A fisking at Dalrocks (reblogged)

I’m reblogging a comment that is probably sitting in the spam file at Dalrock’s place because it is too long and has too many links, but before I get there I will give the background, which is another part of what is now a very long thread. Censoring the comment a little it went something like this.

The last job I was at (before I sent out the old resumes to get a better “raise”) the chief network administrator was a 27 year old, never married, virgin, Christian, male. He admitted to me many things, one of which was that he has never even been on a romantic date in his entire life. And it was obvious why. He was short, morbidly obese, and ugly. But he worked very hard, made at least okay money, and was a devoted Christian. He also admitted to me that he would never in his life, marry. He expected that he would die, virgin. ....

Kind of sad, but smart. He absolutely, positively, would not marry any woman who wasn’t a virgin much like himself. And because he is so physically repulsive, he acknowledges the fact that this woman will never present himself to him. He is at peace with that. Now he doesn’t go out of his way and slut shame all the unmarried/divorced women at his church. But, he has written them all off as potential wife material.

If I had introduced him to this forum I doubt very much if he would use terms like slut. But at the same time, he probably wouldn’t dignify women who rode the carrousel in anyway other than total indifference.

Right Dave: I’m not at work, and this text deserves a good fisking.

And he won’t be remembered when he’s gone. The guy is a genetic deadend, and he is operating in stark unbelief. He has allowed his surroundings to dictate his future for him, rather than him dominating his environment to realize his future.

Um: no. I don’t like giving proof texts and I’m using the NASB so you can all follow along… I Cor 7, starting at verse 25

 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who [n]by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.  I think then that this is good in view of the [o]present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.  Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.  But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

Paul saw celibacy as a higher calling: for he was aware that one has a duty to one’s wife: and dealing with her issues will cause strife and trouble. He reverses it, and points out that a young woman (note he is using virgin throughout) if not married can concentrate on the work of the LORD, but if married has to concern herself with her husband and children. Starting again from verse 32:

But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but [r]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

So Dave, got that? The holy single have a higher calling. The Catholics got that teaching right. We are not measured by the extension of our genome but how our lives glorified God.

His requirement (snipped) is absolutely ridiculous it bothers on insanity. I don’t know of any man in this forum who will allow him to do that their their daughters. I certainly won’t allow it if I had a daughter. That would be demeaning in the extreme.

Dave, have you been married? Have you? Need I draw a diagram? . When you are committed and making love you will find out. If you don’t know her history before, you get engaged, you should know it by the end of that time. There is nothing demeaning about foreplay, and if the woman loves him she will joyfully show herself at the right time.

And on virgins, note how many times the NASB uses that word. Calvin’s fairly scathing about celibacy for ministers in his commentary on this passage but adds this.

The sum is this, that an unmarried life has many advantages, and that these are not to be despised, provided every one measures himself according to his own size and measure. Hence, though virginity should be extolled even to the third heavens, this, at the same time, always remains true -- that it does not suit all, but only those who have a special gift from God. For as to the objection that is brought forward by Papists -- that in baptism, also, we promise to God purity of life, which it is not in our power to perform, the answer is easy -- that in that we promise nothing but what God requires from all his people, but that continency is a special gift, which God has withheld from many. Hence those who make a vow of continency, act precisely as if any unlearned and illiterate person were to set himself off as a prophet, or teacher, or interpreter of languages.

Now, from the previous past, which Dave, you commented, we know this:

• This man has his life squared away: has a living faith, good job, member of his church, debts gone
• He is not physically attractive, and although socially OK, is not socially smooth
• His is content with being celibate. God bless him.

Because there are many who are divorced, and do not have the gift of continence, and struggle. Perhaps those of us who are scarred by divorce should marry other casualties of the family courts: most of the time our ex-spouses have more than moved on. We have trouble, for we both burn and we mistrust.

Not good. This man is Mary to our Martha: he has the better part. And that is why this text is in error…

What this man needs is a heavy dose of faith, so he can get his head out of the mud where it is, and “seek so he can find”. “He who finds a wife (implies actively looking for one) finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord”. So says the Holy Book. “You have not because you ask not”. “If you will not believe, surely you will not be established”.

No. None of us have enough faith. Again, quoting Calvin, for he was far more righteous that I ever will be and a better scholar:

For it is better There is not strictly a comparison here, inasmuch as lawful marriage is honorable in all things, (Hebrews 13:4,) but, on the other hand, to burn is a thing that is exceedingly wrong. The Apostle, however, has made use of a customary form of expression, though not strictly accurate, as we commonly say: "It is better to renounce this world that we may, along with Christ, enjoy the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom, than to perish miserably in carnal delights." I mention this, because Jerome constructs upon this passage a childish sophism] -- that marriage is good, inasmuch as it is not so great an evil as to burn I would say, if it were a matter of sport, that he foolishly amuses himself, but in a matter so weighty and serious, it is an impious scoff, unworthy of a man of judgment. Let it then be understood, that marriage is a good and salutary remedy, because to burn is a most base abomination in the sight of God. We must, however, define what is meant by burning; for many are stung with fleshly desires, who, nevertheless, do not require forthwith to have recourse to marriage. And to retain Paul's metaphor, it is one thing to burn and another to feel heat. Hence what Paul here calls burning, is not a mere slight feeling, but a boiling with lust, so that you cannot resist. As, however, some flatter themselves in vain, by imagining that they are entirely free from blame, if they do not yield assent to impure desire, observe that there are three successive steps of temptation. For in some cases the assaults of impure desire have so much power that the will is overcome: that is the worst kind of burning, when the heart is inflamed with lust. In some instances, while we are stung with the darts of the flesh, it is in such a manner that we make a stout resistance, and do not allow ourselves to be divested of the true love of chastity, but on the contrary, abhor all base and filthy affections.

Hence all must be admonished, but especially the young, that whenever they are assailed by their fleshly inclinations, they should place the fear of God in opposition to a temptation of this sort, cut off all inlets to unchaste thoughts, entreat the Lord to give them strength to resist, and set themselves with all their might to extinguish the flames of lust. If they succeed in this struggle, let them render thanks unto the Lord, for where shall we find the man who does not experience some molestation from his flesh? but if we bridle its violence, before it has acquired the mastery, it is well. For we do not burn, though we should feel a disagreeable heat -- not that there is nothing wrong in that feeling of heat, but acknowledging before the Lord, with humility and sighing, our weakness, we are meanwhile, nevertheless, of good courage. To sum up all, so long as we come off victorious in the conflict, through the Lord's grace, and Satan's darts do not make their way within, but are valiantly repelled by us, let us not become weary of the conflict.

Being out of control with that level of lust is unmanly: and that effeminacy — in my experience of living with the distaff gender — repels most women. For this man, it is far better that he remain as he is than choose to chase the fire.

For that fire leaves scars.