You should have trained counselors to answer questions about abuse


[The original question was left unedited since the author feels qualified to comment on other people's educational background.]

I think the way you handled a question by someone who was abused who asked if they were still a virgin was awful. You need to train or have Christian counsellors answer those questions as no offense intended but your not qualified to your answer revealed that.

To fear longer and guilt trip the way you did was very harmful and dangerously risky and to mention if she had intercourse with her abuser was disgusting.

The church needs to be more educated in how they handle people who have been abused. Do better.

You also gave her false information or lied penetration means someone is not a virgin not sexual experiences sexual experiences means she was impure.

So you now have that poor lady believing a lie.


I'm assuming you are referring to the answer titled "Am I still a virgin?" Words are used because they carry meaning. The meaning is not assigned by the individual but is concluded from what people, in general, understand the words to mean. If word meaning varied by individual, there would be no communication.

What happens is that people start playing word games and those games become a distraction from the truth. "Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers" (II Timothy 2:14). So, let's look at what people mean when they call someone a virgin:

  • "A woman who has had no carnal knowledge of man; a maiden of inviolate chastity; a man who has preserved his chastity; ... chaste; untouched; fresh; unsullied" [The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language]
  • "A person who has not experienced sexual intercourse" [The American Heritage Dictionary]
  • "A person who has never had sex" []
  • "A virgin is most commonly seen as a person who has not engaged in sexual intercourse. In a stricter sense, it is somebody who has not yet engaged in sexual activities" [Wikipedia: Virgin]

You choose the narrowest possible definition, but in reality, the word's meaning is broader than you wish to admit.

I pointed out in my answer that her description of what happened to her was vague. I did not ask her to supply additional details. In matters like this, I generally repeat back what I understood from the person's note so that if I drew a wrong conclusion, the person could correct me if she desired.

You clearly did not read her message carefully. She stated that she was raped when she was a young child. By definition, that means she is not a virgin (and your own statements draw that same conclusion). It has no impact on her purity. As Jesus noted, "And He said to them, 'Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man'" (Mark 7:18-23).  Jesus was talking about food and the laws of uncleanness from the Old Testament. His point is that the food that you consume doesn't make you unclean, it is your thoughts and motives that result in spiritual uncleanness. I believe we can take the same principles and note that a person raped isn't made unclean by another person because the person wasn't a willing participant in the sin.

It is a mistake to assume that because someone did not answer the way you would have answered or came to a conclusion that you disagree with that the other person is somehow ignorant or uneducated. I very much doubt you know the extent of my background and training. You also claim (without evidence) that my answer was "very harmful and dangerously risky." This is simply an ineffective attempt at brow-beating in hopes of silencing people who you disagree with.

"These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you" (Titus 2:15 NIV).


[Once again, I leave this note unedited since the author believes she is qualified to comment on other people's writing.]

I'm not you I was not trying to silence you it's manipulative to assume I was. I don't agree with you I read the start and end because you sent me a scroll of text that I didn't have time to read because it was too long.

Pual also said to teach with live that means respect not superiority that is jot of christ I know believers like you who pluck verses about rebuke as a way of affirming yourself that your ungodly patronising and rebuke is correct well its not bibical so I won't be implementing it or paying attention to it.

I hope at some point you learn that sensitivity is needed and trained counsellors not pastors when it comes to abuse victims as it can do more harm than good and has done in the past.

I don't wish to discuss this further I've given my take on this already. I think it's best we just agree to disagree.


How to admit you are wrong without saying the words:

  • Respond without reading what you are responding to.
  • Claim that you are being falsely accused (even though the accusation was never made).
  • Complain that a thorough reply is too long to read.
  • Complain that it isn't fair that your opponent backed up his position with Scriptures.
  • Complain about the imagined attitude of your opponent.
  • Restate your position without any further proof because, after all, saying something repeatedly supposedly makes it true.

No, I don't agree to disagree. I stand by my points and thank you for proving just how poor your position is.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email