divorce and hymen.

[The Neo Nerd]

so really, Jesus was perhaps telling the men in his day not not divorce their wives because of the bad attitude men show toward divorced women.... he knew it would be detrimental to the womans future if she was divorced.

Jesus compassion for women is evident in his words... it would be nice if more men thought like him.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic

-Q

 

[Pegg]

Please tell me you are being sarcastic

-Q

Jesus was against divorce... so was the old testament. Im not being sarcastic at all. I believe that Jesus words were to discourage men from divorcing their wives for the sake of the women. The old testament uses strong language with regard to divorce too.

In Jesus day, women had no control over getting divorced. The men were the only ones who could choose to divorce and the women were at their mercy. That situation is still the same today in Palestine where the OP states the situation for women.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

What about it. You seem to be saying a lot of stuff without actually making a point.

Are you saying that YOU believe that a women should not get divorced because then she cant get remarried without being a whore?

in conservative jewish community,who was submitting laws, there is no dating!

since the community disrespect divorced women , when someone want to get married he would prefer a vigin(single) woman.

why is this, marriage then wasn't considered as pure personal thing , it was sometimes considered as covenant between two families(or tribes). at that time they would became one family(or tribe), one coherent family(or tribe) that it defend it's members.

but when it comes to divorce, it is like a covenant had been revoked, and problems or disputes would take a place.

So even if someone has no problem marrying a divorced women he might be in trouble with her x husband (or her x husband's family), so many would prefer marrying a vergin at that time.

since any woman in the world has a natural instinct to have a warm husband who love her and respect her , a divorced women in that circumstance would think of making affairs out of wedlock,(because customs are very harsh on divorced women and it does not help her to get another husband).

so the community led her to make affairs out of wedlock , and led her to commit adultery.

did you get me!

 

[Madhuri]

in conservative jewish community,who was submitting laws, there is no dating!

since the community disrespect divorced women , when someone want to get married he would prefer a vigin(single) woman.

why is this, marriage then wasn't considered as pure personal thing , it was sometimes considered as covenant between two families(or tribes). at that time they would became one family(or tribe), one coherent family(or tribe) that it defend it's members.

but when it comes to divorce, it is like a covenant had been revoked, and problems or disputes would take a place.

So even if someone has no problem marrying a divorced women he might be in trouble with her x husband (or her x husband's family), so many would prefer marrying a vergin at that time.

since any woman in the world has a natural instinct to have a warm husband who love her and respect her , a divorced women in that circumstance would think of making affairs out of wedlock,(because customs are very harsh on divorced women and it does not help her to get another husband).

so the community led her to make affairs out of wedlock , and led her to commit adultery.

did you get me!

Very good, I understand!

So then, are you trying to argue that Jesus' instructions were only relevant for that society and that divorce is ok in a different culture where tribes are not involved?

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

Jesus was against divorce... so was the old testament. Im not being sarcastic at all. I believe that Jesus words were to discourage men from divorcing their wives for the sake of the women. The old testament uses strong language with regard to divorce too.

In Jesus day, women had no control over getting divorced. The men were the only ones who could choose to divorce and the women were at their mercy. That situation is still the same today in Palestine where the OP states the situation for women.

thank you pegg,

what is your thoughts about Pharisees and that they were taking the laws literally and they wreren't undrestanding what was beyond the laws.

concerning divorce of course.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

Very good, I understand!

So then, are you trying to argue that Jesus' instructions were only relevant for that society and that divorce is ok in a different culture where tribes are not involved?

almost yes, however I don't belive that Jesus meant to prevent divorce at all.

he rather was criticizing Pharisees for being lenient with divorce issues.

as for tribal or cultural background, I made an approach to reality, but it might not be punctual approach.

I am sure that the community then was male community, and the women were oppressed.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Jesus was against divorce... so was the old testament. Im not being sarcastic at all. I believe that Jesus words were to discourage men from divorcing their wives for the sake of the women. The old testament uses strong language with regard to divorce too.

In Jesus day, women had no control over getting divorced. The men were the only ones who could choose to divorce and the women were at their mercy. That situation is still the same today in Palestine where the OP states the situation for women.

So instead of changing the views on women. Jesus in his infinite wisdom decided to perpetuate it and make the men keep the women in an unhappy marriage.

Instead of freeing women from the domination of men, jesus in his infinite wisdom decided to put them further into male domination.

Wow what a saviour, where do i sign up.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

in conservative jewish community,who was submitting laws, there is no dating!

since the community disrespect divorced women , when someone want to get married he would prefer a vigin(single) woman.

why is this, marriage then wasn't considered as pure personal thing , it was sometimes considered as covenant between two families(or tribes). at that time they would became one family(or tribe), one coherent family(or tribe) that it defend it's members.

but when it comes to divorce, it is like a covenant had been revoked, and problems or disputes would take a place.

So even if someone has no problem marrying a divorced women he might be in trouble with her x husband (or her x husband's family), so many would prefer marrying a vergin at that time.

since any woman in the world has a natural instinct to have a warm husband who love her and respect her , a divorced women in that circumstance would think of making affairs out of wedlock,(because customs are very harsh on divorced women and it does not help her to get another husband).

so the community led her to make affairs out of wedlock , and led her to commit adultery.

did you get me!

So what you are saying is that one should keep a women in an unhappy relationship because she wont be able to control herself once she's divorced and will go around sleeping with men all over the place.

-Q

 

[Pegg]

thank you pegg,

what is your thoughts about Pharisees and that they were taking the laws literally and they wreren't undrestanding what was beyond the laws.

concerning divorce of course.

The real problem was that by Jesus day they had replaced Gods laws with their own 'oral' laws.

The mosiac law made allowance for divorce ONLY on the grounds of unfaithfulness on the part of the wife. The Pharisees would have known that if they had stuck to the Mosaic laws, but the fact is that they had deviated from those laws a long time earlier. They had replaced the written laws with 'Oral' laws...the oral laws were not Gods laws, they were the laws created by the Pharisees and religious teachers and it was the use of those laws that Jesus objected so strongly to.

Those oral laws made it acceptable to divorce ones wife for many small things such as burning the dinner. And the people who were only being taught the oral laws by the teachers eventually came to believe that divorce was Ok for even such small things. So when they asked Jesus if it was ok to divorce for many small things, he promptly directed them back to the mosaic law and said that only on the ground of fornication can you divorce your wives.

 

[linwood]

Why is so much emphasis placed on female chastity?

Because the people who place that emphasis have a bronze age morality.

Why are women so reviled for not being virgins? Every one of your points point to shame, disrespect, dishonour, uncleanliness etc because of a basic biological urge being fulfilled.

Because the people who revile women in such a manner have a bronze age mentality.

I wouldn`t marry a virgin, I have no desire for a virgin.

 

[Pegg]

So instead of changing the views on women. Jesus in his infinite wisdom decided to perpetuate it and make the men keep the women in an unhappy marriage.

Instead of freeing women from the domination of men, jesus in his infinite wisdom decided to put them further into male domination.

Wow what a saviour, where do i sign up.

he was protecting womens rights

Men could divorce for any small reason because the Jewish teachers had made numerous rules that only a perfect woman could live up to...if a wife failed in any respect of the mens rules, she could be divorced.

Jesus was putting things right by stating that only if she is unfaithful to you can you divorce her. Thats why the christian congregation only made divorce allowable on the grounds of fornication....they were following Jesus teaching on divorce.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm proud to say that I'm a "whore" if having sex outside of marriage is all it takes to be one.

I'm also glad I live in a place where I'm not disrespected for making mature, responsible choices regarding sex which aren't anyone else's business. Any culture which places so much emphasis on female chastity is not doing things right in my opinion. Lighten up! :thud:

 

[Sahar]

Because the people who place that emphasis have a bronze age morality.



Because the people who revile women in such a manner have a bronze age mentality.

I wouldn`t marry a virgin, I have no desire for a virgin.

I'd say celebrating indecency and dirtiness belong to the pre-historic era.

 

[Madhuri]

I'd say celebrating indecency and dirtiness belong to the pre-historic era.

I don't actually think that any behaviour 'belongs' to a particular time in history.

I also think that any idea of dirtiness is highly subjective. I can never relate to the idea of sex as dirty or nudity as sickening. I can, however, relate to the idea of casual sex being potentially unhealthy. But that is a bit different to simply being or not being a virgin.

 

[Sahar]

I don't actually think that any behaviour 'belongs' to a particular time in history.

I also think that any idea of dirtiness is highly subjective. I can never relate to the idea of sex as dirty or nudity as sickening. I can, however, relate to the idea of casual sex being potentially unhealthy. But that is a bit different to simply being or not being a virgin.

Any thing can be justified. When some people believe that there is no sacredness and everything is relative, indeed you can do whatever you want and make it look shiny and smell good even if it was really rotted. When you distort the instinctive conscious that long for cleanliness, anything can be acceptable...from fornication to rape and murder.

Sex and nudity in themselves are not dirty but they can be dirty when you put them in the wrong context. As long as it's in the context of marriage, they drive their sacredness and beauty.

 

[Madhuri]

Any thing can be justified. When some people believe that there is no sacredness and everything is relative, indeed you can do whatever you want and make it look shiny and smell good even if it was really rotted. When you distort the instinctive conscious that long for cleanliness, anything can be acceptable...from fornication to rape and murder.

Sex and nudity in themselves are not dirty but they can be dirty when you put them in the wrong context. As long as it's in the context of marriage, they drive their sacredness and beauty.

I can understand the idea of what you are saying, although I have a slightly different view. I do not think that sex and nudity rely on marriage to be 'pure' or 'clean'. For starters, these words are subject to interpretation, their meaning is not specific. But how I see the quality of a thing or an act is based in the consciousness or mentality of those involved.

So for instance, if two people are in a long term relationship with every intention of being together, respecting and loving one another for their lives, then this is beautiful whether they are married or not. Marriage is a legal binding only, or the meaning of marriage is dependent on the culture of where it occurs.

Then you can have a married couple who hate each other, are abusive, lack respect and love for one another and then the relationship is not beautiful, it is not 'pure'.

If somebody is taking advantage of another person for sex, it is not beautiful. But if a person is having sex with great love and care for the other person, then it is wonderful no matter if a ceremony has occurred or legal papers have been signed.

And I could not think of someone as 'dirty' for simply not being virgin. Life is not so black and white. Everything is dependent on context; time, place, and circumstance.

 

[Meow Mix]

Any thing can be justified. When some people believe that there is no sacredness and everything is relative, indeed you can do whatever you want and make it look shiny and smell good even if it was really rotted. When you distort the instinctive conscious that long for cleanliness, anything can be acceptable...from fornication to rape and murder.

Sex and nudity in themselves are not dirty but they can be dirty when you put them in the wrong context. As long as it's in the context of marriage, they drive their sacredness and beauty.

I don't disagree that sex with a married partner is beautiful and even sacred, but sex before marriage isn't dirty or rotten in my opinion. (I distinguish this from adultery/cheating, of course, which is indeed dirty and rotten because you're lying to someone and betraying their trust in that case).

I'm not saying running around and having sex with just anyone should be encouraged, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with two mature, consenting non-married adults engaging in sexual activity if they prepare for any consequences and know what they're doing -- use protection, know their partners and their history, etc.

Sex is a beautiful thing, it can be between two soulmates/life lovers but it can also be between two mature adults who want to be closer to one another even if they don't end up marrying. I find nothing wrong or rotten or dirty about that.

 

[Kerr]

Any thing can be justified. When some people believe that there is no sacredness and everything is relative, indeed you can do whatever you want and make it look shiny and smell good even if it was really rotted. When you distort the instinctive conscious that long for cleanliness, anything can be acceptable...from fornication to rape and murder.

Sex and nudity in themselves are not dirty but they can be dirty when you put them in the wrong context. As long as it's in the context of marriage, they drive their sacredness and beauty.

May I ask a question. What is marriage to you? I mean, there are plenty of people who are in good relationships but aren´t married. And there are people who are married and live in misery. In my own family I know a couple who where together for 30-40 years before they got married. Is not the nature of the relationship itself more important then marriage for this sacredness and beauty that you speak of?

And personally, I do not think anything is sacred and I do think everything is relative (well, more in that I realize that everyone has their own view then that I believe in relative morality)... but that does not mean I think everything can be justified, especially not crimes like rape and murder.

 

[Sahar]

I can understand the idea of what you are saying, although I have a slightly different view. I do not think that sex and nudity rely on marriage to be 'pure' or 'clean'. For starters, these words are subject to interpretation, their meaning is not specific. But how I see the quality of a thing or an act is based in the consciousness or mentality of those involved.

So for instance, if two people are in a long term relationship with every intention of being together, respecting and loving one another for their lives, then this is beautiful whether they are married or not. Marriage is a legal binding only, or the meaning of marriage is dependent on the culture of where it occurs.

Then you can have a married couple who hate each other, are abusive, lack respect and love for one another and then the relationship is not beautiful, it is not 'pure'.

If somebody is taking advantage of another person for sex, it is not beautiful. But if a person is having sex with great love and care for the other person, then it is wonderful no matter if a ceremony has occurred or legal papers have been signed.

And I could not think of someone as 'dirty' for simply not being virgin. Life is not so black and white. Everything is dependent on context; time, place, and circumstance.

Well, marriage is not about being legally recorded. Marriage is a declaration of commitment, love and care between a man and a woman to people, but an important element that adds sacredness to this relationship that it's a covenant in front of God; a covenant of commitment, loyalty, respect, mercy, justice, love, forgiveness and mutual rights and duties. If marriage is this covenant then there shall be no abuse, no disrespect, no ill-feelings...etc.

 

[Madhuri]

Well, marriage is not about being legally recorded. Marriage is a declaration of commitment, love and care between a man and a woman to people, but an important element that adds sacredness to this relationship that it's a covenant in front of God; a covenant of commitment, loyalty, respect, mercy, justice, love, forgiveness and mutual rights and duties. If marriage is this covenant then there shall be no abuse, no disrespect, no ill-feelings...etc.

So you can see how simply saying 'married' is too black and white. For instance, a lot of people get married in a non-religious context. And then there are people who make those vows to each other, but do not formally get married. It's about the intentions, the love, the mentality of the people involved, in my opinion, that makes an act better or worse.