Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Reverend Charles Morris Maybe A Misunderstood Man

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Reverend Charles Morris – Photo Credit: Nation Newspaper

Reverend Charles Morris considers himself to be the most misunderstood man in Barbados. In has been just over a week the Anglican priest, who has been unassigned a Church for some time, deposited a thesis which has created consternation in a society known for its Christian influence.

Reverend Morris’ thesis states that no where in the Bible does it condemn pre-marital sex. He agrees however the Christian thing to do is to have sex in wedlock. BU has been able to attract over time some of the best dividers of the word in the world, we are certain the BU family is equipped to validate Morris’ thesis or shatter it to smithereens.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

306 responses to “Reverend Charles Morris Maybe A Misunderstood Man”

  1. Paul Barnes Avatar
    Paul Barnes

    Morris is one of those people who clearly thinks that it’s only “pre-marital sex” if you plan to get married at some point! 🙂 If you don’t plan to get married, why then of course the sex can’t be “pre-marital”, by definition…and under those circumstances therefore it must be OK.

    No? Ain’t that logic twisted enough? Ask him about “extra-marital sex” next time…

  2. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    I don’t know if Rev. Morris is right or wrong. He says that no where in the Bible does it condemn pre-marital sex. Those that say he is wrong only have to point us to the passage(s) to prove him wrong, it is as simple as that.

  3. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    @Caswell Franklyn

    No where in the bible does it say to have pre-marital sex. Maybe I could be proven wrong by some passages.

  4. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    Rev.Morris, I wid you, I wid you. Hummuch peeple would go in town n buy a pair a shoes widout firs trying dem on ta mek sure dem tru ta size? Ya cannnnnn alwayz ga by de theory dat , ‘I does wear a size 8’, causen sumtimes dat same size 8 does fit too tight or fit too slack ( and keep droppin off/out all de time,LOL) or fit jus rite. I luv when ‘it’ fit jus rite n de only way ta kno dis, is by ‘tryin’ it.
    Dis ‘no sex prior marriag’ ting could be real stressful. If wunna-all want me ta abstain befoe marriag, den I gun do my finga testin. If my thum n index finga meet when I hold “it”, uh-uhhhhhhhh , dah cannnn wuk. Or is it a sin ta feel ‘it’ too? I cannnn imagin me n my lil ‘christian’ boyfrien mekkin sum lil sof luv, n he nipping me all dong in my neck n ting n den when dis ‘feelin’ cum ova me n he we gotta hole back becausen we is ‘christians’? stupseeeeeeeeeee, dah is a rale hard whun. Premarital sex in de onliest sin dat ‘christians’ does commit n de same way dat de ‘Father’ does forgiv we fa de udda whuns, dis whun will be no exception.
    “Looka, cum n mek lil sof luv ta ma tonite when we lef chu’ch do”.
    mwahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    Tawk ya tawk Bro. Morris. I cuming ta you chu’ch dis Sundee n I wearin a lil short black dress.
    (get thee behind me Satannnnn)

  5. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @Dear Aunt Peppa…

    I have to say, despite our differences in the past, that I agree with you in the present.

    ROCK ON WOMAN!!!!

  6. shellya Avatar
    shellya

    Parents, teachers or reverends are perceived as role models in most societies. As a parent, many times you have to be either tactful or be very careful about what you say. There are many occasions when students ask questions and teachers have to be careful about how they respond because as an educator there are certain ethics to which you must adhere; furthermore children listen to you r responses carefully.
    Role models, especially reverends have to separate their personal expressions from their professional especially when young impressionable children are listening to CBC. If a reverend and teacher can loudly declare what Mr Morris said, however true or false, who will the children look to for guidance? The schools and churches are presently experiencing challenging times and a remark like this can only impede the progress which educators and the Church are making in schools and Church.
    True or false, it was unnecessary for Mr Morris to make that statement on national TV. He has embarrassed us all, especially the school and the clergy. I think that he should go to CBC and make a public apology or be defrocked.

  7. BMcDonald Avatar
    BMcDonald

    Rev. Morris is a historian as well as theologian and is making a very narrow academic point even if not artfully stated. What is astounding is the hypocrisy of those who would condemn Charles Morris but give a pass to Archbishop Sentamu of York, the number two man in the Church of England, who approved of the recently married royal couple living together before marriage and said “people prefer to test the milk before they buy the cow”.

  8. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    Stop the press! There is a cleric who disagrees with part of his Church’s teaching and said it publicly. Rev Morris phrasing was inelegant but I sense a great deal of hypocrisy in the response from some segments of society.

    The writer above wants Morris to defrocked, my question is, why? If Morris states his opinion why will all those “students’ choose to listen to him rather than the Bishop, clergy and all the laity who condemned him? If they choose to only listen to Morris that explains why I heard Vbyz Kartel on the radio asking the children to stay in school as they are not listening to their parents either.

    As for role models, simply because someone has the title “Reverend” does that make them a role model? Was the “Reverend” convicted for raping one of his flock also a “role model” or since his church was not affiliated to an Anglican church it doesn’t count.

    BTW it seems that when any one speaks about premarital sex it is automatically directed at young adults but many “adults” in every sense of the word are having premarital sex.

    Someone should tell them that according to the Bible what they are doing is wrong

    Go ahead , lets outlaw all premarital sex.

  9. BMcDonald Avatar
    BMcDonald

    The Sentamu story is in the Telegraph http://tinyurl.com/3wyg8xu

  10. David Avatar
    David

    Isn’t the Bible the blueprint to how Christians should live their lives? If so how can we accept Christian theologians being a gulf apart on such an issue?

  11. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    David

    If every Christian theologian was in agreement with the interpretation of the Bible there would be One Church and one denomination

  12. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    Pre-marital sex is sex between a man and woman who intend to marry and Rev. Morris is right. Sex between a man and woman who intend to marry is not wrong.

    However to sex with a person that you know you have no intention of marrying is wrong, it is especially wrong if you lead the person to believe that marriage is forthcoming when you have made up your mind never to marrying that person. The wrongness is in the deceitfulness, and the dishonesty, and the lying.

  13. Tell me Why Avatar
    Tell me Why

    I have been blogging for over five years on BU and BFP and never wrote a story pertaining to Christianity since everyone has his/her ideology regarding the interpretation of the Bible and poor me might be outta place, so I keep far from this subject and let Tech and the others deal wid the issue. However, I will make this a first and applaud Rev. Morris for his stance. We are all living in a hypocritical world regarding sex coming after marriage. Bonny, I pun yuh side too. If some of these same people who preaching about sex after marriage had to take “a lie detector test” many of them would be found wanting. These people tell you one thing and done experience sex without de ring. Ah set of hypocrites. Man and woman were having endless sex from the beginning of mankind. How you think children having mothers maiden name. You ever hear bout common law husband or wife. These are people who having sex and mekin’ nuff children without marying duh spouses. So Rev. Morris, when the so called Christians bring the chapter and verse were the words of “NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE” is written in the the bible, you don’t have to apologise tuh a brudder. Ah wonder if some of the men and women of the clothe have the guts to openly criticise any body since yuh can’t pelt rocks when yuh have glass doors. So all those young boys and girls, teachers, step-parents, uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters and the role models waiting for an unguarded suspect and you have sex with one another. Shut yuh mouth and don’t say a word, yuh hear!!!!

  14. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    Fornication=pornea

    Pornea=pornography, prostitution, incest, rape, child sexual abuse etc.

    All of which involve the sexual exploitation of another human being. And all of which are sinful.

  15. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    @Random Thought

    Let me see whether I get the logic right: Its ok to have premarital sex so long as you intend to marry each other….. but many people who have sex before marriage do plan on marrying each other, some even have children without benefit of marriage.

    What happens if they never marry after all the sex ? Sometimes things do fall apart as there’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip.

    Well I suppose it’s the good intentions that count.

  16. Observing Avatar
    Observing

    Morris has done us a favour by bringing our hypocrisy, double standards, ignorance and “preached vs. practiced” Christian ideals to the fore for debate. I agree that sex is best left for marriage (not for strictly religious reasons however), but, no where does the bible define or describe sex before marriage as fornication and hence can it be labeled as a sin. Definitions for fornication, porneia and others came after the fact via inductive reasoning based on excruciatingly limited and vague events, statements and observations. In an enlightened age the church and “all knowing priests and pastors” preach doctrine, dogma and theology that is obviously flawed, illogical and rooted in men’s interpretation, yet expect others to blindly accept what they say and live a life where they’re robbed of the rich experience of knowing God, or Allah or Yahweh etc. personally. Religious debate and “competitions” for members and supremacy do nothing to encourage those seeking faith. Faith, belief and hope are the start of it all. There is a higher power and we are spiritual beings. That’s as much truth as you’ll get. Everything else is pretty much symbolism, tradition and guidlines which if taken for what they are, would lead to a beautiful life, but when taken for what we want them to be (or are told that they are), lead to this type of nonsense debate and wasted energy. Live good in faith, peace and love, do ill to no man, and all will be as well as well can be.

  17. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    No wonder that the church is so confused on so many issues.

    And then we have the Morris’s of this world to preach to us his brand of religion.

    As for Morris I am not sure where his future lies but to me he may do well to start looking for one of those big tents and a spot of land and a good PA system as they will shortly be needed.

  18. weary baje Avatar
    weary baje

    When is a man and woman married? Is it when they recites the lies before the judge or priest? Is it when the ring is placed on the finger? Is it when they say “I do”? Or is it when the woman say “yes” when the man make his vow and commitment to her?
    There is no such thing as pre-marital sex or pre-marita anything else in the scriptures. What the scriptures speaks about is a man lying with a woman and a man knowing a woman.
    Lying with a woman ..i.e. having sexing with a woman you just meet up with or or to the point a womanizer…..is lusting after the flesh and is therefore according to the scriptures a sin
    A man knowing a woman is that sexual relationship which compliment and completes the vows and commitment made to each other. They are both saying “I am giving you the only true and sincere gift I can give you, myself”. The scriptures speak clearly on this in Genesis, Leviticus, Proverbs and throughout the new testament which the christians suppose to follow.
    It is sad to see that such a trivial thing as this can cause such a commotion in a so-called christian society. It clearly shows that this so-called christian society don’t know the scriptures or who/what they are following.

  19. All that glints is not gold Avatar
    All that glints is not gold

    May I go out on a limb here and state, that perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on “sex”. The emphasis should be placed on love, because within a framework of love in a relationship all things are possible, which sex alone cannot provide.

    Sex has a function, one of the most important to mankind, that of procreation, it also gives great pleasure. Some say the price for that pleasure, is a penalty of marriage and the responsibilities that naturally occur.

    Where there is “love” sex will naturally follow and the responsibilities that come, will seem less onerous because of that love. Dare I suggest the question is do you love her/him, for if you do, the actions that follow are less likely to cause offence to the parties in particular and society in general.

  20. David Avatar
    David

    The more educated we have become so too the more confused. Was Bishop Sentamu view inform by bible teaching or a secular view?

  21. Rosemary Parkinson Avatar
    Rosemary Parkinson

    I think this video shows why there should be sex before marriage 🙂
    http://youtu.be/shL5_29sCHA

    Just a funny little thought to break the seriousness of it all. Sorry guys…well not really….

  22. Randon Thoughts Avatar
    Randon Thoughts

    Sargeant asked “What happens if they never marry after all the sex ? ”

    Bad things happen especially to the children if a couple have children and never marry after all the sex.

    Bad things happen especially to the children if a married couple”s marriage breaks down after all the sex.

    In other words it is not the parental sex or marriage or non-marriage that harms the children.

    The breakdown of any union marital or non-marital is harmful to children.

    Divorce is bad for children to.

    All of us parents should strive always to act in the best interest of our children. But too often we do our own thing (with or without marriage) and our selfishness harms our own children.

    Ah lie????

  23. Randon Thoughts Avatar
    Randon Thoughts

    @Sargeant “Well I suppose it’s the good intentions that count.”

    No Sarge. GOod intentins without good actins are meaningless.

    Good intentions must ALWAYS be followed by GOOD ACTIONS. Good actions every day of yor life towards the person you are sexing with.

  24. David Avatar
    David

    @Random Thoughts

    You are taking the debate away from what is fueling the controversy. Morris’ comments are being debated against what is being perceived as a challenge to Christian beliefs supported by the bible.

  25. Ping Pong Avatar
    Ping Pong

    Thank you Mr Morris for being another example of the irrelevance of religion, clerics and religious thinking to the lives of rational thinking people.

  26. Randon Thoughts Avatar
    Randon Thoughts

    What is marriage?

    Is marriage a sacred gift form GOD?

    ANd if it is do we need preistly or state intervention in order to receive that gift?

    Is is not true that in Christion teaching a man and a woman marry each other and that the ceremony in the church (or the registrar’s office) is to clarify largely for the state that this particular John and this particular Mary have married? But is it not true that long before the formal ceremony the couple had already married each other and had come to the priest simply to make theeri marriage public?

    It is like thinging that birth is invalid until the birth certificate is issued.

    The mother gives birth (a physiological fact)

    Some weeeks (or months) later she registers with the state (and sometimes with her church) that the birth, a physical act has taken place. But neither the church or the state is necessary to give birth or to marry.

  27. David Avatar
    David

    In the context of the bible what defined marriage for Christians? Wasn’t there a ceremony?

  28. Ramdon Thoughts Avatar
    Ramdon Thoughts

    What Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the IMF has been accused of doing to the 32 year old Ghanian maid in New York City on Saturday afternoon is SINFUL, that is what we should be condemning.

    To force sex on a woman who has come to work only to do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay is SINFUL.

    But not a priest or pastor in Barbado ain’t unpick their teeth yet. And they can’t say sub-judice. Because since the offense was not committed in our jurisdiction we are free to comment. But not a fella can’t find he tongue

    But then again they didn’t unpick their teeth either when Jippy Doyle raped and impregnated a child in his congregation. THAT IS A SIN.

    The Lucille Baird’s of Barbados have strangely been silent on the Doyle and the DSK matters.

    And yet they have time every Sunday to condemn young couples in love.

    What the Ghananian woman might have done with her man last week or last month is not a sin. What DSK did to her IS A SIN.

    Sometimes we are so busy condemning young people in love that we do not see the real SINFUL/TERRORISTS. Imagine how frightened the woman was when a old ugly naked white man started to chase her down the hall and forced himself on her.

    But where is the condemnation on this blog?

    We ‘fraid to say anything ’cause he old and white and rich?

    We frighten for the IMF?

    But then the IMF accustomed to screwing poor black women anyhow.

  29. David Avatar
    David

    The issue here is that we tell our children today if you engage in sex use a condom. What replaces the teachings of religion for parents which lay down boundaries driven by having faith in God. Therein lies the problem for so many children/parents being raised without a philosophy shaped by a value system.

  30. D C Winston-Elcock Avatar
    D C Winston-Elcock

    The story I told you about last night.

  31. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    @Rosemary Parkinson

    Loved that ,
    Good one LMAO !

  32. weary baje Avatar
    weary baje

    Who determines the morality and values of a society? Is it the state? Is it the church?
    Both of these institutions are run by corrupt man who try to instill their selfish dogma into the society for they own benefit, be it division, power or monetary wealth.
    If the Head is sick then the whole body is sick!!!!

    I asked again who determines the morality and values of a society?

  33. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    As I sit back listening to this debate, one thing is very clear. The Hypocrisy of RE-LIE-GION . It is sad today that Christian people are led to believe that Mary was impregnated by an angel and not by her husband Joseph. They were having SEX and gave birth to a son. The Church lives a lie and expect the clergy and congregation to do the same, yet many in the congregation is made up of unwed mothers and fathers. BTW how come no one has questioned our PM on his marital status and yet he has children? How can anyone buy something without trying it on to see if it fits? Bonny yuh hit de nail rite pun de head! Yuh ain gine buy a shoe dat gine be tah big nuh? nor one tah small Nuh. It gotta be jus rite. Ah doan tell muh dat too big is a fit now! Too big can do nuff damage!

  34. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    I am not sure that the two clerics are a gulf apart, David. I think the Bishop’s response was a knee-jerk reaction. What I understand him to be saying is that the church has a position. This is not at variance with Rev. Morris at all. There are two issues. One is whether it is an edict from God; and Two is if it is purely a moral position based on the norms of today’s society.

    Clearly it is number two and not number one. I think the Bishop should have recognised that what he sought to do was speak on behalf of the Christian Church because even he cannot find it as an edict in the Bible if Rev. Morris’ research is correct. The next problem is that he delivered it, or it was broadcast to reflect that the Bishop made it appear that he felt the Rev Morris had no right to tell the truth and therefore distanced himself from the comments of Rev Morris. This is an extreme position and at variance with the facts.

    Problem here is whether or not Rev. Morris sought to speak on behalf of the Christian Church. My conclusion is that Rev. Morris sought to challenge the erroneous view that pre-marital sex is against the laws of God, but not that to hold this as a morality is wrong. I think the Bishop was a bit off-mark and should have sought to enforce the Christian view that pre-marital sex is wrong; even for the reasons Rev. Morris outlined; where the woman is the property of the man as it would amount to stealing or robbing (moreso) the father of the worth of his daughter.

    Of course, in those days, it does not seem that marriage was about love at all as we try to make out that it should be in today’s world. Hence, we have shifted away from the reasons for marriage. Question is are we now going to argue that it is ordained by God that you should not marry unless out of love? Is pre-arranged marriage or marriage of convenience wrong? That would be another piece of beef for Rev. Morris. LOL!

  35. David Avatar
    David

    @ROK

    Brother Morris has certainly tossed the cat amongst the pigeons. The fact he agrees/suggests that sex should be performed during wedlock based on custom appears to have been drowned out by the outpouring of Christian righteous indignation. The hardline position taken by Bishop Holder is interesting because Morris indicated that he expected a scholarly reaction from the Right Reverend. Let us see if a deal is brokered and Morris is forced to recant like Sir Hillary :-).

  36. observer Avatar
    observer

    @bonny aunt of Christopher

    Go girl, go church in yah short black dress and even the reverund gone lust at yah. Go mek he sin.

    I dont want to get in the debate about sex before marriage, what I would say is that you should condomise when having sex unless you really know the other party, then again bonny can you really know the other party that well. Look how the brothers does live with the married and unmarried sisters in the hurch. Look at the catholic church, it wont let the preists get married and they still engage in sex with the young boys and girls.

    The issue of pre-martial sex is a tricky subject, I know that every one of my family had sex before marriage, even my mother as her first child was born out of wedlock. Does that mean we have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord?

    When you are about fourteen your hormone is raging and many persons in Barbados have pre-martial sex, and extra-martial sex. What abou having accepted the vows in marriage to be faithful, how many people in Barbados adhere to those vows. I am just asking questions so dont you shoot me.

    On another note, should the curh continue to be exempt from paying Income Tax in light of the manu churches springing up about the place, and the owners living in opulence and sprting big jeeps and living in mansions and constructing unecessay edifices. They aslo benfitt from covenats which are tax deductibles. I dont want a plantation, I want a church to influence and not-influence.

  37. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Nah! Nothing for Morris to recant. It is too exposed. It is for the Bishop to apologise for his outburst, as indeed his response should have been a scholarly one, as I would expect from a person of such high office. This may have implications for the Bishop, who should take heed of his own advice not to be controversial, because it is he and not Rev. Morris who is being controversial in public. As Bishop, his response needed to be more focused.

  38. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    @ Tell Me Why….

    Man……why you had to call my name eh? 😉

    I am here patiently waiting on Zoe, TB or any of the ‘usual suspects’ to add to the debate and prove Mr.Morris wrong (or right).
    Their collective silence for so long is deafening, maybe the response will be pages long 😉

  39. Nia Avatar
    Nia

    What I found extremely sad about this whole discussion about sex is that neither side believed it necessary to instead focus on words like: SAFE, MONOGAMOUS, RESPONSIBLE, MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL, PROTECTIVE.

    Instead the Church members just chose to stay pre-occupied with the terms PRE-MARITAL and MARITAL when it comes to sex and antiquated Bible verses which, to be honest, most young people find difficult to relate to.
    To me it simply shows how much the Church is out of touch when it comes to what is really ailing our communities and young people.

    It was a perfect opportunity for the Church to get creative and innovative, to use words that young people could relate to and benefit from, but instead the Church simply chose to re-hash the “same old same old”.

  40. Chuckles Avatar
    Chuckles

    Congratulations Rev. Charles Morris. You are living in the 21st century. The others are medieval hypocrites. If we could only legislate Shariah laws for 24 hours, most if not all of them would be stoned to death for preaching what they are not praticing. For the Pentecostal followers, here is a list of disgraced evangelists from whom you take your orders.
    1 List of Christian evangelists involved in scandals

    1.1 Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s–40s
    1.2 Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s–1980s
    1.3 Marjoe Gortner, early 1970s
    1.4 Billy James Hargis, early 1970s
    1.5 Jim & Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, 1986 and 1991
    1.6 Peter Popoff, 1987
    1.7 Morris Cerullo, 1990s
    1.8 Mike Warnke, 1991
    1.9 Robert Tilton, 1991
    1.10 W. V. Grant, 1996 and 2003
    1.11 Bob Moorehead, 1998
    1.12 Roy Clements, 1999
    1.13 John Paulk, 2000
    1.14 Paul Crouch, 2004
    1.15 Douglas Goodman, 2004
    1.16 Kent Hovind, 2006
    1.17 Ted Haggard, 2006
    1.18 Paul Barnes, 2006
    1.19 Lonnie Latham, 2006
    1.20 Gilbert Deya, 2006
    1.21 Richard Roberts, 2007
    1.22 Earl Paulk, 2007
    1.23 Coy Privette, 2007
    1.24 Thomas Wesley Weeks, III, 2007
    1.25 Michael Reid, 2008
    1.26 Joe Barron, 2008
    1.27 Todd Bentley, 2008
    1.28 George Alan Rekers, 2010
    1.29 Eddie L. Long, 2010
    1.30 Marcus Lamb, 2010
    1.31 Vaughn Reeves, 2010
    1.32 Stephen Green, 2011
    1.33 Albert Odulele, 2011

    To the Roman Catholics, here is a list of countries in which sexual abuse of young boys has occured within recent times. The list of
    priests’ names is too long so countries were used instead of individual names. What a disgrace.!!!

    Africa

    1.1 Kenya

    2 Asia

    2.1 Philippines

    3 Europe

    3.1 Austria
    3.2 Belgium
    3.3 Croatia
    3.4 Czech Republic
    3.5 France
    3.6 Germany
    3.7 Ireland
    3.8 Italy
    3.9 Malta
    3.10 Netherlands
    3.11 Norway
    3.12 Poland
    3.13 Slovenia
    3.14 Sweden
    3.15 Great Britain

    4 North America

    4.1 Canada
    4.2 Mexico
    4.3 United States

    5 Oceania

    5.1 Australia
    5.2 New Zealand

    6 South America

    6.1 Argentina
    6.2 Brazil
    6.3 Chile
    6.4 Peru

    For the Anglicans/Episcopalians
    Bishop Holder , please shut up. You made sense when you kept silent. Are you condemning your ancestors for having relationships outside of marriage? The majority of Barbadians are the offspring of live-wid relationships. If they had waited till they were married, to have sex, would you be here to talk modern-day rubbish? Are you saying that your foreparents were less religious than you? Are they all in Hell?
    Archbisop Rowand Williams is a confused man. He can’t go against the Queen from whom he takes his orders, so he must unwillingly oppose the appointment of gay bishops . Do you know that the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, is married to a divorcee after horning her husband Andrew Parker Bowles who was member of the Queen’s staff? Did he wait till he was married to cut the mustard? Do you know that Bishop Holtam of St. Martin in the Field is married to a divocee? Why shouldn’t he have cut the mustard before marrying her? . Get serious my friends. Throw your support behind Mr. Morris. He is a realist. My only regret is that he used the new-shoes analogy to make his point. That apart, he was spot on. Take a bow Bother Charles.

  41. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    Rev Charles Morris’ so-called thesis, that nowhere in the Bible, God’s Word, can we find in ‘black and white’ that pre-marital sex is a SIN, wrong, or forbidden!

    Morris’ thesis, first and foremost, is a ‘strawman’ set up in a rhetorical tactic, whereby, according to Morris, if you can’t bring a specific verse, stating that ‘pre-marital’ sex is a sin, or wrong, then , it is not condemed by God, for those who are in fact planning to get married.

    Thank God, that the SDA and Methodist Pastors, on Peoples Business, Sunday night, gave a very good, sound, scholarly and Biblical rebuttal to Morris, which had him twitching around in his seat, only PRIDE made Morris continue with his stupid, unsound premise, which he knew, was been clearly exposed.

    While there is no text in the Bible, God’s Word, that explicitely states that pre-marital sex is SIN, wrong, it would be folly, and down-right ignorance to ignore the overall revelation contained therein, from the Old Testament to the New Testament which deals with ‘immorality’ sexual immorality, which always falls into Fornication or Adultry, that IS* sex before the union of marriage, or within marriage.

    Sexual relations are in the Bible, always the exclusive province of the marriage relationship, which IS, itself a model or symbol of the relationship of Christ to His Church. The biblical norm is that of a virgin* bride ( and groom) who thereafter live together in uncompromised faithfulness. Therefore, the sanctity of the human person and the Christian understanding of the body* as “the temple of the Holy Spirit” can settle for NO less. In short, there is NO*place in God’s Word, of personal sexual ethics for accommodation to the moral relativism, esposed by Morris, that now pervades society.

    Further, when Morris had his back pushed against the wall, by the SDA and Methodist Pastors, he came out again, with more unbiblical nonsense, saying that when God created Adam and Eve, that their sexuality was activated instantly, implying that they had sexual intercourse even before God cemented their union as Husband and Wife.

    I was very disappointed that the other Pastors, did NOT take up Morris on this point, from the Genesis narrative sequence, as given and recorded in God’s Word, where it is not recorded until Chapter 4, that; “Now Adam KNEW* Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.” (Gen. 4:1 Emphasis added)

    Adam did NOT have sexual intercourse with his wife Eve, as Morris suggested, BEFORE the Marriage union was set apart by God, as the Hebrew word, ‘Yada’ rendered here in Gen. 4:1, as “KNEW” his wife, is also used for sexual intercourse on the part of both men and women, as is the well-known euphemism “Adam KNEW his wife” and its parallels (Gen. 4:1; I Kgs 1:4; I Sam 1:19). It is used to describe sexual perversions such as sodomy (Gen. 19:5; jud 19:22) and rape (Jud. 19:25) (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, p. 366).

    Paul sternly says to the Corinthians:

    “FLEE (run away from) sexuality immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, BUT he who commits SEXUALITY immorality (outside of marriage) sins against his own body.” (I cor. 6: 18)

    Therefore, the implicit and explicit references from both the Old and New Testaments, taken together in proper contextual analysis, explicitly implies, that God does NOT permit or condone any kind of pre-marital sex, before marriage, as it IS a SIN against our bodies, and has serious consequences according to God plan and purpose for the overall well being of men and women.

  42. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Ah, Techie, You got your wish. I will be here ringside watching the blows. LOL! knock yourself out.

  43. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    @ ROK….

    ReLIEgion….. The opiate of the masses.

    Sit back and watch the HYPOCRISY come out….even the SDA Cult and Zoe agrees …. *smh*.

  44. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    island gal at 8:48 a.m.
    “Mary was impregnated by an angel and not by her husband Joseph. ”

    Actually according to the Scriptures Mary was NOT married when she became pregnant.

  45. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    Random Thoughts………Oi yo yoi I was waiting for someone to say this ……………..so what do you call dat…premarital sex? I rest my case then.

  46. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    And according to the Scriptures Joseph “knew her not” until AFTER she gave birth to Jesus.

    So when Mary gave birth she was a NEVER MARRIED MOTHER, just like a lot of our own mothers; just like my own mother when she had her first and second child. My mother went on to marry she chile’ fadda I don’t believe that what my parents did was fornication. It was 2 young people in love; and 60 years later it was 2 old people in love.

    In Orthodox Jewish theology a man is not permitted to marry a pregnant woman. Nor is he permitted to marry a woman unless she has left her husband for at least one year. So therefore Joseph could not have, and did not marry Mary until AFTER she gave birth to Jesus

    This rule is to avoid confusion as to who is the father of the child.

    It is real necessary then and now to TIE DOWN the child fathers. Otherwise as we well know a good lot of them will try to run away from their responsibilities. Marriage is as good a way as we have discovered to tie down reluctant young child fathers.

    It has little to do with religion or morality. It has to do with getting money and love and care for children born as a result of sex.

  47. David Avatar
    David

    @Random and islandgal

    To those who believe the Virgin Mary conceived by a divine intervention referred to in the bible as the Immaculate Conception.

  48. David Avatar
    David

    @islandgal and Random

    Surely if yee are of the faith you should acknowledge that Joseph had an encounter with God the objective to explain her birth. You see Random and islandgal, one has to have the faith.

  49. Colonel Buggy Avatar
    Colonel Buggy

    What a people we are.
    We play Bingo, umpteen forms of Lotto, one arm bandits, the horses , Pools and back yard gambling,yet still we are saying a resounding NO to establishment of gambling Casinos in Barbados.
    Every other man in Barbados is a village ram, most of our children are born out of wedlock. Many couples ‘live together’. Many of our young, and not so young women, have no qualms in giving a piece away. Prostituion is rife in this society, so too is homosexuality .Many of our children are experimenting with sex while still in primary school. And yet most of us will now adopt a holier-than- thou attitude concerning sex before marriage.
    As in John 8:7. The master said “…………he that is without sin cast the first stone.”

  50. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    The principal reasons for marriage have always been sexual satisfiction and the raising of children. I’ve gone to a lotta lotta Anglican weddings and each Rev. reminds the couple and the congregation about this.

    Marriage has never principally about love, but young people tend to fall in love and the “in love” state drives them to sex, and the sexing drives them to being parents. If 2 people have children the best people to raise those children is the 2 people that had the fun making the child. And if we are smart we would encourage them to marry and to stay married. So that they get to raise the children and we don’t have to. Hee!!! hee!!! (since child raising is so hard)

    This is what my parents taught me and this is what I have taugh my children. Little Johnny will be 18 next month and has been boasting that he will soon be a man and can do whatever he feels like. I’ve offered to arrange a marriage for him before the end of the year so that he can do whatever he feels like at his own home. But before this he (and his intended if any) have to find and hold 2 jobs.

    I’d be happy to have a Christmas wedding for them.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading