructive surgery.

It's great that we can be forgiven, I don't think I've ever tried to downplay the significance of it. I just think it's silly claiming that we can be a virgin again when just about anyone would regard virginity to be a one-time thing.

 

[Full O Beans]

Maybe it is a bittersweet joy but this sense of claiming something in the spiritual when just about anyone (within the church or otherwise) hearing the word would associate it with the physical makes me think the headline is little more than click-bait. Honestly, when I see that kind of headline I half-expect it to be an article about what might best be described (in an attempt to stay PG-rated) as female reconstructive surgery.

It's great that we can be forgiven, I don't think I've ever tried to downplay the significance of it. I just think it's silly claiming that we can be a virgin again when just about anyone would regard virginity to be a one-time thing.

I am greatly familiar in a counseling context of this aspect of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit's desired work in an individual to eradicate shame and guilt, especially concerning sexual sin.

It has nothing to do with downplaying the facts, but it has to do with the newness of the life in Christ and how we are viewed by God as pure and holy, and how we are to train our minds to agree with God, to see ourselves the way He does.

 

[Brighten04]

Maybe it is a bittersweet joy but this sense of claiming something in the spiritual when just about anyone (within the church or otherwise) hearing the word would associate it with the physical makes me think the headline is little more than click-bait. Honestly, when I see that kind of headline I half-expect it to be an article about what might best be described (in an attempt to stay PG-rated) as female reconstructive surgery.

It's great that we can be forgiven, I don't think I've ever tried to downplay the significance of it. I just think it's silly claiming that we can be a virgin again when just about anyone would regard virginity to be a one-time thing.

Click bait?:rotfl: Well yeah, I think so too. But it was effective in getting us talking about purity.:rotfl:

 

[tango]

It's not a silly focus to a young woman who has come to Christ out of promiscuity, and the Lord brings her a godly man to marry.

Why do we need to focus on a hymen anyway? If the young woman has been promiscuous in her past (whether that means with one man or a thousand men) and God brings her a good Christian man to marry, does it matter if she performs all sorts of semantic gymnastics to claim that she is a virgin, well, a kinda-sorta-virgin, at least she is in God's eyes because she has been forgiven for all her past.

If the man she is hoping to attract is willing to look beyond her past he won't care about whether she describes herself as a "kinda-sorta-virgin-because-she's-forgiven" because he sees her for her present and her future. If the man isn't willing to look beyond her past he won't care about whether she describes herself as a "kinda-sorta-virgin-because-she's-forgiven" because he sees her as tainted and doesn't want her. So it makes no difference in either case.

If I were looking to get serious with a woman and she said she was a virgin I'd expect that to mean she hadn't been with a man at all, not that she might have been a porn actress in her past but she was forgiven. It's hard to say whether it would matter to me now or whether I'd see past it - I guess it would depend on the woman in question (and since I'm not planning to leave my wife any time soon I'm hoping to never have to make that decision) but to be honest someone who was pulling semantic gymnastics to make out she was something she wasn't would be an issue, whether that related to her sexual history or anything else.

 

[Full O Beans]

Why do we need to focus on a hymen anyway? If the young woman has been promiscuous in her past (whether that means with one man or a thousand men) and God brings her a good Christian man to marry, does it matter if she performs all sorts of semantic gymnastics to claim that she is a virgin, well, a kinda-sorta-virgin, at least she is in God's eyes because she has been forgiven for all her past.

If the man she is hoping to attract is willing to look beyond her past he won't care about whether she describes herself as a "kinda-sorta-virgin-because-she's-forgiven" because he sees her for her present and her future. If the man isn't willing to look beyond her past he won't care about whether she describes herself as a "kinda-sorta-virgin-because-she's-forgiven" because he sees her as tainted and doesn't want her. So it makes no difference in either case.

If I were looking to get serious with a woman and she said she was a virgin I'd expect that to mean she hadn't been with a man at all, not that she might have been a porn actress in her past but she was forgiven. It's hard to say whether it would matter to me now or whether I'd see past it - I guess it would depend on the woman in question (and since I'm not planning to leave my wife any time soon I'm hoping to never have to make that decision) but to be honest someone who was pulling semantic gymnastics to make out she was something she wasn't would be an issue, whether that related to her sexual history or anything else.

What on earth do you bring up "semantic gymnastics" for?

My mind is on a young woman who, outside of Christ had lived a promiscuous lifestyle, but having come to Christ, and found new freedom and wholeness in Him, believes that He has given her the assurance that to Him she is pure and holy---which every believer is in God's eyes, but to her, that makes a solid impact. She tells her fiance about her past, but because he loves God and loves her, and he agrees with God's view, he considers her HIS virgin---God's gift to him!!

I also think of the woman (or man for that matter) who was sexually abused as a child, or was involved in an incestuous attack by a father or other family member.

What a blessed thing to have God's great forgiveness and restoration. It doesn't involve lying or stretching some truth. It is our position in Christ!


.

 

[tango]

I am greatly familiar in a counseling context of this aspect of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit's desired work in an individual to eradicate shame and guilt, especially concerning sexual sin.

It has nothing to do with downplaying the facts, but it has to do with the newness of the life in Christ and how we are viewed by God as pure and holy, and how we are to train our minds to agree with God, to see ourselves the way He does.

I may be missing your point here (in which case do excuse me, I'm not being deliberately obtuse), but I still can't help thinking it's better to accept that we did wrong in the past and praise God for forgiving us, than it is to use terminology that suggests we've been choirboys or choirgirls our entire lives.

Before I came to Christ I was heavily involved in the occult. I know God has forgiven me for that but it's pointless to pretend I never did it. If anything I hope God can use my experiences to help other people come away from it, something unlikely to happen if I describe myself in terms that effectively denies the reality of my former life.

 

[Full O Beans]

I may be missing your point here (in which case do excuse me, I'm not being deliberately obtuse), but I still can't help thinking it's better to accept that we did wrong in the past and praise God for forgiving us, than it is to use terminology that suggests we've been choirboys or choirgirls our entire lives.

Before I came to Christ I was heavily involved in the occult. I know God has forgiven me for that but it's pointless to pretend I never did it. If anything I hope God can use my experiences to help other people come away from it, something unlikely to happen if I describe myself in terms that effectively denies the reality of my former life.

Misleading terminology? This is private between a man and wife. There's no misleading going on.

Once again, there is no pretending in this spiritual reality.

 

[tango]

What on earth do you bring up "semantic gymnastics" for?

My mind is on a young woman who, outside of Christ had lived a promiscuous lifestyle, but having come to Christ, and found new freedom and wholeness in Him, believes that He has given her the assurance that to Him she is pure and holy---which every believer is in God's eyes, but to her, that makes a solid impact. She tells her fiance about her past, but because he loves God and loves her, and he agrees with God's view, he considers her HIS virgin---God's gift to him!!

I also think of the woman (or man for that matter) who was sexually abused as a child, or was involved in an incestuous attack by a father or other family member.

What a blessed thing to have God's great forgiveness and restoration. It doesn't involve lying or stretching some truth. It is our position in Christ!


.

.. and I never said we can't be forgiven, or that forgiveness isn't a great and blessed thing. But if someone has lost their virginity (whether through promiscuity, incest, rape, whatever) then they are not a virgin. Period. It's that simple.

In the case of the young woman you mentioned, why can't her fiance accept her as God's gift to him without insisting she is "his virgin" when she evidently isn't a virgin. She is to be his bride, the woman he loves, the woman he plans to pledge the rest of his life to. She plans to pledge the rest of her life to him. Whatever is past, they face the future together. Why do they have to pretend she's a virgin?

If someone has been sexually abused as a child they will feel all sorts of guilt but they aren't the one that needs forgiveness.

In my case I'm a forgiven former occultist. I don't rewrite my history to pretend I was a choirboy when I was really a sorceror. I accept my forgiveness and move on, and if it becomes relevant I talk to people about why the occult is a really bad idea however much fun it might look from the outside. Likewise the young woman you describe can, as relevant, talk about her past and how she was forgiven and found a man to love and cherish her.

 

[Full O Beans]

God does the re-writing of history. His justification says it is as though we have never sinned.

 

[Lamb]

I thought it was brought up and agreed in the thread that this virginity renewal was spiritual and not physical?

 

[Full O Beans]

I thought it was brought up and agreed in the thread that this virginity renewal was spiritual and not physical?

Correct, but I guess it's a hard concept for some.

 

[tango]

I thought it was brought up and agreed in the thread that this virginity renewal was spiritual and not physical?

Sure, I personally think it's silly semantic gymnastics to regard oneself as a spiritual virgin even though physical virginity has long since departed. I see myself as a forgiven occultist rather than someone who never touched a tarot deck, even though in God's eyes the slate is clean. But I guess that's one of those "to each their own" areas.

 

[Lamb]

Sure, I personally think it's silly semantic gymnastics to regard oneself as a spiritual virgin even though physical virginity has long since departed. I see myself as a forgiven occultist rather than someone who never touched a tarot deck, even though in God's eyes the slate is clean. But I guess that's one of those "to each their own" areas.

I agree. God sees you AS IF it never happened, but God isn't deceiving Himself. He knows both Law and Gospel. Law for what we've done but couldn't do right and Gospel for how He covers us in His righteousness.

 

[tango]

I agree. God sees you AS IF it never happened, but God isn't deceiving Himself. He knows both Law and Gospel. Law for what we've done but couldn't do right and Gospel for how He covers us in His righteousness.

I think for me the main issue is this whole "we can be a virgin again". Why focus so exclusively on sexual sin when forgiveness applies to sin in general?

If people are fussing over the concept of spiritual virginity being restored after sexual sin, the terminology is needlessly exclusive to those who have committed a range of other sins. Turning the offer of forgiveness of sins into click-bait that at least some would expect (as I did) to lead to something about what might be called female reconstructive surgery that then focuses exclusively on one particular kind of sin seems counterproductive. It ignores the range of non-sexual sins while also potentially implying (through such clear mention) that sexual sin is in a different league to other sins.

I get what Paul said about sexual sins being sins against our own bodies but it's not as if there aren't a huge range of other sins that could be similarly described.

 

[Full O Beans]

Once MORE...this concept is only about God's great forgiveness, mercy and restoration! For a person who is broken due to his or her past sins, or is in distress over the sins done to him/her, then understanding how merciful our Father is with respect to reconciliation and restoration is important! It's a revelation that not everyone has, obviously!

Leave it at that. God does a special work in those He loves and who love Him and desire to honour Him with their lives. It's not about make believe, pretense or lying. It is about God's great, unfathomable work of grace on His children. Those who are spiritual get it.

 

[tango]

Once MORE...this concept is only about God's great forgiveness, mercy and restoration! For a person who is broken due to his or her past sins, or is in distress over the sins done to him/her, then understanding how merciful our Father is with respect to reconciliation and restoration is important! It's a revelation that not everyone has, obviously!

Leave it at that. God does a special work in those He loves and who love Him and desire to honour Him with their lives. It's not about make believe, pretense or lying. It is about God's great, unfathomable work of grace on His children. Those who are spiritual get it.

Those who are spiritual get it? Does that make me less spiritual?

I notice you didn't address any of my concerns about why the article focuses exclusively on sexual sin rather than presenting the truth that forgiveness is available to anyone whether their sin relates to sex, honesty, violence, whatever.

 

[Full O Beans]

Those who are spiritual get it? Does that make me less spiritual?

I notice you didn't address any of my concerns about why the article focuses exclusively on sexual sin rather than presenting the truth that forgiveness is available to anyone whether their sin relates to sex, honesty, violence, whatever.

How am I to know why the writer wanted to focus on sexual sin? It is a bona fide concern for many people, so why not?

 

[tango]

How am I to know why the writer wanted to focus on sexual sin? It is a bona fide concern for many people, so why not?

... which goes back to the issue of why they would write an article that looks like little more than click-bait, that focuses on forgiveness for one particular area of sin. If they are going to write on forgiveness it would seem to make more sense to focus on forgiveness of sin rather than forgiveness of a specific type of sin.

Which is why I think the article is silly, and presented in a way that looks more like semantic gymnastics than anything else. But you make a fair point, since (I assume) you didn't write the article you don't know any more than I do why the author wrote it the way they did.