Retroactive Infidelity.

[Juliana]

Don't worry about it; that actually was interesting to me. Cultural anthropology looks at all the different marriage traditions; "ghost marriages," and dowries -- how many cows is a girl in Africa worth, for example. We should maybe start another thread to look at how that transfers into modern thinking. What has become of the dowry?

 

And just for the record, if anybody is still reading, even in fundamentalist evangelical circles, the language he is speaking, his views would be considered mistaken; the Born Again crowd do not generally assume that they are full of demons. He's just applied a religious paint job to something that is not Christian at all.

[Luke Skywalker]

So, to make a long story short, the problem with your concept is that you believe that the flesh is more important than the spirit. You want a virgin wife because you believe that this has something to do with her spiritual qualities. Jesus was all about the spirit. The physical simply doesn't matter. By their fruits ye shall know them, yes, and the fruit of the Pharisees was hypocrisy, attention to the outward show of piety and not the inward rebirth, and judgmental attitudes.

 

The bible says that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. When anyone has sex they are joined in union with that person and two become one. That means part of their soul is spliced and copied to the person they are having sex with and lost forever.

 

I take it you are a non-virgin. I'm willing to really listen to your arguments very carefully but feel that your views are biased. Once you devalue the sacridity of something, then you cant appreciate it yourself.

 

It is not judging the sky to point to it and call it blue; and I am not judging you when I say, your attitudes are not Christian. I am merely stating a fact.

 

And so am I. I dont think your attitudes are Christian either. Your judging me for being selective on what I view as a potential marriage partner, for being an idealist and saying that's not Christian. I dont have to marry anyone that's unsuitable to my high standards.

 

"Whatever demons are inside a person are transfered by sexual intercourse, and is a by-product of defilement."

 

Land o' goshen. Well, there ya go. (oh, do I even want to go there....sigh). So I assume you think Christians can have demons? People who are born again can be demon-infested?

 

Well, you are opening door-ways for oppression, not possession. But sex is how demons are transferred, which is why personality changes occur after sexual intercourse.

 

It's interesting to me that everyone wants to keep discussing this with you, because you are obviously not going to bend or be moved on this issue. The Pharisees likewise were very stiff-necked; don't think it's a virtue that you are demonstrating here. I know why I have to answer you; I wonder why the others do.

 

Maybe you and everyone else are under conviction for their sins for judging the messenger. For saying, is there anyone who has faith to wait for the right person?

 

Batya, just for discussion:

 

"In the OT a virgin woman is more value than a non-virigin woman as the dowery is more expensive in the former compared to the latter case."

 

Life expectancy was not long in those days. A virgin was typically 14-15 years old. The dowry was considered part compensation for the years of labour that her family would be deprived of through her marriage; rather than a reflection just of the worth of her virginity. It was part, but not all, of the valuation of the dowry.

 

Then why are virgins more expensive than non-virgins?

 

"NT talks about husbands as being the spiritual head of home as Christ is spiritual head of church."

 

God is Lord over all; the woman's submission to the husband is symbolic of her true submission, which is to God. If her husband ordered her to steal something, or kill someone -- to sin, in other words -- her submission would not require that, and her true submission, to God, would not allow it. Her submission is to her husband so long as his is to God; both are under Christ.

 

So you agree, of course submission to God is presupposed.

 

 

 

Actually, to be really biblical about this, I could just go to Hosea. It's all about an OT prophet who married a * * * * * and adulteress. This was to symbolize the marriage of God to Israel. Israel had prostituted itself to foreign gods. "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. But they like men have transgressed the covenant...I have seen a horrible thing in the house of Israel: There is the whoredom of Ephraim, Israel is defiled." Hosea 6:6-7,10

 

Hosae was not a Levite or part of the elite priestly class, as in the book of Numbers they were only required to marry virgins. Furthermore, all born again Christians are now members of the elect priestly class - as stated in the book of Peter. Challenge me to quote any bible verse to support what I'm saying for both the books of Numbers and Peters and I will do so.

 

People don't even understand the Bible anymore, so they do all kinds of foolish things. The flesh doesn't matter; it is the spirit that is clean or unclean. All that is born again in Christ is clean. What Christ forgives, a man cannot judge.

 

The Hymen is symbolic of blood covenant since blood comes from it when it is burst on the first intercourse. How do you reconcile a distortion of blood covenant based on maritial union - after all, everything is by blood. The redemption of our souls is by the blood of Christ. A maritial covenant is bonded in the blood of the Hymen being ruptured.

 

It's sad but interesting to wonder if someone with Luke's attitudes would have been able to associate with the people in the early Church; they were all slaves, prostitutes -- nobodies, really. God didn't care who came to him, rich or poor. But Luke does. And that's sad.

 

We are not talking about association, we are talking about marriage and relationship. Read this post carefully, especially the blood covenant part.

[Luke Skywalker]

the Born Again crowd do not generally assume that they are full of demons. He's just applied a religious paint job to something that is not Christian at all.

 

People who have read Rebecca Brown (born-again Christian) and Elain (ex-satanist convert to Christianity) in Prepare for War, He Came to Set the Captives Free, and Vessel of Honour, will understand what I'm talking about.

 

There is big evil spirit world behind the scenes, and we are in the middle of a war between the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness. Evil religions have ritualised sex practises combined with idol worship, why, becaue it promotes the tranference of evil spirits.

 

This is not a religious paint job.

[Juliana]

"That means part of their soul is spliced and copied to the person they are having sex with and lost forever."

 

Your soul, like the Trinity, is not a corporeal thing to be divided up and have pieces "lost."

 

"I take it you are a non-virgin. I'm willing to really listen to your arguments very carefully but feel that your views are biased. Once you devalue the sacridity of something, then you cant appreciate it yourself."

 

I'm a married woman, with two children.

 

"But sex is how demons are transferred, which is why personality changes occur after sexual intercourse."

 

Personality changes after sex because people's lives are changed by their sexual relationships. Married women are not like virgins; there is a maturity gained. I am uncomfortable discussing this with you; it is immodest, and you make everything seem dirty.

 

"is there anyone who has faith to wait for the right person?"

 

There is no right person; there is only God. Or Paul was a liar.

 

"Then why are virgins more expensive than non-virgins?"

 

Lack of sexually transmitted disease. Guaranteed healthy stock. This is true of all cultures; it is not related to Christianity or Christian teaching.

 

"of course submission to God is presupposed."

 

Of course. No one is saying you can't marry a Christian; only your definition of purity is at issue, as far as I'm concerned. You're looking to the flesh, and I know you have to look to the Spirit. Didn't God call Israel a * * * * *, was she not a * * * * * in the OT? Did not Christ wash Israel clean for the Holy Marriage of the Second Coming? All things are made new in him.

 

This whole argument is really not much different from the ancient arguments about circumcision.

 

"Hosae was not a Levite"

 

Neither are you. The Jews would have a field day with you, using their Law when you don't even understand ours. The priesthood through Christ isn't Levitical, it's through Melchizedec.

 

"The Hymen is symbolic of blood covenant since blood comes from it when it is burst on the first intercourse"

 

Where is this in the Bible? According to this, neither Ruth nor any of the other widows of the Old Testament could be married in the Lord.

 

"We are not talking about association, we are talking about marriage and relationship."

 

So you do not believe that the Blood cleanses. You do not believe in the sufficiency of grace.

 

Truly the blind leadeth the blind, and there is nothing new under the sun. You have taken unto you teachers who lead you further into darkness; will you just read the Bible, and listen to God? What did Christ say to justify the things you are saying now? What did he do that teaches you treat people as you propose?

[Luke Skywalker]

""But sex is how demons are transferred, which is why personality changes occur after sexual intercourse."

 

Personality changes after sex because people's lives are changed by their sexual relationships. Married women are not like virgins; there is a maturity gained.

 

Well, if you dont believe in the transference of spirits then it's bogus to argue with you. I would mean personality characteristics specific to the characters of the demons in a transference of spirits. Thus a person who didn't have a violent temper before, may suddenly have a violent temper if he/she had sex with someone who was prone to a violent temper. Do you understand what I'm saying now? This is in the books and beyond the construct of this thread.

 

I am uncomfortable discussing this with you; it is immodest, and you make everything seem dirty.

 

I dont have to do that, it is in your own mind.

 

"is there anyone who has faith to wait for the right person?"

 

There is no right person; there is only God. Or Paul was a liar.

 

What did Paul say - you have a rebuttal, quote it.

 

"Then why are virgins more expensive than non-virgins?"

 

Lack of sexually transmitted disease. Guaranteed healthy stock. This is true of all cultures; it is not related to Christianity or Christian teaching.

 

No it's because they have a hymen and they have never been with man before.

 

"of course submission to God is presupposed."

 

Of course. No one is saying you can't marry a Christian; only your definition of purity is at issue, as far as I'm concerned. You're looking to the flesh, and I know you have to look to the Spirit. Didn't God call Israel a * * * * *, was she not a * * * * * in the OT? Did not Christ wash Israel clean for the Holy Marriage of the Second Coming? All things are made new in him.

 

The born-again church is now the new Israel, that is made clean for the Holy Marriage, but He's looking for a church undefiled, and without spot or wrinkle.

 

"Hosae was not a Levite"

 

Neither are you. The Jews would have a field day with you, using their Law when you don't even understand ours. The priesthood through Christ isn't Levitical, it's through Melchizedec.

 

Then why was virginity an issue there - if it's not important, then why would it be an issue anywhere in the bible?

 

"The Hymen is symbolic of blood covenant since blood comes from it when it is burst on the first intercourse"

 

Where is this in the Bible? According to this, neither Ruth nor any of the other widows of the Old Testament could be married in the Lord.

 

I'm not saying it's a requisite to marriage, I'm merely stating the importance of value on it as beying symbolic, unless you feel symoblic things have no inherent value.

 

"We are not talking about association, we are talking about marriage and relationship."

 

So you do not believe that the Blood cleanses. You do not believe in the sufficiency of grace.

 

Of course I do. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

Blood is the basis of convenant between people and God, the blood of Christ. It would also seem that there would be symbolic associations between marriage and Christ's relationship with the church. The symbols involved in marriage involve fidelty (one woman) and worship one God only, and engaging in a covenant by blood. Again, virginity would have a value as a symbol, or meaning.

 

However, I never said it's a requisite for a marriage. Now if you want to argue that it is not symbolic for a deeper and greater meaning, then I'd like to know what you have to say about what inherent value virginity has.

 

Truly the blind leadeth the blind, and there is nothing new under the sun. You have taken unto you teachers who lead you further into darkness; will you just read the Bible, and listen to God? What did Christ say to justify the things you are saying now? What did he do that teaches you treat people as you propose?

 

I treat people as I want to be treated.

[luvursmile]

Wow! Intense thread....

[Ellie2006]

I treat people as I want to be treated.

 

Against my better judgment, I am posting on this thread again.

 

So based on people's response/reaction to your posts, what does this tell you about how you treat other people?

 

It's astounding to me how you manage to skirt the issue you raised in the OP and evade responding to subsequent calls to elaborate on your position and instead, have turned this into a biblical debate. (Juliana, I mean no disrespect towards you. Sorry in advance if my post comes accross that way.)

 

Oh well, as some people have remarked earlier, to each his own!

[Mr. Brightside]

It's astounding to me how you manage to skirt the issue you raised in the OP and evade responding to subsequent calls to elaborate on your position and instead, have turned this into a biblical debate.

 

That's what we call "trolling" and he is doing a fine job here and in the other thread.

[luvursmile]

Waaay too much emphasis on virginity, IMO.

 

The biggest gift you can give to someone you love is commitment & love, not a piece of skin, like one poster said.

 

I personally would not want a virgin...too much responsility, especially if they value it so much.

 

I can respect people who save themselves for the right person, dont get me wrong. But I dont think it should be placed so high above other characteristics someone may have to offer.

 

(Sorry for bringing this thread back up, Ellie )

[sophie274]

Ok, I get that you think virginity is the most important gift someone can give to someone else, and that (apparently) unlike most gifts, it is one that (in your opinion) must be reciprocated in order to have meaning.

 

My question to you is: why are you focusing so much on women? Is it more acceptable for a man to be a virgin that a woman?

[Juliana]

Rebecca Brown's real name is apparently Ruth Bailey. Elaine is Edna Elaine Moses.

 

More info: link removed

 

link removed

 

link removed

 

Researching this topic has demonstrated that this is an extra-biblical heresy called "Curse Theology." (As an aside, I would note that according to Elaine, Satan is a Presbyterian....??)

 

Whatever you are attempting to base your opinions on, it isn't Christianity. This is why you and I are so divergeant; I am talking about Christian morality, and you are talking about something else.

 

I'll answer your post, but you need to realize, you have strayed far from the original teachings of Christ following this woman, and you need to do some research and correct those perceptions of yours that would lead you to fall from the grace of the Spirit. You would do well to get yourself into a good church that doesn't rush off to listen to nonsense like this, but focuses on Christ instead.

 

"Well, if you dont believe in the transference of spirits then it's bogus to argue with you. I would mean personality characteristics specific to the characters of the demons in a transference of spirits. Thus a person who didn't have a violent temper before, may suddenly have a violent temper if he/she had sex with someone who was prone to a violent temper. Do you understand what I'm saying now? This is in the books and beyond the construct of this thread."

 

I guess this is what they mean when they call this stuff "extrabiblical." No, I don't believe in the transference of spirits, at least not in the way you do, at all. It's not something I ever thought about, really. There is the Holy Spirit, and beyond that, I don't concern myself. God fights those battles. I just pray alot.

 

I do know, however, that people tend to pick up the habits of the people they associate with -- whether they've had sex with them or not. I suppose to someone with a wild imagination, some story might be constructed around that. But I know people who've picked up each other's habits, and they've not had sex. Even I have characteristics from some of my friends.

 

"I dont have to do that, it is in your own mind."

 

Nope. You're the one who is looking for the virginal wife, and kissing girls to see if you have chemistry -- which in the good old days of the OT, would have been considered adultery. You are looking for someone to lust after, I take it?

 

"There is no right person; there is only God. Or Paul was a liar.

 

What did Paul say - you have a rebuttal, quote it."

 

"Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh: But I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: It remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none...He that is unmarried creth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But he that is married careth for the things of the world and how he may please his wife." 1 Cor. 7:27-29, 32-33.

 

Paul says nothing about waiting for the right person, neither does Jesus. If such were the case, do you not think that it would have been mentioned somewhere?

 

"The born-again church is now the new Israel, that is made clean for the Holy Marriage, but He's looking for a church undefiled, and without spot or wrinkle."

 

He is not looking for it, he creates it. The Church cannot make itself clean. That which he makes clean is clean.

 

"Then why was virginity an issue there"

 

Virginity is an issue for the Levites for the same reason pork was; physical cleanliness and lack of disease. Elsewhere in the Bible, virginity speaks to the state of submission to the Lord. Physical virginity is never made a condition of salvation; your physical state is insignificant to Christ, except insofar as he heals it. Lepers were saved; * * * * * * were saved. Christ loved everyone.

 

"However, I never said it's a requisite for a marriage. Now if you want to argue that it is not symbolic for a deeper and greater meaning, then I'd like to know what you have to say about what inherent value virginity has."

 

Physical virginity has no inherent value at all. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Children who are raped or molested are no less holy when they come to their marriage bed as those who were not. The physical state of virginity is meaningless of its ownself.

 

"I treat people as I want to be treated."

 

Jesus went further than that, I'm afraid. He said we must love one another. It wasn't a request. It was a command.

[quietgrl]

Anything? So, if you hugged a male friend that would be the same result? Where in the marriage vows does it say anything about giving a man your mind, body and soul (as opposed to being in a partnership and joining with your husband in all meaningful respects).

 

And, I assume you see it as a reciprocal gift - and with the expectation that the man gives of his mind, body and soul, yes?

 

Batya,

A person alway gives half of their mind and soul to people everyday and when a person is in a commitment relationship their complete body,mind,soul and love is given to their SO.

Batya you have to have a mind and soul to be in a long term relationship with people. Every person who comes into my life is a gift to me.Yes, some people get on my nerves but some people mean alot to m.

[quietgrl]

Wow! Intense thread....

 

It's an educational thread and it show people still have a hard time talking about virginity .There is nothing wrong talking about virginity(like in this thread) because we talk about sex too.

[Ellie2006]

Quietgrl,

 

IMHO, this thread's educational value (of which you speak) is severely undermined by the OP's refusal to clarify and address his divergent views on religious and social meanings of virginity and its relevance to commitment, submissiveness, etc.

 

I also respectfully ask *you* to clarify, if you have time, to answer Caro's earlier questions:

 

1. Do you feel [virginity] is your greatest attribute?

 

2. Further, what about the issue of being submissive? Would you see yourself as "submitting" to your husband when the time came?

 

3. My follow-up question is: if virginity is, in fact, your "greatest attribute," then what happens after it's gone?

[Batya33]

Batya,

A person alway gives half of their mind and soul to people everyday and when a person is in a commitment relationship their complete body,mind,soul and love is given to their SO.

Batya you have to have a mind and soul to be in a long term relationship with people. Every person who comes into my life is a gift to me.Yes, some people get on my nerves but some people mean alot to m.

 

 

I assume you are stating this as an opinion, although it almost sounds like you believe this is a fact, which concerns me. I will never give my complete body, mind and soul - or love - to any one person. I will never expect anyone to do that for me and to do so would be unhealthy and unhealthy for the relationship. I don't give half or even a smaller percentage of my body mind and soul to people "every day."

 

That is because rather than focusing on abstractions I focus on giving and actions and interactions - I prefer to be reality based in my relationships because to me loving is giving - not giving away your mind, body or soul, but being supportive, caring, considerate and thoughftul in your words and consistent actions.

 

You're entitled to your definition of relationships and what you expect from them and I hope you find someone on your wavelength.

[quietgrl]

Quietgrl,

 

IMHO, this thread's educational value (of which you speak) is severely undermined by the OP's refusal to clarify and address his divergent views on religious and social meanings of virginity and its relevance to commitment, submissiveness, etc.

 

I also respectfully ask *you* to clarify, if you have time, to answer Caro's earlier questions:

 

1. Do you feel [virginity] is your greatest attribute?

 

2. Further, what about the issue of being submissive? Would you see yourself as "submitting" to your husband when the time came?

 

3. My follow-up question is: if virginity is, in fact, your "greatest attribute," then what happens after it's gone?

 

1.I believe everything i give to my husfriend or husband is my greatest attribute but to give myself to a man when i really don't have too.A person should repect and take care of that gift.

2. I'm not a religious person and my husfriend/husband probably won't be into religion either so i won't be thinking about submitting to anything unless we're going to be doing some kinky BDSM.

3. what happen after it gone.Thats' when the true attrubute to your character bergins in my opinion

[quietgrl]

Baya,

 

I think you're proving my mind and soul point .This right hear and what you just said is giving your mind and soul to people." being supportive, caring, considerate and thoughftul in your words and consistent actions." A person who doesn't have a mind or soul doesn't give,support,love or care about people period .Any person who doesn't want this in a relationship is unreality and crazy.I people to give me their mind and soul.

[Batya33]

Baya,

 

I think you're proving my mind and soul point .This right hear and what you just said is giving your mind and soul to people." being supportive, caring, considerate and thoughftul in your words and consistent actions." A person who doesn't have a mind or soul doesn't give,support,love or care about people period .Any person who doesn't want this in a relationship is unreality and crazy.I people to give me their mind and soul.

 

Actually, no it doesn't - that is how YOU define giving your mind, body and soul. I don't define those actions as giving of any of those things to another person - perhaps in some instances sharing what is in your heart, yes, or sharing your deepest feelings, but I do not define that as "giving your mind, body and soul" to another peson. I never said I didn't have a mind and a soul I simply said I do not define a relationship as giving those things to another person. However, unlike you, I state opinions, not facts and respect your opinion on what a relationship means to you. In my humble opinion that is also essential to a relationship - to refrain from stating opinions as facts in order to create an environment where you are open to hearing others' opinions on a subject.

[caro33]

Yes I think there is a definitional issue here re 'giving' and 'sharing'. The first can imply giving the other person dominion over you, and the second tends to imply you retain some ownership.

[shikashika]

I did not give my virginity away as some sort of gift..

 

Sometimes sex can just be for fun..

 

The greatest gifts I can give my guy is my loyalty to him, my sense of humour, kindness, honestly etc etc...

 

i can't imagine not having sex with someone I'm in a relationship with... otherwise they're just my friends.

 

i find it peculiar that many virgins abstain from sex because they believe that a relationship shouldn't be based purely on sex.... but by waiting until marriage, they are doing just that... making sex the all-important greatest gift.... placing it with more value than anything else I've heard (only heard because I don't know of any virgins in real life!) I thought the whole point of not having sex was to show that other things were more important... but by waiting .. one is making it the most important thing in the relationship.

 

 

I wouldn't want to meet age my age who had no sexual experience... I wouldn't want a guy who thought so highly of himself that his sex/viriginity was soooo important, so much more important than anything else he had to offer.

 

and, if this gift was so important (the gift of bonking) wouldn't one want to have some practice so they knew how to d o it?

It doesn't say much about your goals/personality/interests/character/life outlook if your greatest gift is bonking!

 

Having sex is not jsut about giving one's soul or heart or personality... for a relationship to work, you have to have more than just sex... but you do need the sex!

 

It seems like many older virgins are very sad regarding their love lifes... overly picky when choosing partners and then wonder why they can't find anyone... IMO its because they are putting such an importance on sex... when they should be putting importance as other things

[Batya33]

I was a virgin until I was 24. At age 23, I was engaged to a man who was a virgin at that time. We had decided we would wait till marriage. We were intimate but we did not have sex. Our relationship was complete and full despite not having sex. I do believe attraction, chemistry and physical affection all are important and if the couple is not having sex, and are not waiting for marriage or to get to know each other better then yes that can be an indication of a problem - but having intercourse is not essential for a close romantic relationship in my opinion.

[Luke Skywalker]

Is it more acceptable for a man to be a virgin that a woman?

 

Huh? Can you rephrase that question?

[quietgrl]

shikashika,

The reason why some people are having a hard time understanding sex for commitment virgins is because we put differant standards on sex and relationship. I said this before if you don't think virginity is a gift,.A person is not going to understand sex for commitment virgins.Our standard are higher because we think we own that to ourselves, our SO and our relationship.We don't base our dating relationship with the opposite sex on sex.What i'm hearing from the opposite opinion of me is i can't casual date without sex or least test drive .ouch!!I'm wondering can anybody have a romantic dating relationship with their BF/Gf without sex or is that the only thing that's keeps you with that person.

Wow, I see some myths and stereotypes about adult virgins in your post. Yes,There are some sad and picky adult virgins out there and those are mostly virgins who don't want to wait for a commitment because most sex for commitment virgins/adult virgins are happy and fine with their decision. We're just like any other singles out there in the dating scene.We're looking for the "right " person who wants to be in a committed relationship with us.The saying goes you have to talk to alot of frog before you find the right prince.

[Luke Skywalker]

"I dont have to do that, it is in your own mind."

 

Nope. You're the one who is looking for the virginal wife, and kissing girls to see if you have chemistry -- which in the good old days of the OT, would have been considered adultery. You are looking for someone to lust after, I take it?

 

 

You said that it's immodest talking about this discussion or responding to it. I replied that "I dont have to do that, it's in your mind." I really do not understand your reply.

 

It seems to me by your lengthy replies that you enjoy this discussion, even if you have claimed it is immodest. Go on, look at what you replied to on the previous thread - there is no consistency in your response there.

 

"There is no right person; there is only God. Or Paul was a liar.

 

What did Paul say - you have a rebuttal, quote it."

 

"Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh: But I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: It remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none...He that is unmarried creth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But he that is married careth for the things of the world and how he may please his wife." 1 Cor. 7:27-29, 32-33.

 

Paul says nothing about waiting for the right person, neither does Jesus. If such were the case, do you not think that it would have been mentioned somewhere?

 

That verse is irrelevant. It says if you are married, then dont divorced. If you are divorced then dont remarry. It doesn't apply to what we are talking about. I'm dissappointed actually in your choice of scripture, because what you should have actually quoted is this:

 

1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to AVOID FORNICATION, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband".

 

Jesus also has something to say:

 

Matthew 19:5 "And said, FOR THIS CAUSE SHALL A MAN LEAVE FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO THIS WIFE, AND THEY TWAIN SHALL BE ONE FLESH.

vs.6. Wherefore they are no more twaine, but one flesh. What thereforeeee God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

 

And goes on saying....

 

vs 9. "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication (i.e. cheating), and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery".

 

It's analogous to what you quoted Paul saying - if you are divorced, you cant (for no legimate reason) or should not remarry again (if your other spouce cheated you can remarry - but not adviced by Paul).

 

Bible interprets Bible. Again, what Jesus and Paul talk about is that TWO BECOME ONE.

 

Paul echoes this concept here...

 

2 Corinthians 6:15-18 "Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot (prostitute or disreputable woman)? God forbid.

What? know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for TWO, saith he, SHALL BE ONE FLESH.

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

FLEE FORNICATION. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body,; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own obdy.

 

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

 

For ye are bought with a price, thereforeeee glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

 

******

 

YOU ARE DARN RIGHT YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL YOUR MARRIED TO HAVE SEX --- BECAUSE YOU ARE DEFILING THE TEMPLE OF GOD WHEN YOU ARE NOT. TWO BECOME ONE. YOU CANT BE ONE WITH MORE THAN ONE PERSON.

 

THAT'S WHERE YOUR SOUL KEEPS DIVIDING - TWO DIVIDEDED BY TWO IS ONE. THUS IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE LIFE-LONG PARTNER, HOW MANY DIVISIONS CAN YOU MAKE WITH YOUR SOUL?

 

DONT YOU SEE THE HOW THE SOUL IS SPLITTING UP - AND YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SEX WITH ONE PERSON, AND MUST WAIT FOR THE RIGHT PERSON - OR YOU ARE VIOLATING THE TWO EQUALS ONE DOCTRINE!!!!

 

 

 

[

"The born-again church is now the new Israel, that is made clean for the Holy Marriage, but He's looking for a church undefiled, and without spot or wrinkle."

 

He is not looking for it, he creates it. The Church cannot make itself clean. That which he makes clean is clean.

 

The church has to repent and like not sin, or the candle stick will be removed like it was in the churches in the beginning of the book of Revelation.

 

"Then why was virginity an issue there"

 

Virginity is an issue for the Levites for the same reason pork was; physical cleanliness and lack of disease. Elsewhere in the Bible, virginity speaks to the state of submission to the Lord. Physical virginity is never made a condition of salvation; your physical state is insignificant to Christ, except insofar as he heals it. Lepers were saved; * * * * * * were saved. Christ loved everyone.

 

Then why do virgin women have a hymen that produces blood when ruptured and nonvirgin women dont? Why did God make it that way? What's His intended purpose with such a design - or are you saying His point of making it that way is purely whimsical?

 

"However, I never said it's a requisite for a marriage. Now if you want to argue that it is not symbolic for a deeper and greater meaning, then I'd like to know what you have to say about what inherent value virginity has."

 

Physical virginity has no inherent value at all. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Children who are raped or molested are no less holy when they come to their marriage bed as those who were not. The physical state of virginity is meaningless of its ownself.

 

Let's constrain our argument to those who chose to give it up, rather than where it's forced - that's an excemption to that train of thought since the person is not morally responsible for the loss of virginity.

[Luke Skywalker]

Quietgrl,

 

IMHO, this thread's educational value (of which you speak) is severely undermined by the OP's refusal to clarify and address his divergent views on religious and social meanings of virginity and its relevance to commitment, submissiveness, etc.

 

Religious meanings are derived from my conversation on here with Juliana.

Social meanings are addressed on my other thread. (virginity as gift vs stigma to the guy)

 

What further clarification do you need from me at this point?