| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 359.1 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Wed Dec 11 1991 19:37 | 5 |
| Why is that? I sure don't know. It's not logical. Virginity should
be highly valued for both men and women. Perhaps even more valued
in men as we so often seem to have less control than women. :-)
Alfred
|
| 359.2 | sad | 27748::NELSON | | Wed Dec 11 1991 20:18 | 10 |
| Yes. MEN might not value the virginity of MEN as much as the virginity
of women; God, on the other hand, values both equally. It seems that
the 'vested interest' of men has created something of a blindness in
this area which has brought about rationalization and a double
standard.
What is even worse, in order to assert our equality with men, we women
have insisted upon the same "rights" as men to squander our sexuality
outside of the Will of God.
|
| 359.3 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Bring me some figgy pudding! | Wed Dec 11 1991 23:08 | 16 |
| Note 359.2
> God, on the other hand, values both equally [premarital virginity in
> men and women].
Mary,
I'm curious about this remark about what God values. How do you
know this? Is there something in the Bible that says this? Is it a church
teaching?
I won't refute what you've said. I just want to know how you
acquired this bit of information.
Peace,
Richard
|
| 359.4 | | CRBOSS::VALENZA | Gordian knote | Wed Dec 11 1991 23:11 | 36 |
| Why should virginity be better than non-virginity for either sex? I am
not referring here to the question of sex outside of the bounds of
marriage, which is a rathole unto itself. Assume for the sake of
argument that we are talking only about people who "lose" their
virginity after they marry. Have they really "lost" anything? Is
there something morally superior about chastity over sex per se? It
seems that there is an attitude that there is something bad about sex,
that the act somehow soils us, that we would be better off if we didn't
give in to those "nasty" impulses and instead led a pure life free of
such passions.
I think that this is an unfortunate aspect of our culture, and certain
elements of Christianity in particular. I have to wonder how most
Christians would react to any hypothetical consideration of whether or
not Jesus was a virgin, married, or had children. I am not suggesting
in any way that I think that he *did* have sexual relations with
anyone, but I am considering here the theological implications of his
presumed virginity. *Could* the Son of God have been anything but a
virgin?
I suspect that the idea of Jesus having made love to someone is
probably repulsive to a lot of Christians--somehow that would have
revoked his divine status in their eyes. Jesus was, after all, a male,
with the corresponding body parts. Does anyone think that Jesus ever
had an erection? What about a nocturnal emission? Did he have any
sexuality whatsoever? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it appears to me
that even if Christians concede that he did, the idea that he might
have *expressed* that sexuality (even in ways "acceptable" for the rest
of us) just seems incompatible with their idea of his divinity.
The Song of Songs celebrates Eros as something beautiful, but that
seems to be the exception. Matthew Fox is one of the few Christian
theologians I have seen who seems to have a more healthy and positive
attitude about sex.
-- Mike
|
| 359.5 | | VIDSYS::PARENT | my other life was different | Wed Dec 11 1991 23:52 | 17 |
|
RE: .0
Virginity was valued in women for a straight forward reason. The
heir of the union could be guarenteed to be from the husbands line.
In most western (maybe generally) cultures property and name are
linked to ancestry, especially to the crown royalty. Since medical
knowledge of reproduction was crude there was a basic assumption
that a woman who was not a virgin could not assure the child was
of the legal union.
It's not the only reason, it does have an acient history though.
Allison
|
| 359.6 | chastity is possible | JUPITR::NELSON | | Thu Dec 12 1991 02:01 | 40 |
| re: .2
I know that virginity (before marriage) is a church teaching for both
sexes.
I don't have my Bible here or the time to search through concordances
to get into much of a further discussion about what scripture teaches.
However we know that scripture, the Word of God, forbids fornication
and adultery and supports marriage. When all these are taken into
account then the net result is that God wishes us to be sexually
pure until we are married and then to be faithful within the marriage.
Everything else is sinful in the eyes of God.
The arguement that men are too driven by hormones to be virgins until
marriage does not have a scriptural basis. Therefore, through Christian
union with Christ, it should be possible to maintain purity.
The requirement that priests are to be celibate is to be a witness to
the world that this is possible. Although a certain percentage of
priests fail, there is a larger percentage who succeed and find their
celibacy to be a source of strength in their lives.
A priest who has a misistry working with other priests gave a talk
which I heard recently; his conclusion was that the priests who had
problems either maintaining celibacy or who were tempted to break
their vows had a weak personal spiritual life. Those priests who
had an active prayer life did not have these difficulties.
Beyond the witness that priests give, there is a large percentage of
regular people in this world who somehow manage to live according to
God's commands. How do WE do this? I think it is by putting God first
and recognizing His authority. Also, only by accepting and living this
can we come to understand the great blessing GTod has for us in this
way of living.
Peace,
Mary
|
| 359.7 | pleasures of purity | JUPITR::NELSON | | Thu Dec 12 1991 03:59 | 83 |
| Re: .4
Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ was like us in all ways except
sin; also he was tempted just as we are. It is very clear that he
did not sin and that he did the will of God the Father.
Jesus would have experienced, therefore, all typical male physio-
logical responses and Satan would have tried to tempt him to act on
those normal responses in unpure ways. Scripture says that Jesus did
not sin and therefore he would not have sought either mental (lust)
or any variety of physical outlets to those bodily urges. In this way,
although tempted, he would have remained pure and without sin.
We may not be able to appreciate God's ways, particularly until we
actually live according to his plan. Before I became a Christian about
11 years ago, I enjoyed sex and thought it to be a necessary component
of my life to have happiness. Although I accepted Christ, I wasn't sure
I wanted to "buy-in" to the Christian lifestyle (chastity). However,
within the first year of my conversion, God 'convicted' me of this
duality and sinfulness. Although I thought it would be a great loss and
would cause an emptiness in my life, I recognized that it was not only
God's will, but something He had a right to expect from me.
The return to chastity was not instantaneous; I found that while I had
gone cold-turkey from sexual relations, I found that my desires and
thoughts and 'inner self' still needed to be conformed and purified.
This has been happening over the years and in deeper ways. I saw that
the purity that God desires is not just the lack of sexual intercourse
outside of marriage, but it also has to do with other types of expression
- bad language, the content of the TV we take into our minds, gossip,
certain music, engaging in lustful fantasies, etc.. Each of these sullies
the beauty that God envisions in our human relationships and with Him.
It is a misconception which Satan encourages that Christians are people
who are fearful of sex and therefore prudish. The Christians who live as
God clearly wills us to live find God in their chastity and the great
beauty and love that comes from such a union. There is no way to describe
this to others, but I can tell you that it is very real and sustaining.
Read the writings of Christian Saints and this is expressed in abundance.
The book of the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs), expressed in terms of
physical love is actually an expression of the great loving relationship
that the pure have with Jesus in a spiritual way.
Chastity is one way God has ordained to experience a proper and pure
relationship; the other way is through the Sacrament of Marriage. This
union is just as pure as chastity in God's eyes (since He ordained it)
and it equally allows the partners to experience and express God's
love. Through the marriage union, union with Christ is expressed in
sacramental form in this life. Through chastity that is lived in faith
and by God's grace, we also live a 'spiritual union' with Christ. Both
are the will of God and bring us blessings. (This answers the questions
in your first paragraph of .4)
Those who seek Christ, submit to the will of the Father as written
in the scriptures and taught by the Church, and who try to walk in
active faith will be purified. St. Paul tells a group of relatively
new Christians that they would soon be ashamed of those very acts
that they used to boast about before they were converted. We become
ashamed not becasue God has led us from 'healthy sexuality' to
prudishness or frigidity, but because we can truely see how enslaving,
demeaning, and unloving those former sinful ways were. Freed from the
bonds of those sins, we become opened to and filled by the love of God.
By comparison to this love, our former ways are abhorrent. Why would
we wish these sins to be propogated in this world?
There is a segment of Christians who have unfortunatly seemed to be
caught half way in this process of conversion. This group is very
vocal against sinful sexual behavior (TV shows, etc.) but is not very
good at expressing the wonderful abundance of blessings and love that
the Lord wishes to give us if we would only turn from such sins, empty
ourselves, and allow Him to fills us.
I'm apologize for not pointing to scriptural book and verse; I am not
a memorizer and I don't have the time (at least until the new year!)
to search through the condordance. However I hope that your own back-
ground in scripture and the promptings of the Holy Spirit will make
up for what I sorely lack here.
Peace of Jesus,
Mary
|
| 359.8 | | CRBOSS::VALENZA | Gordian knote | Thu Dec 12 1991 11:02 | 52 |
| I was trying to separate the issue of "fornication" (i.e., sex outside
of some specified boundaries of legitimate expression) from the issue
of attitudes towards sex in general. Perhaps that is not possible,
since restricting legitimate sexual expression to certain defined
methods probably presupposes a certain attitude towards sex in general.
But my reason for doing that was to distinguish between the morality of
"fornication" from the question of virginity, and to ask if virginity
is often considered superior to any form of sexual expression, even
that which is deemed "legitimate" (i.e., within heterosexual marriage).
My understanding of Catholic teachings is that they Mary is presumed to
have remained a virgin all her life. Was this lifelong virginity of
Mary (who was married, after all) something to celebrate? Was this
virginity an example of her purity and glory? Would she have been less
worthy of veneration if she had had sexual relations with Joseph, even
though he was her husband? Why is this virginity considered so
special, and apparently superior to even "legitimate" expression of
sexuality?
If the Song of Songs is an allegory for a spiritual union with Christ
(although it was written long before Christianity), then the idea here
seems to be that physical love, being of the flesh, is inferior to a
pure spiritual love. There is a kind of mind-body dualism implied
here, which seems to be saying that the "flesh" is inferior to the
spirit. I think this owes more to the Greek philosophers than to the
Jewish traditions. Matthew Fox talks a lot about this in his books; he
criticizes forms of mysticism that renounce the world, offering
instead an alternative mysticism that participates in the world. Those
mystics who engage in self-mortification are expressing a denigration
of the body in favor of some sort of "pure" spiritual expression of the
mind.
On the other hand, when I read the following passage from Song of
Songs, I see a pure and joyous celebration of Eros:
How fair and pleasant you are, O loved one, delectable maiden!
You are stately as a palm tree, and your breasts are like its
clusters.
I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches.
Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine,
and the scent of your breath like apples,
and your kisses like the best wine that goes down smoothly,
gliding over lips and teeth.
When the author speaks of climbing the palm tree and laying hold of its
branches, I have something in mind other than a non-physical spiritual
union with Christ. When Christian wives and husbands make love, do
they feel desire for one another? Do they not call out when in the
throes of orgasm? Or is sex for Christians supposed to be some sort of
spiritual union with no physical desire involved?
-- Mike
|
| 359.9 | How long ago? | 29067::J_CHRISTIE | Bring me some figgy pudding! | Thu Dec 12 1991 17:59 | 16 |
| Note 359.6
> I know that virginity (before marriage) is a church teaching for both
> sexes.
Do you know when this teaching began?
> The requirement that priests are to be celibate is to be a witness to
> the world that this is possible.
The reason I asked the question which appears above is because I know that
celibacy has not always been required of priests.
Peace,
Richard
|
| 359.10 | virginity and marriage | JUPITR::NELSON | | Thu Dec 12 1991 21:47 | 110 |
| Re: .8
I guess I missed the point of your meditation on virginity versus
sex within marriage.
The viewpoint that I get from the Church (RC) is that neither marriage
nor the celibate life is better than the other; both are proper
expressions of God's Will. What is necessary is that each person
discern what God wills for us individually. It is actually part of a
wider view of a person's vocation or calling in life.
As for the Song of Songs, it certainly is an expression of the fullness
of love and sexual expression within a marriage, but those who seek
the Lord in celibacy can read the same book and identify all that it
expresses with Christ's personal love for us and our personal love for
him. Perhaps we do not 'eroticize' it's expression, but the depths of
the feelings of love are the same as those which accompanies the sexual
enjoyment married people share. Our desire for the loved one, Jesus,
is the same and we feel the desire of Christ for us.
Celibacy and Marriage are both Sacraments which become, in different
ways, both signs and extentions of Christ in the world.
I'm sure that married Christians experience all the pleasures of their
sexual unions. Depending upon any individual's understanding of their
faith and the social and cultural factors of their upbringing, there
may be varying degrees of inhibition in a Christian's sexuality.
Unfortunatly, some of this has been transmitted by people within the
Church itself who have misunderstood Church teachings. Also, there are
legitimate teachings of the Church against some sexual expressions,
even within marriage (such as against the use of pornography); usually
this is because the nature of that activity is bad in itself, not
because the Church wishes to restrain proper sexual activity within
the marriage.
The virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is something special in itself
and to cover it fully it would take much more than I can write; it is
often the subject of deep contemplation and much affirmation in the
writings of the Saints. Our Lady's perpetual virginity is a very
special revelation of who Jesus is, of God's love for us, and His
promises to us as His Children. She has a unique role in God's plan
and her virginity, along with Jesus' virginity has a very special
meaning. Their sexual virginities relate to their roles as the New
Adam and the New Eve which are totally unsullied by ANY sin (not just
sexual sins).
The Blessed Virgin has been declared to have been concieved without
sin (the Immaculate Conception) and she maintained this purest of
virginity (from all sin) to be the perfect vessel for the reception
of Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. She is the woman promised by
God the Father in GEN 3:15 who has 'emnity against Satan'; if she had
any sin then she would not have emnity against Satan since she would
have agreement in some way with him. Her sinlessness is further
expressed by the purity of the Ark of the Covenent and it is expressed
in the greeting og Gabriel and the testimony of Elizabeth at the
Visitation (see Luke). She is also shown glorified in REV 12.
In both GEN 3:15 and REV 12, God reveals that the spiritual battle that
is being waged is between Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and her offspring
on one side, and Satan and his children on the other. We know that as
Christians we become adopted children of the Father through Christ's
saving actions on the cross; now at the foot of the cross (see account
in John), Jesus gave his Mother to John and John to Mary. It was his
last act before he could declare everything finished.
This was more than providing for Mary's care, but it was giving Mary
to all Christians as our Mother and allowing us to give ourselves to
Mary as her children. In this action she personifies the Church itself
and all Christians can be called the children of God the Father and
of Mary. We therefore, through adoption along with our salvation and
sanctification by the merits of Christ, have the same Father and
Mother as Jesus himself. You will see that we are called the Body of
Christ; we cannot be His Body without the same parents.
Sexual union is not just a physical joining, but also has a spiritual
dimension. For either Jesus or Mary to have such a union before
Christ's purifying sacrifice would have been a union between sinless
purity and someone who still bore the stains of original sin and
therefore this would have effected a breakdown in the emnity that
was ordained by God in GEN 3:15 and REV 12.
In Galatians, St. Paul tells us that we are the children of a 'free
woman' rather than the 'slave'. The free woman (Mary/Church) is without
sin while the slave represents one who is bound by sin.
Mary, personification of the Church and Mother of all Christians, also
personifies the Bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem, and the New Eve.
Her only union with be the greatest union of all, that of complete
union with the Bridegroom, Christ. Marriage is a sacrament or sign of
this final union. As blessed amongst all women to have a complete union
with Christ in her earthly life and in a spiritual way forever, a
marriage union would not be a proper expression for her since she
was already blessed with a greater union. An indication of this is
when Mary and Joseph took the baby Jesus to the temple for presentation
to God and the holy man, Sineon, told Mary that her heart, too, would
be pierced with a sword (see Luke, I believe). Mary's heart was
completly united with the heart of Jesus.
I think this briefly covers Mary's virginity and touches on Christ's;
our choices of virginity or sexual marriage are choices that give
honor, praise, and witness to God in the following ways : virginity
testifies to that greater union with Christ in the fullness of time
as His virginal Bride; marriage testifies to that Marriage itself.
Therefore, both states, virginity and marriage are sanctified by
God. Both are important witnesses by the Church (us) to the world.
Peace of Jesus,
Mary
|
| 359.11 | not my 'field', I'm afraid... | JUPITR::NELSON | | Thu Dec 12 1991 21:53 | 12 |
| Re: .9
Richard,
I'm sorry to say I'm not much of a student of all the teachings of
the Church throughout it's history. I have never known the Church to
approve of sex either before or outside of marriage. I don't know
the history of celibate/married priests. Perhaps a RC historian
note reader will discover this and have something to contribute.
Mary
|
| 359.12 | ... | NEMAIL::WATERS | Thank you Lord for just being YOU! | Fri Dec 13 1991 05:19 | 24 |
| Hi Mary,
Well, lets say it did and it did not. You see, it was not until some-
time between the 10-11th Century that the Sacrament of Marriage was
officially instituted in the Church. Before that, Marriage was commonly
not even performed in a Church, but outside, and then after a couple were
married they would go in and celebrate Mass.
Pre-marital sex was one of those things that I believe needed to be
weeded out slowly. I don't believe it was a problem in the peasent
class as much as it was as you climbed the ladder of the feudal system.
The Emperor Charlmagne (that "great" defender of the Church :), had
a large number of concubines. But, you have to understand that is
"how it was". Rich men were expected to live that way, that did not
make it right however. :^)
Just because the Church preached one man and one woman in the confines
of marriage did not mean it still didn't take a while for many to
see the wisdom in this. ;^)
Peace,
Jeff
|
| 359.13 | ... | NEMAIL::WATERS | Thank you Lord for just being YOU! | Fri Dec 13 1991 05:24 | 13 |
| Hi Rich,
I think that Priests started to go celibate around the 6-7th
century (I think...). It was mainly a political move at the
time, from what I know. From what I remember there were some
priests that were rearing illegitamate children, and then giving
these children the Church's land (Mother Church was not very
happy ;*) Let me take a look today at home and I'll put in more
info tonight if you would like.
Peace be with you,
Jeff
|
| 359.14 | 1000 year old errors can still be errors | KARHU::TURNER | | Fri Dec 13 1991 10:59 | 13 |
| re .10
The perpetual virginity of Mary is one of those baseless fictions that
are common in Roman Catholic doctrine. The Gospels clearly state that she
was only a virgin until the birth of Jesus(see Matthew 1:25)
This and a lot of other doctrines have their origin in Medieval
superstition. Extreme views about sexuality became current among the
monastic classes, that resulted in a complete distortion of the facts
as presented in the Gospels. Some will doubtless view the gospel as
a distortion of the same order, but thats a different topic.
johN
|
| 359.15 | | WMOIS::REINKE_B | chocolate kisses | Fri Dec 13 1991 11:50 | 8 |
| Thankyou John,
The Gospels clearly state that Joseph 'knew Mary not until the child
was born', which most Protestant churches interpret as meaning that
he 'knew' her after the child was born. There is also reference in
the Bible to his younger brothers and sisters.
Bonnie
|
| 359.16 | History and theology | 62465::JACKSON | The Word became flesh | Fri Dec 13 1991 18:15 | 45 |
| Re: Basis for prizing virginity
This deals directly with the Biblical injunctions against
fornication. One is plainly declared to be sinful, therefore
the refraining from sin is prized.
Re: History of celibacy
This grew out of the monastic movement which started in the
late 3rd and 4th centuries. The theology behind this is
that we should seek spiritual pleasure and avoid physical
pleasure as this will enhance our spiritual lives and draw
us closer to God. Naturally, sex was one of the most
important (and hardest!) pleasures to avoid.
Celibacy became a requirement for priests in the 8th century
(I believe). Unfortunately, this requirement was widely
flouted (more so at the highest levels of the hierarchy) in
the church as time wore on and was widely ignored at the
time of the Reformation.
The traditional reason for requiring celibacy is so that the
individual can devote his/her entire life to God rather than
being split in devotions. Paul writes about this in I Cor 7,
although the letter is addressed more to any individual than
simply to the office of priest.
Re: Theology of celibacy
Perhaps this should go in the "celibacy" note. Anyway, I strongly
disagree that it necessarily improves our spiritual life to
avoid physical pleasure. I certainly agree that this can be true
some of the time, but not as a way of life (which is what was
preached by the early monastic movement). God wants us to *enjoy*
Him and to enjoy all that He has given us. Jesus did not come to
withhold, but rather that our joy may be made full. I understand
that "joy" often means an inner peace/happiness that is not
dependent on external circumstances. However, the Bible is strangely
silent about this "expectation" that it is important for us to
consistently forego pleasure in order to know and follow God.
Isn't that one of the reasons that God created man and woman for
each other - the pleasure that we can enjoy together? (Yes - see
I Cor 7.)
Collis
|
| 359.17 | | CRBOSS::VALENZA | Gordian knote | Fri Dec 13 1991 18:43 | 18 |
| What does virginity per se have to do with abstaining from so-called
"fornication"? Married people who engage in sexual relations with
their spouses are not "fornicators" by anyone's definition, and yet
they are obviously not virgins either.
The question, as I see it, is *not* necessarily why refraining from sex
outside of heterosexual marriage is or should be valued; the question,
at least in this topic, is why *virginity* is valued. Virgins are, by
definition, people who refrain from sex, and who have always done so;
it has nothing to do with refraining from "illicit" sex, at least not
necessarily.
Should a man "prize" virginity in a potential wife? Is a virgin
preferable to, say, a divorced woman? For those who answer "of course
not", the next question is, is there a cultural stereotype that says
otherwise?
-- Mike
|
| 359.18 | priests and pleasures | JUPITR::NELSON | | Fri Dec 13 1991 21:26 | 55 |
| re: last few
St. Paul, in what we believe to be scripture inspired by the Holy
Spirit, encourages celibacy. It is part of the formation of the
requirment for priests; another important portion, however, has to
do with the priest's sacramental role of acting as Christ in the
sacramental ministry of the Church. Again, we go back to Christ's
virginity and it's purpose to understand why the Church has
come to consider that this is the best form for coveying a certain
truth about God, His people, and His kingdom. This is also part of
the reason women are not allowed to be priests; the sacramental
message gets lost.
As far as pleasures go, we are also told not to make provisions for
the flesh. This does not mean that we cannot have pleasures, but
"having it all" is not what it is all about as a Christian. Our
greatest satisfaction in life will come from following the Lord's
Calling for us individually. Each of the possible callings (vocations)
which the Lord has defined by His Will have different sets of
responsibilities, burdens, and pleasures; each can be lived in a
entirely full and satisfactory manner if lived in Christ.
Just because we find sexual pleasure satisfying it does not mean that
it has to be available to every calling. Because marriage was allowed
by the Church centuries ago does not mean that it is the witness that
the Holy Spirit wishes to give to the world today. As Jeff has
observed in a few notes back, it has taken a long time to 'catch on'
to the goodness of God's plans for our lives.
Right now, the (RC) Church believes that the Holy Spirit has defined
the calling of priests to be that of celibacy; that may or may not
change depending on a different discernment of God's Will on the
matter.
We humans in business feel free to write a job description for an opening
we need filled and to expect that applicants either meet the expectations
of the job or not to even apply; we feel it within our rights to reject
those who are either unable or unwilling to meet the requirements. We do
not expect to have applicants telling us what those requirements should
be! God should have the same freedom to define His callings by the power
of the Holy Spirit in the Church without the need to respond to worldly
pressures for worldly reasons.
Are there no witnesses in the world today who can testify to the
pleasures, satisfactions, and fulfillment of sexual abstainance in the
world today? To turn the tables on Mike's patient questioning, why is
it that virginity/celibacy is percieved to be unfulfilling, a hardship,
and something of an indication of unhealthiness by those who practice
it?
Peace,
Mary
|
| 359.19 | trying to be clear in response... | JUPITR::NELSON | | Fri Dec 13 1991 21:52 | 32 |
| re: .17
Should a man prize a virgin as a wife?...as opposed to a widow who
was a virgin before her marriage, was manogomous through her marriage
and celibate after the death of her husband?
I would say that the virgin and the widow in this case are to be
'prized' equally because both fully lived their sexuality in God's
Will. Which the 'suitor' should choose as his bride might depend on
other factor and certainly God has a particular will for that suitor.
What I'm trying to point out (in several replys so far) is that
God has ordained three responses towards our sexual nature which are in
His Will : virginity, celibacy (sexual abstainance), and sexual union
in marriage. All are equally pleasing to God in general. God has also
shaped "callings or vocations or jobs" for humans; in order to fulfill
the requirments of each vocation as God Wills for that vocation, there
may be a specific sexual response that is right for it.
My response to Mike's questions is that virginity vs. marriage are the
same in God's eyes because they are both states Willed by God. We must
seek and make the right personal choice for our own lives according to
God's will for us as individuals. We will be most fruitful with good
things when we are in God's will for us.
This is how I see it. What do you say about it?
Peace of Jesus,
Mary
|
| 359.20 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Bring me some figgy pudding! | Fri Dec 13 1991 22:33 | 8 |
| I've been married twice. Neither of the women I married were virgins.
I cherished (treasured, prized) each of them; still do, one of them.
The basis for my treasuring a life partner has nothing to do with
whether she is a virgin or not. I do not consider a woman "soiled"
or "damaged goods," and therefore, unworthy of becoming a life partner,
if she is not a virgin.
Richard
|
| 359.21 | Could there actually be advantages to Chastity? | KARHU::TURNER | | Sat Dec 14 1991 22:11 | 20 |
| There are a couple of aspects of this subject that have been lost sight
of in the western world.
When two people form a physical union they also at least in theory
form a spiritual union. This is only broken by the death spiritual or
physical of one partner. Actually, spiritual union between two people is
probably rare. Most sex is primate proceation.
At various times in history people have known how to utilize the
energy "wasted" in ordinary sex for spiritual purposes. Apparently, how
this was done within a marriage relationship was unknown in the west.
It was assumed that only a celibate person could make significant
spiritual progress.
Sexuality, both absteninence and indulgance have been connected
with relgion throughout history. Celibate priests were featured in many
Pagan cults. Although, the Old Testament says nothing favoring
celibacy(in fact, marriage was mandatory for priests), by Christ's day
the Essenes were enforcing it upon their initiates. It is highly likely
that these ideas came from contact with Babylonian mystery religions.
johN
|
| 359.22 | | DPDMAI::DAWSON | as true as an arrow flies | Sun Dec 15 1991 00:22 | 7 |
| RE: .21 John,
Yeah....My football coach used to try to tell us the
same thing.....we just laughed. And then the Navy...... ;-)
Dave
|
| 359.23 | nit .... | WMOIS::REINKE_B | chocolate kisses | Mon Dec 16 1991 14:00 | 5 |
| Actaully Dave, Medical surveys of atheltes have shown that men who
were intimate with their wives before a big game actually played
better than those who abstained.
Bonnie
|
| 359.24 | | SA1794::SEABURYM | Zen: It's Not What You Think | Mon Dec 16 1991 14:49 | 7 |
|
A reporter once asked Casey Stengel about baseball players
not playing as well after spending the night with a women
before a big game and he replied, "It ain't the cachtin' it's
the chasen' that tuckers them out."
Mike
|
| 359.25 | | DPDMAI::DAWSON | as true as an arrow flies | Mon Dec 16 1991 15:55 | 8 |
| RE: .23 Bonnie,
Yes....and other studies have found that some play
better and others play worse. It must depend on the person.
;-)
Dave
|
| 359.26 | A Christian belief | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | Make it so | Mon Dec 30 1991 21:10 | 22 |
| re: .14
Before I approach the subject let me say that it is hateful to call the
Christian belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary a "baseless
fiction". This belief dates back to the first century and was held by
the Christian Church in common before the schisms of the 11th and 16th
centuries.
The meaning of the word "until" has changed from the time the KJV was
written. The common meaning is that an action did not take place up to
a point. The modern meaning adds that the action took place after that
point.
Consider this "Michal, the daughter of Saul had no children until the
day of her death" (2 Sam 6:23) and
[the raven] "went forth and did not return till the waters were dried
up upon the earth." (the raven, of course, didn't return after the
waters were dried up upon the earth) and
Where was Moses buried? No one knows "until this present day" (Dt 34:6)
(the day after tomorrow, I suppose, Moses grave will be discovered)
|
| 359.27 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Peace: the Final Frontier | Wed Jan 01 1992 23:32 | 6 |
| Question: What did the term virgin mean at the time of writing the
gospels? I mean, did it simply mean unmarried? Hymen intact?
vaginally unpenetrated? Sexually uninitiated or inexperienced?
Peace,
Richard
|