Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	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

    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.
    

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

    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

   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

    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
    

    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
    

    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

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
    

    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
    

    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
    

    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
        

    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

    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
    	

    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

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

    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

    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
     
    

    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
    
     

    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

    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

    RE: .21  John,
    
                     Yeah....My football coach used to try to tell us the
    same thing.....we just laughed.  And then the Navy......   ;-)
    
    
    Dave

    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

    
     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

    RE: .23   Bonnie,
    
                       Yes....and other studies have found that some play
    better and others play worse.  It must depend on the person.
    
    
    ;-)
    Dave

    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)

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