How do we have a sexual counter-revolution in the church

[presidente]

It grieves me to hear of so many young people losing their virginity before marriage-- even young people who were raised in church. There are even churches now where attendees live together as boyfriend and girlfriend, but are not married.

I waited. My wife waited. I have a heart to help other young people wait and to encourage those who have fallen into the sin of fornication to repent.

What can be done to reverse the trend, especially in the church, but also in society? I know-- teach the word of God. But let's talk about some other practical strategies of how to get more churches to focus on truths related to these topics, church discipline, or whatever other means through which God's grace can work.

 

[1christian1]

It grieves me to hear of so many young people losing their virginity before marriage-- even young people who were raised in church. There are even churches now where attendees live together as boyfriend and girlfriend, but are not married.

I waited. My wife waited. I have a heart to help other young people wait and to encourage those who have fallen into the sin of fornication to repent.

What can be done to reverse the trend, especially in the church, but also in society? I know-- teach the word of God. But let's talk about some other practical strategies of how to get more churches to focus on truths related to these topics, church discipline, or whatever other means through which God's grace can work.

Well, at the most abvious level don't you think? We have a president of the U.S. ( On television for all to see! ) Saying that he could grab women by their private parts!!! Don't you think we are not working on this? I'ts gonna take time my brother in Christ...

 

[Dan58]

But let's talk about some other practical strategies of how to get more churches to focus on truths related to these topics, church discipline, or whatever other means through which God's grace can work.

Many churches are pounding the fact that we are saved through grace, not works.. Whereby, discipline to the word is not required, grace over-rides sin and fornication is green lighted, or at least not frowned upon as it once was. Everything is okay when your saved by grace, obedience to the word becomes obsolete. No need to follow his example when we're saved by his grace, our deeds don't need to match what we profess.. Its okay to be a hypocrite, them silly rules don't matter.

 

[maxwel]

Well, at the most abvious level don't you think? We have a president of the U.S. ( On television for all to see! ) Saying that he could grab women by their private parts!!! Don't you think we are not working on this? I'ts gonna take time my brother in Christ...

American churches were probably declining for 100 years before Trump got into office...

I don't think you get to blame the entire decline of protestant ethics on one guy.




...

 

[1christian1]

American churches were probably declining for 100 years before Trump got into office...

I don't think you get to blame the entire decline of protestant ethics on one guy.




...

That is not what I said. You were talking about the American decline of chastity . I was saying that maybe we should'nt have the" president" going around saying that he can "go around doing this to random women" because he is rich,, That's all...

 

[maxwel]

That is not what I said. You were talking about the American decline of chastity . I was saying that maybe we should'nt have the" president" going around saying that he can "go around doing this to random women" because he is rich,, That's all...

1. We don't have a president going around saying things like that... he wasn't the president when he said that, and he's never said anything like that since he's been president.

2. His statement about grabbing women had nothing to do with being "rich", it was predicated on him being famous. That's a very important distinction if we dealing with criticism coming from Marxists... which is a common vector of criticism.

3. I don't like what he said either... but since he's not voicing similar statements currently, and he's already apologized for it, I can't see that it's terribly relevant.

4. I can't see that the sitting president really has anything to do with the topic raised by the OP.
A. The president didn't cause these moral declines in society.
B. The president isn't exacerbating these problems since he made his gaff many years ago, and has since apologized for it.
C. So it's fine if you dislike the president; that's perfectly fine, but he just has nothing to do with this thread. It seems silly to inject a dislike of the president into topics that have nothing to do with him.


...
...

 

[1christian1]

1. We don't have a president going around saying things like that... he wasn't the president when he said that, and he's never said anything like that since he's been president.

2. His statement about grabbing women had nothing to do with being "rich", it was predicated on him being famous. That's a very important distinction if we dealing with criticism coming from Marxists... which is a common vector of criticism.

3. I don't like what he said either... but since he's not voicing similar statements currently, and he's already apologized for it, I can't see that it's terribly relevant.

4. I can't see that the sitting president really has anything to do with the topic raised by the OP.
A. The president didn't cause these moral declines in society.
B. The president isn't exacerbating these problems since he made his gaff many years ago, and has since apologized for it.
C. So it's fine if you dislike the president; that's perfectly fine, but he just has nothing to do with this thread. It seems silly to inject a dislike of the president into topics that have nothing to do with him.


...
...

So you are saying that he is a changed man from the time he did this . to the time he slept with the porn star when his current wife was 6 months pregnant with their child? Think not...

 

[presidente]

I don't know whether Trump's example of his past life exacerbates the problem or not. Clinton calling what he did not 'sexual relations with that woman' might have something to do with how lightly young people view that activity. Pre-office activity migt have a negative impact too. Showing rainbow lights to celebrate the Supreme Court de efining marriage based on the most ridiculous interpretation of the constitution may have a negative effect too.

But could we focus on things we can do to help turn things around.

 

[maxwel]

So you are saying that he is a changed man from the time he did this . to the time he slept with the porn star when his current wife was 6 months pregnant with their child? Think not...

1. "So you are saying that he is a changed man...?"
I never said any such thing.
But I did explain, very specifically, and factually, how a PARTICULAR STATEMENT you brought up has nothing to do with the OP...which is what we're actually discussing.


If Trump said something 13 years ago, before he was president, and he has since apologized for saying it, admitting it was wrong, then he isn't condoning that statement or opinion, he is doing the OPPOSITE of condoning and perpetuating it by admitting it was wrong.

THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT is what you brought up, and THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT is what I addressed.
- I didn't defend the statement, or defend Trump.
- I did however show that this particular statement has nothing to do with the OP, which is what you alleged.

I simply showed, factually, that THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT has absolutely nothing to do with the moral decline of churches in America, a process which had been underway for at least 100 years before Trump ever came to office.

- You can't just blame everything in the universe on Trump because you dislike him... it makes you sound ridiculous.
- You can't just blame me for saying things I never said... that also makes you sound ridiculous.

The Point:
A. I showed, clearly, that this statement from 13 years ago, which you brought up, has nothing to do with the OP.
B. Instead of agreeing with facts and logic, which easily verify this... you simply changed the subject, and brought up something else you dislike about Trump.
C. We can go on like this all day, showing each particular problem with Trump, and then addressing each particular problem to show it probably has nothing to do with the OP... but that would be to derail the thread, and MISS THE ENTIRE POINT. The OP isn't about TRUMP, it's about systemic problems that have been around for at least 100 years.

The left is REALLY fixated on Trump to the point of just sheer lunacy.



2. My whole point is that the OPENING POST was NOT political... but because you dislike Trump so much, you just randomly DECIDED to INJECT him into this topic, and turn this thread into a POLITICAL PROTEST.

We get it.
We get it that you dislike Trump.
That's perfectly fine.

But this thread wasn't about him, and it really had nothing to do with politics at all.
The OP was addressing social, cultural, and spiritual problems that have been ongoing for at least 100 years, and maybe longer.

Injecting Trump into everything possible just makes you sound ridiculous.



3. Here is how conversations go in America, in 2018.

* Person A. "There is some kind of problem in society, it's a problem of (insert any problem here)."
* Person B. "TRUMP DID IT!"

That is a ridiculous argument, and I hear it a thousand times a day... and it's not just tiring, it's silly, and it's logically impossible.

It's logically impossible for ONE MAN to have caused EVERY PROBLEM IN AMERICA in ONLY 2 YEARS.




Conclusion:
1. Trump has nothing to do with the OP... these are systemic problems that began at least 100 years ago.

2. Maybe Trump is helping, maybe he's hurting... but he's only been in office 2 years, and it's simply irrational to make him the FOCAL POINT, and the CAUSE, of problems that have been underway for over a century.

3. It's also irrational to accuse me of things I never said, and accuse me of defending someone I never defended - I very clearly did nothing more than address the issues you raised and showed they have nothing to do with this OP. Furthermore, there's no reason to be all upset with me, because I never kicked your dog, or ate your cookies, or made it rain, or did whatever it is you're so upset about.

4. If I ever meet you in person, I WILL EAT YOUR COOKIES, so then we'll finally have something FACTUAL to discuss, instead of all these imaginary offenses.


...

 

[1christian1]

1. "So you are saying that he is a changed man...?"
I never said any such thing.
But I did explain, very specifically, and factually, how a PARTICULAR STATEMENT you brought up has nothing to do with the OP...which is what we're actually discussing.


If Trump said something 13 years ago, before he was president, and he has since apologized for saying it, admitting it was wrong, then he isn't condoning that statement or opinion, he is doing the OPPOSITE of condoning and perpetuating it by admitting it was wrong.

THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT is what you brought up, and THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT is what I addressed.
- I didn't defend the statement, or defend Trump.
- I did however show that this particular statement has nothing to do with the OP, which is what you alleged.

I simply showed, factually, that THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT has absolutely nothing to do with the moral decline of churches in America, a process which had been underway for at least 100 years before Trump ever came to office.

- You can't just blame everything in the universe on Trump because you dislike him... it makes you sound ridiculous.
- You can't just blame me for saying things I never said... that also makes you sound ridiculous.

The Point:
A. I showed, clearly, that this statement from 13 years ago, which you brought up, has nothing to do with the OP.
B. Instead of agreeing with facts and logic, which easily verify this... you simply changed the subject, and brought up something else you dislike about Trump.
C. We can go on like this all day, showing each particular problem with Trump, and then addressing each particular problem to show it probably has nothing to do with the OP... but that would be to derail the thread, and MISS THE ENTIRE POINT. The OP isn't about TRUMP, it's about systemic problems that have been around for at least 100 years.

The left is REALLY fixated on Trump to the point of just sheer lunacy.



2. My whole point is that the OPENING POST was NOT political... but because you dislike Trump so much, you just randomly DECIDED to INJECT him into this topic, and turn this thread into a POLITICAL PROTEST.

We get it.
We get it that you dislike Trump.
That's perfectly fine.

But this thread wasn't about him, and it really had nothing to do with politics at all.
The OP was addressing social, cultural, and spiritual problems that have been ongoing for at least 100 years, and maybe longer.

Injecting Trump into everything possible just makes you sound ridiculous.



3. Here is how conversations go in America, in 2018.

* Person A. "There is some kind of problem in society, it's a problem of (insert any problem here)."
* Person B. "TRUMP DID IT!"

That is a ridiculous argument, and I hear it a thousand times a day... and it's not just tiring, it's silly, and it's logically impossible.

It's logically impossible for ONE MAN to have caused EVERY PROBLEM IN AMERICA in ONLY 2 YEARS.




Conclusion:
1. Trump has nothing to do with the OP... these are systemic problems that began at least 100 years ago.

2. Maybe Trump is helping, maybe he's hurting... but he's only been in office 2 years, and it's simply irrational to make him the FOCAL POINT, and the CAUSE, of problems that have been underway for over a century.

3. It's also irrational to accuse me of things I never said, and accuse me of defending someone I never defended - I very clearly did nothing more than address the issues you raised and showed they have nothing to do with this OP. Furthermore, there's no reason to be all upset with me, because I never kicked your dog, or ate your cookies, or made it rain, or did whatever it is you're so upset about.

4. If I ever meet you in person, I WILL EAT YOUR COOKIES, so then we'll finally have something FACTUAL to discuss, instead of all these imaginary offenses.


...

Sorry for addressing the Elephant in the room. And if you ever attempted to take anything of mine I promise we would'nt be talking... LOL!!!

 

[DayvidTheFirst]

It's a thing of Choice and also
Information


I grew up in the church,knew the Bible well, still I had plans to engage in premarital sex even with all the teachings about chastity in church I had made up my mind to do it
I have a loving mother who talks to me about everything including sex talk,she made me realize the dangers both physical and spiritual dangers of fornication,also from observation i saw the dangers of it
So i sat myself down one day and weighed the options, and as you well know the demerits outweighed the merits 😂😂 so I'm like "you know what, I'll wait till marriage"
From my experience I'll

Our parents need to talk their children, "talk the talk,and walk the talk" tell them the dangers of fornication,there are both physical consequences (STIs and unwanted pregnancies) spiritual consequences (curses, the enemy having a foothold to bring hardship and all sorts)
The young adults and youth also need to make a choice its all about choice,they should be made to understand they don't need to engage in fornication to have "fun" ,there is fun in waiting till marriage, there's a peace of mind that comes with waiting till marriage
And parents should always put their children in prayers, pray that God gives them the Grace and wisdom to always know right from wrong and to also make the right choices, because I'll be honest with you, it's by the Grace of God that i had that wisdom to ask myself those critical questions that made me make that choice of waiting till marriage

😇😇😇😇
I hope I've made the right contribution ☺😇

 

[maxwel]

Sorry for addressing the Elephant in the room. And if you ever attempted to take anything of mine I promise we would'nt be talking... LOL!!!

A.

There is no "elephant in the room."

You just dislike Trump a lot, which is your right, and your strong emotions press you to make him the focal point of conversations that have nothing to do with him.




B.

It's perfectly fine if you dislike Trump.

Please just inject that into conversations in which it's relevant.




C.

If I thought stealing your cookies would drive you to violence, I would probably return them...

after I chewed them a little.





...
...

 

[presidente]

How about discussing the topic instead of Trump? Can we talk about other options besides voting for the right president? We've probably had some more moral presidents in terms of their marriage and sex lives in the past several decades, and did that reverse the sexual revolution? I hadn't heard about Carter or either of the George Bush's having affairs. That did not reverse the cultural trend toward sexual immorality.

 

[1christian1]

A.

There is no "elephant in the room."

You just dislike Trump a lot, which is your right, and your strong emotions press you to make him the focal point of conversations that have nothing to do with him.




B.

It's perfectly fine if you dislike Trump.

Please just inject that into conversations in which it's relevant.




C.

If I thought stealing your cookies would drive you to violence, I would probably return them...

after I chewed them a little.





...
...

You are too funny!!! But try doing that to a Man and see what happens LOL !!!

 

[Dino246]

But let's talk about some other practical strategies of how to get more churches to focus on truths related to these topics, church discipline, or whatever other means through which God's grace can work.

First, we need to determine whether the person(s) in question is (are) actually Christian. Mere attendance at a regular services is not confirmation of that.

 

[1christian1]

First, we need to determine whether the person(s) in question is (are) actually Christian. Mere attendance at a regular services is not confirmation of that.

What do you mean by " We need to determine.." That is all in God's hands to judge. I believe that we all have a personal relationship with God. (I know that I do.) I do agree that "going to church" does'nt automatically make you a Christian. I can usually determine whether a person is Christian or not by the way they conduct themselves in everyday life.

 

[1christian1]

1. "So you are saying that he is a changed man...?"
I never said any such thing.
But I did explain, very specifically, and factually, how a PARTICULAR STATEMENT you brought up has nothing to do with the OP...which is what we're actually discussing.


If Trump said something 13 years ago, before he was president, and he has since apologized for saying it, admitting it was wrong, then he isn't condoning that statement or opinion, he is doing the OPPOSITE of condoning and perpetuating it by admitting it was wrong.

THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT is what you brought up, and THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT is what I addressed.
- I didn't defend the statement, or defend Trump.
- I did however show that this particular statement has nothing to do with the OP, which is what you alleged.

I simply showed, factually, that THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT has absolutely nothing to do with the moral decline of churches in America, a process which had been underway for at least 100 years before Trump ever came to office.

- You can't just blame everything in the universe on Trump because you dislike him... it makes you sound ridiculous.
- You can't just blame me for saying things I never said... that also makes you sound ridiculous.

The Point:
A. I showed, clearly, that this statement from 13 years ago, which you brought up, has nothing to do with the OP.
B. Instead of agreeing with facts and logic, which easily verify this... you simply changed the subject, and brought up something else you dislike about Trump.
C. We can go on like this all day, showing each particular problem with Trump, and then addressing each particular problem to show it probably has nothing to do with the OP... but that would be to derail the thread, and MISS THE ENTIRE POINT. The OP isn't about TRUMP, it's about systemic problems that have been around for at least 100 years.

The left is REALLY fixated on Trump to the point of just sheer lunacy.



2. My whole point is that the OPENING POST was NOT political... but because you dislike Trump so much, you just randomly DECIDED to INJECT him into this topic, and turn this thread into a POLITICAL PROTEST.

We get it.
We get it that you dislike Trump.
That's perfectly fine.

But this thread wasn't about him, and it really had nothing to do with politics at all.
The OP was addressing social, cultural, and spiritual problems that have been ongoing for at least 100 years, and maybe longer.

Injecting Trump into everything possible just makes you sound ridiculous.



3. Here is how conversations go in America, in 2018.

* Person A. "There is some kind of problem in society, it's a problem of (insert any problem here)."
* Person B. "TRUMP DID IT!"

That is a ridiculous argument, and I hear it a thousand times a day... and it's not just tiring, it's silly, and it's logically impossible.

It's logically impossible for ONE MAN to have caused EVERY PROBLEM IN AMERICA in ONLY 2 YEARS.




Conclusion:
1. Trump has nothing to do with the OP... these are systemic problems that began at least 100 years ago.

2. Maybe Trump is helping, maybe he's hurting... but he's only been in office 2 years, and it's simply irrational to make him the FOCAL POINT, and the CAUSE, of problems that have been underway for over a century.

3. It's also irrational to accuse me of things I never said, and accuse me of defending someone I never defended - I very clearly did nothing more than address the issues you raised and showed they have nothing to do with this OP. Furthermore, there's no reason to be all upset with me, because I never kicked your dog, or ate your cookies, or made it rain, or did whatever it is you're so upset about.

4. If I ever meet you in person, I WILL EAT YOUR COOKIES, so then we'll finally have something FACTUAL to discuss, instead of all these imaginary offenses.


...

And you give yourself way too much credit because I don't think about YOU at all... just responding to a post...

 

[maxwel]

And you give yourself way too much credit because I don't think about YOU at all... just responding to a post...

Mmm... I guess I could suggest that your need to make that statement kind of refutes the statement.



But since this is turning really weird, I'll just move on.





...

 

[1christian1]

Mmm... I guess I could suggest that your need to make that statement kind of refutes the statement.



But since this is turning really weird, I'll just move on.





...

Cool beans... be well...

 

[Dino246]

What do you mean by " We need to determine.." That is all in God's hands to judge. I believe that we all have a personal relationship with God. (I know that I do.) I do agree that "going to church" does'nt automatically make you a Christian. I can usually determine whether a person is Christian or not by the way they conduct themselves in everyday life.

What I mean is this: ask the person directly, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour?" (or something similar). If the answer is 'No' then we shouldn't expect them to act consistently with the truth, but rather tell them the gospel. We don't make the decision as to whether they are, in fact, saved; that is up to God. However, we are given wisdom and discernment for a reason. In 1 Corinthians, Paul rebukes the church for tolerating a man who was sleeping with his stepmother, when the proper response would be to rebuke and exclude him. Basically Paul is saying, "Think for yourselves; is this appropriate?" We should not expect the unsaved to to act like they are saved, but we can expect (word chosen carefully) that those who claim to be Christians act like it, at least on significant issues.