Is a womans virginity more important than a mans?

Dannager · Feb 6, 2008

Gukkor said:
Arguing over the capitalization of the word, "word?" Is this really what we've been reduced to?

You should at this point recognize that the capitalization of "Word" is symptomatic of an entire theology (and indeed, religion) that most Christians consider absolutely misguided at its core.

UBERROGO · Feb 6, 2008

Its more important for society that the womn be a virgin.

Amélie Unbound · Feb 6, 2008

UBERROGO said:
Its more important for society that the womn be a virgin.

Why?

Gukkor · Feb 6, 2008

Dannager said:
You should at this point recognize that the capitalization of "Word" is symptomatic of an entire theology (and indeed, religion) that most Christians consider absolutely misguided at its core.

I'm inclined to agree. Surely, though, it would be more productive to argue against the underlying theology than the grammar that proceeds from it, no?

Nadiine · Feb 6, 2008

Gukkor said:
I'm inclined to agree. Surely, though, it would be more productive to argue against the underlying theology than the grammar that proceeds from it, no?

The spelling argument promotes the theology though. It forces the explanation of why it's being capitalized.

And again, it's the same old tired false accusation of 'worshipping' the bible, considering it equal to God Himself, yadda yadda.

As we've explained 100 times already, we're giving respect and specific authority to scripture (elevating it) WHICH IS FROM GOD to man. It has a higher place than just any other piece of literature, it's God's direct instruction to us.
Capitalizing "Word" of God is not a problem or issue.

Nadiine · Feb 6, 2008

Amélie Unbound;43403916 said:
Why?

if you ask me, becuz it's a sexist issue. The man's ego in conquering a woman - he 'deflowers' her and it makes him the victor.
It's like taking a prize - he's HER first... type of thing.

I think it's all linked to the sexist aspect of [alpha] males conquering territory. & the more territory they take, the more prominant he becomes.
Like with males in the animal kingdom.

Tavita · Feb 6, 2008

Nadiine said:
if you ask me, becuz it's a sexist issue. The man's ego in conquering a woman - he 'deflowers' her and it makes him the victor.
It's like taking a prize - he's HER first... type of thing.

I think it's all linked to the sexist aspect of [alpha] males conquering territory. & the more territory they take, the more prominant he becomes.
Like with males in the animal kingdom.

Which has more to do with 'power' than sex really. It's a power trip.

dayhiker · Feb 6, 2008

Nadiine said:
if you ask me, becuz it's a sexist issue. The man's ego in conquering a woman - he 'deflowers' her and it makes him the victor.
It's like taking a prize - he's HER first... type of thing.

I think it's all linked to the sexist aspect of [alpha] males conquering territory. & the more territory they take, the more prominant he becomes.
Like with males in the animal kingdom.

I can't relate to that power thing over women, Nadiine.

When I have sex with a woman my main interest is to give her a very enjoyable time. After that I'm hoping she is good enough to make it enjoyable for me.

all this mixing of politics of man and woman in sex makes no sense to me.

UBERROGO · Feb 6, 2008

Amélie Unbound;43403916 said:
Why?

Because single mothers are burden on society that would be relieved with a father doing his job. To prevent single mothers, putting more value on a womans virginity is a good idea.

Nadiine · Feb 6, 2008

Tavita said:
Which has more to do with 'power' than sex really. It's a power trip.

Basically yes. But she was asking why the stigma is that.

Remember tho, this is about society in why men are patted on the back for their conquests while the female is viewed negatively as the tramp.

This is more about sleeping around than it is monogamous love of 2 people; namely married couples. It's just generalities. I just think it's based on the animal kingdom w/ the whole alpha male thingy & conquests. The virgin is more of a prize; giving him something more than just sex, but her first time.

just my opinion tho -- others mite find it's something else :angel:

LJSGM · Feb 6, 2008

when the NT speaks of sexual purity, it does not pick a specific gender to focus on. IT speaks to both men and women.

In the OT, their society was focused more on women, only because their virginity could be "proven," (Just from my POV) it did not mean that men could sleep around and still be "righteous" either. It was just an extra way of controlling people.

Nadiine · Feb 6, 2008

LJSGM said:
when the NT speaks of sexual purity, it does not pick a specific gender to focus on. IT speaks to both men and women.

In the OT, their society was focused more on women, only because their virginity could be "proven," (Just from my POV) it did not mean that men could sleep around and still be "righteous" either. It was just an extra way of controlling people.

True, but one concept I do see in biblical times was the harems & multiple marriages where the men got the women and the women weren't able to have multiple men.
(no doubt that had to do w/ women not being the breadwinners of the home - men provided for the females he kept, women couldn't provide males?)

I dunno, just a thought that came to me.

Dannager · Feb 6, 2008

Gukkor said:
I'm inclined to agree. Surely, though, it would be more productive to argue against the underlying theology than the grammar that proceeds from it, no?

As Nadiine explained, it opens the door to the discussion of the underlying theology.

Dannager · Feb 6, 2008

Nadiine said:
The spelling argument promotes the theology though. It forces the explanation of why it's being capitalized.

And again, it's the same old tired false accusation of 'worshipping' the bible, considering it equal to God Himself, yadda yadda.

As we've explained 100 times already, we're giving respect and specific authority to scripture (elevating it) WHICH IS FROM GOD to man. It has a higher place than just any other piece of literature, it's God's direct instruction to us.

That would be wonderful if that's what you're doing, but it's not. That's a half truth.

The fundamentalist community holds that the Bible is inerrant. They claim that it is without flaw. That somehow it has survived generation upon generation of revision without losing anything at all. Inerrancy or perfection are qualities that only God possesses. To ascribe them to a book, even if you think that book is the cat's meow, is to believe it possesses a property of the divine. It's lazy theology for those who can't be bothered to actually investigate scripture the hard way, the real way - through contextual, historical analysis.

And, unfortunately, the implications of this broken theology stretch to every corner of the faith - even into discussions on sexuality.

Capitalizing "Word" of God is not a problem or issue.

Yes, it is.

LJSGM · Feb 6, 2008

Nadiine said:
True, but one concept I do see in biblical times was the harems & multiple marriages where the men got the women and the women weren't able to have multiple men.
(no doubt that had to do w/ women not being the breadwinners of the home - men provided for the females he kept, women couldn't provide males?)

I dunno, just a thought that came to me.

God was not pleased with harems or polygamy, for it was not his intended purpose for a man and a woman, but as Jesus says, some things were allowed because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus has raised the standard, in that, since the Holy Spirit is indwelling, we die to ourselves and our "selfishness" and love others by following the Holy Spirit. No man, if they possess the Holy Spirit should desire to hurt their wife by desiring to marry another.

Even though there are some men that defend polygamy, in every instance from my experience, they never desired to be in such a relationship themselves.

Nadiine · Feb 6, 2008

LJSGM said:
God was not pleased with harems or polygamy, for it was not his intended purpose for a man and a woman, but as Jesus says, some things were allowed because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus has raised the standard, in that, since the Holy Spirit is indwelling, we die to ourselves and our "selfishness" and love others by following the Holy Spirit. No man, if they possess the Holy Spirit should desire to hurt their wife by desiring to marry another.

Even though there are some men that defend polygamy, in every instance from my experience, they never desired to be in such a relationship themselves.

I agree. Jesus stated the model marital union when He gave the explanation of Adam and Eve to the Pharisees trying to trap Him.
His ideal was never anything other than 1 man and 1 woman who leave their parents and become one unit together/ one flesh. That rules out any other combination as outside of God's intended will.

And I think we know why some men promote polygamy.
:sigh:

Nadiine · Feb 6, 2008

Dannager said:
That would be wonderful if that's what you're doing, but it's not. That's a half truth.

The fundamentalist community holds that the Bible is inerrant. They claim that it is without flaw. That somehow it has survived generation upon generation of revision without losing anything at all. Inerrancy or perfection are qualities that only God possesses. To ascribe them to a book, even if you think that book is the cat's meow, is to believe it possesses a property of the divine. It's lazy theology for those who can't be bothered to actually investigate scripture the hard way, the real way - through contextual, historical analysis.

And, unfortunately, the implications of this broken theology stretch to every corner of the faith - even into discussions on sexuality.
Yes, it is.

I'll reply to this tomorrow when I have the energy to bother with it..

LJSGM · Feb 6, 2008

Nadiine said:
And I think we know why some men promote polygamy.

most, if not all of the men that I have debated with did not promote it for selfish reasons, but just because it was in the bible and "lawful".... but so was slavery, and that certainly isn't God's ideal either. Why would we want to go back to something so much less of God's ideal and so much less for ourselves?

Floatingaxe · Feb 7, 2008

Nadiine said:
And I think we know why some men promote polygamy.

Because they want one who can clean, another who can cook, another to fix the car, and the rest can get real jobs!

Armistead · Feb 7, 2008

LJSGM said:
God was not pleased with harems or polygamy, for it was not his intended purpose for a man and a woman, but as Jesus says, some things were allowed because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus has raised the standard, in that, since the Holy Spirit is indwelling, we die to ourselves and our "selfishness" and love others by following the Holy Spirit. No man, if they possess the Holy Spirit should desire to hurt their wife by desiring to marry another.

Even though there are some men that defend polygamy, in every instance from my experience, they never desired to be in such a relationship themselves.

The fact is, biblically speaking, God not only allowed, but promoted and ordained polygamy, just as he did incest for a time. Why he did do away with incest, he didn't polygamy or concubinage. If fact, he used it as a blessing for many. The entire tribe of Israel was polygamous. Almost all the OT Saints had many wives and concubines. The only time it was called sin by God was when pagan worship was involved. The fact is the linage of Christ comes from generations of polygamist.

Is a womans virginity more important than a mans?

Back in Town

Senior Member

Just doing the best I can.

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

beside quiet waters He restores my soul..

Mature veteran

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Back in Town

Back in Town

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads