So it's okay for men to "hook-up" but not women?

Evengelical - Baptist men and women act like this?  It'sjust further proof that conservative Christians are just following a heretic. It's time Evengelicals convert to authentic forms of Chrsitianity of the modern age and follow Christ

If there was a "like" button, I would have clicked it for both Sterton and Alex!

For those who haven't already watched this, let me save you some time: basically, if you are a young woman of typical university age, you should be held to a higher moral standard than your male counterparts when it comes to sleeping around.

more troll posting by jae ... sigh. 

I can't think why men and women should not aim for the same high moral standards. In meeting moral standards, men seem to have been less successful than women. (For example, the prison population is overwhelmingly male.) Perhaps men should learn how women have been able to achieve higher standards?

i have yet to meet an actual woman or man...

I gave up on watching the whole video, it kept freezing.  I think this is a good thing.  There's nothing wrong with monogamy, there's nothing wrong with one night stands, there's nothing wrong with dating around.  The important thing is that both people involved are on the same page.  I think if it becomes accecptable for both genders to engage in the same behaviours it's more likely to open up the communication as you're less likely to make assumptions about the person you're dating/screwing/whatever.

Nothing to see here. It's just Jae being Jae...

That's what you got out of that? I feel the point is that no-one should be hooking-up. It was wrong when men were doing it, it's even more disturbing now that men and women alike are doing it. The Christian Church, I feel, needs to speak out against such a thing. We need to be teaching and encouraging young people to honor their bodies as God would have them do - to not have sex before marriage, and then not to commit adultery.

Alex, I feel that this video is not talking about women and men at evangelical Bible schools, but rather about those attending secular colleges. At my school (Canada's #1 Christian university) we have a code of conduct that students are to abide by which prohibits such sexual activity. As far as I know, all of the solid evangelical schools have a similar code. I feel that the kind of thing described in the video may be going on at liberal places like UBC, UofT, McGill, Brock, etc.

Thank you chansen. It is just me being me - caring for the welfare of others. I give all the credit for any and all caring that I do to Jesus.

Yes, indeed.

Jae - perhaps it is off the topic but you refer to it in this post, and I believe I have seen it in other posts of yours.  You mention Canada's #1 Christian University. 

I'm wondering how this has been determined. Was there a recent survey of all or most universities? Who did the survey? For what purpose? What were the criteria?

In other words - how does one determine what is Canada's #1 Christian University?

or is it just your opinion?

I didn't watch the entire video as it seemed to not be working properly.

The words about it shared here indicate to me that the speaker has set ideas of 'right behavior for women'  that he attributes to his God.    I think that if guys want to marry virgin women they need to start keeping their pants done up.

Amen kay .... amen...

Rita

What hypocrisy!!!!

Are they saying that women in the past were only interested in "Committment"?

Yes - they usually played a passive role but it was at least as calculating as the men, and do you really believe they all were deceived and abused in my college days?

While many say the men fool around more sexually, but the math doesn't work - the numbers have to be roughly equal.

This witless wonder should be laughed off the air.

We seem to have such great insight after we all get married or go through menopause. Not that our sexuality stops but we have had the chance and opportunity to acquire wisdom from our mistakes.

Ah yes - written code of conduct - that should solve the issue!  Surely you are not that naive jae.  Not everyone follows rules as you may. 

What are YOU doing personally about this jae? 

He's posting on WC to get people worked up, and succeeding.

It's hard to know what he is talking about  when the presenter in the video is such a well known and documented heretic and lyer .  Guys like this use lies and deception, (tools of the devil) to hide their beliefs. 

I am concerned for your soul if you are listening to such deception Jae. It's time for you to change and return to the orthodox Christianity of your youth. 

I think it's high time that Christianity got its extremely nosy nose out of private parts. Of all genders.

I think it's hardly rocket science to conclude that all this finger-wagging is entirely about trying to control other people. 

Amen Bette!!

I agree. Consider how many denominations you'd have to cc that message to.

Thank you for the questions seeker. I shall address them in a separate thread :)

Yes, I believe that's implied.

I don't know. When were your college days?

<

Well, for one thing carolla, I posted the video here.

hmm... In my youth I was not in the Orthodox church but rather in the UCCanada.

well Jae ... you certainly dig up junk from very weird sources.....

Just wondering ... given the so called ministry this is from ...... is this sort of stuff on your study list?   Is this an approved resource for your course?

Just wondering.....

Rita

Hi Rita, in the course I'm in now I'm studying eating patterns in the Christian Church, not sex on college campuses. Nuff said.

ummmm What does your wife say about sex? Oh , my gosh, you make me laugh. Anything to stir the pot?

And what exactly do you think that's accomplished jae?  

She agrees with me that sex is to be between a husband and wife in the bonds of holy matrimony.

Jae, this is cute. Like watching-old-people-complain-about-the-price-of-milk-these-days-cute. This is the classic example of the "Concern Troll", a form of trolling cloaked in feinged concern and pearl-clutching.

As one of those college-aged women who has UNMARRIED sex (I will wait outside for my stoning), I can tell you that I and we as a category don't really need you to worry. I mean, let's take a look at some of the reasons that non-matrimonial sex is frowned upon  in the Bible.

1) Pregnancy. Well, between proper birth control methods and education, the risk of pregnancy has decreased significantly. More importantly, unwed parents in common-law relationships, or single parents, are no longer treated with as much terrible treatment. The stigma is still there, true, but it is no longer a crime to have not put a ring on it.

2) Disease. With medicine and preventative measures, STIs are generally treatable or preventable.

3)Social/Familial feuds. This one is mainly when in Christian communities sleeping with the wrong person would start a blood feud, with honour and all that jazz. Well, I can confidently say that such practises aren't common law in most Western countries, and are being rallied against in other parts of the world.

Now, the Bible does say that being a slutty-slut is frowned upon, but in order to apply it to the modern-age you must consider why is would be considered a bad idea. Simply calling is a bad idea because girls will no longer be pure is, pardon my French, stupid. Humans are dynamic, diverse, and complex. A sexual relationship does not turn a person into a chewed-up wad of gum (as many abstinence education classes insist).

TLDR: Thanks for your concern, but I am going to keep my healthy, happy, and sexual relationship.

Yes and I was referrring to small o orthodox, the term means "conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church"  Since you are a deacon I though someone would have told you that, But I suppose the Christian college you attended and your local church failed to teach you what the early church.

It seems that you have fallen for many hersies that lay outside the creeds, and other practices of earlier Christian. That the video you posted is of someone who, like who is outside of the church's beleifs. Like his believe that lieing about others, and his creeds is justified by his faith, or his believ that war is an acceptable  tool of converting people. He like most of the preachers you have referenced and falls  way outside of small o orthodoxy, and it's modern versions teach,  

Sorry RobbieJean but I don't think you got your ideas from the Bible.  The Bible doesn't frown upon non-matrimonial sex.  In fact non-matrimonial sex is almost an oximoron.  Having sex with an unmarried female (knowing her) was marrying her.  Having sex meant claiming her.  This usually happened shortly after the girl reached puberty.  Sex with a married woman was a property crime - against her husband. 

The Bible does seem to condemn prostitution, but this was more against idolatry than sex. There were pagan rites that involved temple prostitutes. The Bible is rather judgmental about them.

The Bible also tends to blame the female if she is raped - but again rape is a different matter than non-matrimonial sex.

Actually, the Bible doesn't seem to have anything to say about sex between two consenting adults - with sex equating marriage and marriage at a very young age, it just wasn't something they were concerned about.

The reason that the bible doesn't talk about consensual sex is that, to all intents and purposes, it didn't exist and wouldn't even be a concept for at least 1200 years.

If a woman is legally the property of a man, consent is moot and marriage is about a property transfer.

If I can get enough people together we will hold a rally outside the University of Toronto.

No but really it is a serious matter, and the Church should be encouraging its youth and young adults to remain chaste.

Hmmm, using the Bible as strictly as is sometimes suggested, doesn't it result in all those being in second marriages, where the spouse is still alive, being engaged in adultery?

Not if the first marriage bond has been broken. There are biblical reasons for divorce.

I believe I mis-wrote, my bad. Next time I will edit a bit more closely :") In terms of where I get my ideas it would probably be from the more conservative churches and how they have managed to interpret the Bible as saying any girl (almost always the girl) who has sex outside a marriage performed in a church is somehow less of a valued person. Unfortunately, this interpretation totally misses the reasoning behind several writings and modern society's realities, including how sex and marriage are entirely separate things. Thanks for calling me out on that.

Alright, I will bite. Why?  To practise safe and healthy sexual relationships, I can understand. But why should young people, such as myself and my peers, remain chaste? Loaded question I know, but frankly I don't believe you have explained yourself enough.

BTW good luck with that rally, would it be near the LGBTQ head office? Or the Sexual Health department? Or maybe near the Health services, where they hand out BC and education?

I would agree, but those who say "it says what it says, period" might struggle with it. They insist that all women have to remain silent because certain women were told to. Actually, strictly speaking biblically, I do not recall a mention of women divorcing their husbands. I guess it is part of that man as the head of the household thing and wives submitting. I think they would cling to "is says what it says and nothing more and interpretation or supposing or adding anything else is wrong". I mean, Jesus said, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,"  (Matthew 19:9). Paul said, "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace," (1 Corinthians 7:15) They would likely insist those clearly refer to males divorcing females.

So Jae you still have not answered my question. So I read up more on the presenter (Todd Friel) of this video.

It seems he is involved with something called living waters, and a former TV actor. They believe that it is OK to not only use lies, and deception to lead people to Christ. (actually just their belief system a sect of Evangelical Baptists), but that any behaviour is permissible if it is to serve their faith. Including killing Muslims in war, and provoking Muslims into violence against fellow Christians in order to create the conditions necessary for allowing them to kill others.

In Canada the do not have a big presence, and have not gone after Muslims,, however one of the members has published a polemic against the UCC.  

While as Chansen would say, this is just another crazy sect, it is alarming how much deception is accepted as a practice.  

Jae, are you a fan of these guys or involved in Living Waters? Do you watch or participate in any of their programs?

Alex, I just have their videos called "Wretched" [Liked] on my Facebook account, so I see videos such as the one I have posted here.

In this particular video I can spot no lie. The host said that something had been reported on FOX News, and then presented a video clip of what appears to be said report.

Can you provide me with a link to back up the comments you have made above? I certainly do not want to have my name attached to anything that supports lies, deception, and provoking people into violence.

I'm okay with a critique against the UCC or any other denomination including my own so long as it's fair.  

Here's one about their deceptive technics

Beyond Wretched: Wretched TV, Deception, and "Violent" Muslims

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2012/02/beyond-wretched-wretched-tv-deception-and-violent-muslims/

How you could also  google the guys name and his ministry Living Waters for other links, I usually do before posting a link or video,.

Hi Seeler, are you sure about this? For example, the rapes of Dinah and Tamar don't seem to have been handled as you suggest. In both cases the rapists were killed, in both cases by the brother(s) of the victim. (Of course they had no independent justice system to handle the offences, so someone had to take the initiative. Surprising that the famous fathers, Jacob and David, did nothing?)

Apparently Shechem would have married Dinah. Is that a point in his favour? Anyway, it did him no good. Amnon's treatment of Tamar just seems in every way despicable. I don't read these stories as blaming either of the victims. However it's true that in both cases the execution of the rapists led to problems for the father, which are part of the larger story.

Sexual responsibility needs to be the name of the game. That does not mean chastity outside of marriage, though for some that might well be the best way to achieve it. It does mean taking responsibility for your sexual behaviour and the outcomes and repercussions of it. Using protection, treating your partners with respect, and being mindful of what it is you are doing to and with them. That applies inside marriage as much as it does outside.

Mendalla

Thank you, Mendalla, for being the voice of reason.

I had begun wondering why we even try to use these texts to inform our sexual morality. As I said upthread, when woman is property, then we're not even talking the same essential issues - human rights versus property rights.

So, is there any room, or need, for the biblical texts when sexual responsibility focussed on respect for the other person is a given?

RAN - I see Dinah as a victim.  I just reread her story in Genesis, and a commentary on it by M.T.Winters (a lecturer and writer I have met and admire).

Here is part of her interpretation of the story.

"The rape of Dinah was an act of violence, but the action of her brothers was even more violent. Dinah, the victim who was violated, was victimized again. Her brothers were not avenging her; they were avenging an offense to their nation and to the honour of their father, and yes, they were seeking revenge for an insult to themselves. ... The brothers were not at all concerned about the feelings of a wounded female, nor did they give any thought to her future. ... Shechem had fallen in love with Dinah (he approached Jacob for permission to marry her). ... (to her brothers) what Dinah felt or wanted really did not matter. Dinah was just an excuse for the men to go and do as they pleased ... she is both property and possession, passed from hand to hand. ... Dinah was used for sexual pleasure and as an excuse for a massacre, and then she was forgotten. The writers of history say no more about what became of her."

This story really doesn't say anything about sexual relationships between consenting adults - but a lot about ownership and control over another person.
Bette the Red, and Mandella - you are right.