Purity balls

So, where's the guy's purity ball?
Where's mom, all dressed in sequins, as his 'date'?
She is, after all, the 'woman' in his family, and so
should state her vow to help her son remain pure.

But wait, there's usually more money involved on
the female end of such things, and well, it's good
enough for the father to do this, usually with just
a talk, or maybe a 'retreat'. But if so, why don't
these people (or someone) market such a 'ball'
for the boys? Aren't they just as important?

I'm sorry, all this focus on the girls virginity, as
if that's the most important thing she has, is just
icky. Because there is no corresponding event for
boys, this smacks of double standard. The boys
get off with a talk, the girls have to 'marry' their
father.

No thank you.
And yes, I think it's wonderful that dads (and moms)
take the time with their sons to emphasize chasity.
This is not a slam on such parents, just a point out
to the hypocritical nature of such things.

 

It is expensive and someone is raking in the bucks. Not only are the stores making money for rings, gowns, tuxedos, catered food, etc., but the church is making money too. The Church that started this scam is charging people 30 dollars each at the door.

It now costs you big bucks to tell your daughter that she is to keep herself pure.

Reckon Timothy and Titus had a door charge when they relayed Paul's writings to the dads and daughters back then? No, wait... the mother's were the one's to teach the daughters.

My how the roles have changed over the years!

 

Thanks, Sopranette, for explaining what purity balls are in the OP. We don't have them in the UK (as far as I am aware). However, recently a Christian girl recently hit the headlines here because she wore a ring such as you desccribe, to school. The school she attended told her to remove it, because it does not allow jewellery to be worn in school. The girl tried to argue that this was discrimination against Christian girls wearing a symbol of their faith. She even took the case to the High Court, but lost the case. I must say that I agree with the court ruling. As the head teacher of the school explained, the ring she wore "is not a Christian symbol, and is not required to be worn by any branch within Christianity". (If the school had tried to stop her stating her biblical views on sex outside of marriage, that would be a different matter). More details of the story at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6229098.stm

 

Forgive me for saying so, and not to let the male half of the population off scot free, but...

If we could get our young ladies to be concerned about their purity and pledge themselves to be chaste until marriage, that would certainly help the young men to do their part, wouldn't it?

I mean, I am only 50(ish) but I remember when I was a child it was still a considered a sin and brought shame on a family for a girl to have a child out of wedlock (when was the last time you heard that term?). Now it is no big deal in even church circles.

I am all for ANYTHING that challenges our kids of BOTH sexes to keep themselves pure. Wacky as this purity ball thing may seem to some of you if it keeps one young lady or young man from ruining their lives IMHO it is worth it!

And of course, it starts with the family.

 

While I would not condemn anyone who has one of these balls, it seems to me to be yet another "program" to replace what parents should already be doing.

 

Excuse me for paraphrasing this:

If we could get our young men to be concerned about their purity and pledge themselves to be chaste until marriage, that would certainly help the young ladies to do their part, wouldn't it?

I emphasize purity as much with my boy as I do my girls. Far too long has the burden been carried by the ladies because that is where the 'evidence' shows the most. My boy knows the 'evidence' can't be created without TWO people.

 

But, unless it's your money being spent, I don't see why the cost of the thing is even an issue. If somebody else has money to spend on such a thing, I don't see why anybody should care.

Right on.

Right on.

 

Sure, it is other people's money. But even so, all are to be faithful stewards over what God has given them. And God's House is not meant to be a dance hall where people pay to enter.

 

God's House is the people, never the building, and the fact that we are "God's House" is the very thing that should keep His people pure. BTW I agree with you about the use of the building and the charge to get in.

 

Since the building where we gather on Sundays and Wednesdays is dedicated to services where we praise God and hear the reading of His Word, I consider that building to be God's house.

I do know it is the people that are the temple of the Holy Spirit. I do know we are His house 'if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.'

 

I am with the poster above, the building isn't the Church. The brick and morter isn't mentioned anywhere in Scripture as God's house. The meeting places of Scripture are the peoples' homes in the early Church, and it doesn't say anything about that being the "holy" place God calls His house. Man made tradition.

 

As I stated, the Body is the temple, but the building should be dedicated to the service of the Lord. The Lord drove those who were making a profit out of the Temple in the Gospels, and He referred that temple to 'My Father's House.'

Have you dedicated your meeting place to God? Then it is God's House as well.

Have you dedicated your home to Him? Then it is His.

 

So now, it's not even an, "I wouldn't do that."

It's now, "This is sinful."

Good grief...

Chapter and verse? Exactly where did it become sinful to charge admission at an event held in a church building? I thought we were the Temple of the Holy Spirit...when did we revert back to OT? I'm sure that you would not use the term "dance hall" just to evoke negative opinions...wait...yes you would.

Oh, I forgot....SFIC doesn't like it, so it must be sinful.

My problem with your take on this subject is not that you don't like it...it's that you feel like you can tell folks it's wrong. That tramples on the concept of Priesthood of the Believer.

 

There's a difference in the extortionistic profit made by the moneychangers, and re-couping one's cost on an event.

 

That's a Great Question

If the guys were included, maybe it could be called "the Purity Prom?"

Pastor Paul :type:

 

Priesthood of the Believer does not mean what the Believer feels is ok.

Jesus drove those who were selling and buying out of the Temple. Perfect reason we should not allow such idiocy as cover charges for an event in the Building we call a Church;

 

What's the cost? 30 dollars a person for 2 or three dollars worth of electricity? 30 dollars per person for maybe 40 dollars worth of

There is no justification!

 

Nice dig..."cover charges." That was intentional.

What disturbs me is how flippantly you declare things to be sinful...without having the whole story, without having Scriptural support to back you up, etc.

I grew up under this kind of legalistic thinking. I know how damaging it can be. So yes, I'm sensitive to it.

This is where you respond and declare it's not legalism, and that I'm the one with the problem (see, I've dealt with this way of thinking before....many times).

By the way...the issue was not a total prohibition of buying and selling...but was rather that the moneychangers were capitalizing on folks's need for spotless animals...they were thus charging exorbitant prices. It was the greed that prompted the "thieves" comment from the Lord.

Um...there are other monetary factors involved: food...entertainment....decorations. Be intellectually honest.

I do lots of events in which we charge. I don't make a profit, and I don't let money keep one from coming. But events cost money to put on. You're being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

Like I mentioned...we do a guys' retreat. It has a "becoming and being a man of God" kind of theme. We talk about things such as purity, conquering lust, being a "real man," and how it relates to strength, faithfulness, spiritual leadership, etc.

Boys are invited, along with their dads, or step-dads, or "father figure" in their life. The problem we run into.....there's several guys who don't have a single fella that fills any one of the aforementioned roles. And it's tough to handle it.

But I'm sure that in the minds of some, that's greedy and evil as well.