The Virgin Thread

[Sketcher]

. Sorry I didn't know how to do the quote thing.

I just copy and paste the beginning and ending tags.

 

[lawtonfogle]

i think the person name was Hosea, or something of that type, and he was a phrophet
nopt preist

 

[the_man]

Think about that.

But that's not what Jesus said about marraige. Sure, you have to work hard for more intimacy and you'll have your disagreements, but look at what He says:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Matthew 19:4-6

No longer two, but one. What God Himself has joined together.

First of all, we should try to find out what 'one flesh' means or translates to. What you would find is that it best translates to one organism to what we would understand in modern english. Now, little common sense is necessary to realize that it is not that the couple will be joined at the hip and be in each others presense at any given time. The fact is they remain two distinct people. So what does this mean? I think the first time "one flesh" is used sheds some light on this.

Gen 2:24-25 "24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."

v. 25 gives us some in sight as to what one flesh looks like. The nakedness spoken here does not refer to physical nakedness (which is what one would assume looking at it at face value). It refers more to a relational nakedness, no barriers between, transparent to each other...one organism, one flesh.

Now back to your gripe. Can you achieve this level of transparency, nakedness, being one flesh after your first week of marriage? I don't think so.

The other thing to point out is that where ever you find 'one flesh' in the Bible you find the word BECOME infront of it. We should not ignore this word because there is a difference between BE-ing and BECOM-ing. That is why it is a present continuous process. It's a learning to become 'one flesh'. That is what I meant in my earlier post. However, this is a background issue to what we are discussing (it is less important).

The more important one is that sex in and of itself does not create this 'one flesh'. You proved this point by what you said "...Jesus said about marraige". The fact that two people have sex does not make them the 'one flesh', marriage makes them 'one flesh'. Every where you look in the Bible, there is a clear distinction between just having sex and being married (one flesh), there is no equation of the two. (i.e. there are several situations (and there is even Law to state) that when the first occurs it should be followed by the second, why? because the first cannot and is not the second).

 

[Niels]

Hmm, interesting take. I could see your point, but I'm not sure it was not emphasized then... just that the emphasis is more twisted now, because it is not the norm.

I took a 300-level women's studies class last semester, and one of the things we looked at was sexuality and women over the past one hundred years or so... and virginity was grossly emphasized when it was the norm, too. Essentially, women who were not yet married were seen as having their worth in their purity. If they did not still have their purity, and people knew this fact, then they were devalued.

(btw, I am a virgin and most definitely am waiting until my wedding in August, but I have my reasons for seeing things the way I do.)

Sounds like an interesting course. It's amazing how much can change in such a relatively short period of time!

I didn't say it wasn't emphasized back then, just that virginity is no longer the norm, so more fuss must be made in order to get peoples' attention today. Back then the emphasis you describe was part of the dominant cultural text of the day. By definition, that's a massive amount of emphasis! Absolutely. But I'm proposing that it takes more effort and fuss from virginity advocates to go against the flow than to go with it. That's what I was getting at.

By the way, it's awesome to hear that you and your fiancé waiting until marriage. By doing so, you're setting a wonderful example for others, and will surely be blessed through that decision.

 

[B®ent]

TheMan, interesting points. I still disagree, however. My perspective of sex is that it's a covenant; in fact it is quite literally a blood covenant. The two are bound together in this covenant. Even when they move on, there are still going to be consequences to their past (being bound to another man/woman.) I believe God will always view the two are being "connected" in a unique way.

I see virginity as a precious gift; and it the best gift my future bride can give to me on our wedding night. It saddens me to see Christians downplaying it (claiming it is "overemphasized"). In fact, it angers me such that I don't feel I can continue in this discussion. Being cordial means a lot to me.

Nothing personal against anyone.

Peace to All,
Johannes

 

[Breetai]

1 - If I can pick between any non-virgin and being alone, I pick being alone.
2 - If I can pick between any virgin and being alone, I pick the virgin.
3 - Therefore, I only date virgins.

Wow.

This is a very short-sighted and condenscending thing to say. This comment leads me to believe that this person is unable to see past physical traits into one's soul and is unBiblical and worldly in their conclusions about people.

I'm both personnally and spiritually offended.

 

[Breetai]

TheMan, interesting points. I still disagree, however. My perspective of sex is that it's a covenant; in fact it is quite literally a blood covenant. The two are bound together in this covenant. Even when they move on, there are still going to be consequences to their past (being bound to another man/woman.) I believe God will always view the two are being "connected" in a unique way.

Does this covenant apply if one of the two people involved in sex was involved against their will (ie. raped)?

 

[B®ent]

Does this covenant apply if one of the two people involved in sex was involved against their will (ie. raped)?

No.

 

[the_man]

TheMan, interesting points. I still disagree, however. My perspective of sex is that it's a covenant; in fact it is quite literally a blood covenant. The two are bound together in this covenant. Even when they move on, there are still going to be consequences to their past (being bound to another man/woman.) I believe God will always view the two are being "connected" in a unique way.

Happy Birthday by the way. I agree with part of what you are saying. There are always consequences to sin (seen or not) and just from the nature and intimacy of sex, "connection" occurs (literally and figuratively). However, sex cannot be the covenant/promise of marriage anymore than placing a hand under a thigh to seal a promise is the covenant of the promise (this would be most equivalent to a handshake when handshakes meant something. This was the custom used in the old testiment to seal a covenant). They (sex and the handshake) have to stand on something much bigger than themselves. And that is, the commitment of wills. Without such, it (sex or the handshake) is meaningless.

(In order to avoid confusion, I will go on to explain the above. When I say it is meaningless, I am not desecrating God's gift of sex. Just as a handshake is meaningless without a business deal, sex does not mean anything without the convenant of marriage. It is only in the security of marriage that sex can reach it's fullest potential. Anything else is second rate.)

I see virginity as a precious gift; and it the best gift my future bride can give to me on our wedding night. It saddens me to see Christians downplaying it (claiming it is "overemphasized"). In fact, it angers me such that I don't feel I can continue in this discussion. Being cordial means a lot to me.

And you are entitled to viewing virginity as such. The way I view it is that we can make one of two mistakes with virginity. We can either treat it less than it should be treated or we can make it more that it was meant to be. The lower bound must not be crossed, but neither can we breach the upper bound.

 

[AveMaria]

TheMan, interesting points. I still disagree, however. My perspective of sex is that it's a covenant; in fact it is quite literally a blood covenant.

What about the fact that not all women have complete hymens or have stretched their hymens through years of sports (such as gymnastics or hoseback riding) and the first time they have sex, no blood is shed?

If there are two newlywed and chaste/virginal couples, and couple A's first experience with sex produces blood (and thus your blood covenant) and couple B's does not produce blood, is there a difference between the marriages?

 

[girlofgrace727]

I'm a virgin, and haven't even kissed a guy yet..I'm waiting until God brings me into my relationship with the guy I'm gonna marry and I'm gonna share all my firsts with him...now if I was given my choice in life I know who I would be marrying, and he was in a relationship he knew he shouldn't have been, didn't have sex or anything close, but it's still something that I would have to work on, because he had shared a lot of firsts with that girl, and I had waited for him..but thats just something we would have to talk out when in a relationship

 

[Hope_0004]

Is there something to be said for forgetting about the past when you finally find the person you want to spend the rest of your life with? I think we're forgetting the power of love, here. I am in love right now, and it doesn't matter to me what he's done in the past, as long as he is mine from now on. I can't imagine losing him, and I wouldn't let my insecurities about the past get in the way. I understand others' opinions, but my love is just so strong. I do think about things he's done and it will give me that "ugh" feeling, but I get over it because I love him more than anything.

I just think that if you really are in love with someone, you can get past a lot of issues in order to be with that person. But maybe some could have never fallen in love in the first place, knowing certain things about the other person. Maybe that's where it breaks down.

 

[Tenorvoice]

This thread has run its course.