| Christian Philosophy & Ethics The forum to discuss philosophy and ethics from a Christian perspective. |
 | | 
12th June 2008, 09:49 PM
|  | His Workmanship
   
 | | Join Date: 7th September 2007 Location: central US
Posts: 516
Blessings: 109,167
Reps: 278,595 (power: 284) | |  Blood covenant / marriage
I'd like to hear thoughts on the video above. If you would, consider
these questions after you listen (these are what I'd like to hear discussed):
1) If the initial 'act of marriage' was entered into before a person is legally married, is it considered a marital bond in God's eyes? (OT law demanded a raped women be married by her perpetrator, never to be divorced from him).
2) If a non-virgin legally marries, is the marital contract considered a 'covenant' in God's eyes? If a woman is not virgin when she marries, and there is no 'proof' of a blood-covenant, is it considered adultery (since the token of a blood covenant could only be proven once).
In light of the information presented in this video, I"m thinking alot of people will be suffering regrets... but the beauty of the 'sacredness of sex' is profound. Something to strive for.
__________________
'The smile of God is victory.' ~ John Greenleaf Whittier ~
|
12th June 2008, 10:36 PM
| | His Workmanship
| | Join Date: 7th September 2007 Location: central US
Posts: 516
Blessings: 109,167
Reps: 278,595 (power: 284) | | | The more I think of this, the more I realize all the questions this brings up. Feel free
to ask a few of your own for discussion as well.
__________________
'The smile of God is victory.' ~ John Greenleaf Whittier ~
|
12th June 2008, 10:39 PM
| | Senior Contributor
47  
| | Join Date: 4th January 2006
Posts: 8,405
Blessings: 171,780 My Mood 
Reps: 54,271,170,225,074 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by MissMystery  1) If the initial 'act of marriage' was entered into before a person is legally married, is it considered a marital bond in God's eyes? (OT law demanded a raped women be married by her perpetrator, never to be divorced from him).
False.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 isnt about rape. Its a repetition of existing laws where a woman was 'enticed' by a man into having sex.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 has nothing to do with 'rape'
2) If a non-virgin legally marries, is the marital contract considered a 'covenant' in God's eyes? If a woman is not virgin when she marries, and there is no 'proof' of a blood-covenant, is it considered adultery (since the token of a blood covenant could only be proven once).
Absolutely.
She is as married as any virgin who has married |
12th June 2008, 11:07 PM
|  | free Crazy Liz!
42   
| | Join Date: 14th July 2005 Location: Maryland
Posts: 10,002
Blessings: 83,354
Reps: 76,196,551,593,728 (power: 76,196,551,611) | | I can't usually watch videos online but I've heard this stuff before. Originally Posted by MissMystery
I'd like to hear thoughts on the video above. If you would, consider
these questions after you listen (these are what I'd like to hear discussed):
1) If the initial 'act of marriage' was entered into before a person is legally married, is it considered a marital bond in God's eyes? (OT law demanded a raped women be married by her perpetrator, never to be divorced from him).
No. And it wasn't any raped woman, it was a raped unbetrothed virgin. 2) If a non-virgin legally marries, is the marital contract considered a 'covenant' in God's eyes? If a woman is not virgin when she marries, and there is no 'proof' of a blood-covenant, is it considered adultery (since the token of a blood covenant could only be proven once).
She is married.
This obsession with blood and virginity is barbaric and unhealthy IMO. The reasons the OT uses it is because blood is the *closest* thing to proof of former virginity they could get (it doesn't even get close to the modern standard of proof and its worth as evidence is questionable) and because of patriarchal concern about virginity having to be some man's property to give or receive as well as the obvious concerns about cuckoos in the nest.
__________________ Because CF no longer has an atmosphere conducive to free discussion, I have left for greener pastures (TR, SoF) where I maintain the same username.
|
12th June 2008, 11:12 PM
| | free Crazy Liz!
42
| | Join Date: 14th July 2005 Location: Maryland
Posts: 10,002
Blessings: 83,354
Reps: 76,196,551,593,728 (power: 76,196,551,611) | | Sex in and of itself did not constitute a marriage because when an unmarried man had congress with a prostitute it was not considered to constitute a marriage.
Sex with a virgin was actually NOT considered a marriage--the man had to PAY THE GIRL'S FATHER for the virginity taken, but the FATHER still had the option to withhold consent to the marriage (and God bless the fathers who did). This indicates that it is considered as a sort of property crime. 6 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
__________________ Because CF no longer has an atmosphere conducive to free discussion, I have left for greener pastures (TR, SoF) where I maintain the same username.
|
12th June 2008, 11:14 PM
|  | These Stars are for You
32  
| | Join Date: 12th November 2005 Location: Atlanta
Posts: 6,713
Blessings: 1,159,385 My Mood 
Reps: 330,922,917,246,462,848 (power: 330,922,917,246,476) | | | That was actually a little bit absurd. For starters, Christians should not focus their attention on blood covenants, as that was part of the old law for the Jews which were supposedly usurped by Christ's sacrifice. To compare taking a woman's virginity to entering into a blood covenant is sort of creepy to me. There are many women out there who do not bleed when their hymen is broken. There are some women whose hymens are broken due to an accident or rape. There are women who are born with hymens that are partially open or born without one at all. Have these women failed their husbands because they cannot offer him a "blood covenant"?
You cannot have a spirit of virginity either. You are either a virgin or you are not. I have no doubt in my mind that a person can lose their virginity and later make a decision to remain chaste; however, they will never be a virgin again.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
13th June 2008, 12:18 AM
| | Senior Contributor
47
| | Join Date: 4th January 2006
Posts: 8,405
Blessings: 171,780 My Mood
Reps: 54,271,170,225,074 (power: 0) | | To compare taking a woman's virginity to entering into a blood covenant is sort of creepy to me.
I agree
There are many women out there who do not bleed when their hymen is broken.
Quite true.
My wife was a virgin when we married and after all this time she never has bled.
She definitely would have failed to provide any evidence of being a virgin (well, other than her prudish attitude about sex which Im very VERY thankful for).
Your post makes some VERY good points. |
13th June 2008, 07:57 AM
|  | .devoted.
| | Join Date: 1st January 2008 Location: the edge of doom
Posts: 1,470
Blessings: 116,689 My Mood 
Reps: 1,697,726,337 (power: 1,697,733) | | Well, I'll be the first to give my support for what the man is teaching in this video... specifically, how sacred virginity is in marriage. When Jesus referred to the standard of God's intent for marriage in Matthew 19, I think this is what He was referring to.
The video points out that virginity was expected of both men and women. I think if women embraced the sacredness of their virginity, and demanded it from the man they marry, the Body of Christ as a whole, would have a clearer understanding of the 'virgin spirit'.
Jesus is the example of a 'virgin spirit'... as His sole purpose was to fulfill the will of His Father. The heart of a virgin is focussed on it's beloved, sacrificially focused.
I'm a little saddened by the negative response, even denial of the existence of blood covenants. Any who have been regenerated in the new birth, are in a blood covenant... the new covenant Jesus instituted in His death and resurrection. I find it interesting, Jesus connected His covenant, with God's original intent for marriage... that a virgin man leaves his parents to enter into a covenant marriage with a virgin woman.
Which brings up many more questions 
Originally Posted by KatAutumn To compare taking a woman's virginity to entering into a blood covenant is sort of creepy to me.
I believe the way the author stated it was that the initial sex act of a virgin couple was the offering of the pledge of fidelity, the covenant of fidelity. (not an exact quote).
There are many women out there who do not bleed when their hymen is broken. There are some women whose hymens are broken due to an accident or rape. There are women who are born with hymens that are partially open or born without one at all. Have these women failed their husbands because they cannot offer him a "blood covenant"?
Based on OT teaching of the 'proof of virginity', I think the instances mentioned are more rare than they are prevalent.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
~*~
Love is not love which alters
when it alteration finds;
love alters not with it's brief
hours and weeks,
but bears it out even to the
edge of doom.
~Wm. Shakespeare~
Last edited by Miann; 13th June 2008 at 08:15 AM.
|
13th June 2008, 09:18 AM
|  | Truth Defender * Faith Contender
 
| | Join Date: 22nd May 2008 Location: US
Posts: 1,066
Blessings: 261,522 My Mood 
Reps: 2,077,871,056 (power: 2,077,878) | | Originally Posted by MissMystery In light of the information presented in this video, I"m thinking alot of people will be suffering regrets... but the beauty of the 'sacredness of sex' is profound. Something to strive for.
So true, MissMys.
Regret may also keep people from seeing how valuable a 'virgin spirit' truly is in the marital relationship. I think a person who purposely remained virgin, for the sake of offering this gift of fidelity to their spouse, shows more of a virginal heart than the one who may be virgin by happenstance... without a deliberate choice. By the same token, because of Jesus' covenant, a non-virgin who truly has a virgin's heart, can still be faithful in marriage.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Thanks be to God, Who always leads us
in triumph in Christ, and reveals
through us the sweet aroma of His
knowledge in every place.
(2 Cor. 2:14)
|
13th June 2008, 09:25 AM
| | Senior Contributor
47
| | Join Date: 4th January 2006
Posts: 8,405
Blessings: 171,780 My Mood
Reps: 54,271,170,225,074 (power: 0) | | I'm a little saddened by the negative response, even denial of the existence of blood covenants.
I find the obsession with virginity to be a bit saddening.
The woman raped...has she no value here?
The woman divorced against her will....is she meaningless?
While I value the CHASTENESS of a person, they can be CHASTE, virgin or not.
No one is denying blood covenants.
For myself I deny that a virgin is ANY more married than the woman who was not a virgin...or that one marriage is somehow better or more sacred than the other.
it is a COVENANT that is the marriage, not sex, not blood. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
