It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the definition of a male virgin according to the Bible?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I was pondering this very thought and just had to ask my fellow Faith forum people to help me understand this one.

It is clear an emphasis is placed on virginity in the Bible for Christians and Jews who have yet to marry. Even more so it places this emphasis on women, but also men, and it is a sin to have pre-marital sex according to the strictest interpretations of the Bible. Now, other sexual acts, such as sodomy (and im talking about fellatio/cunnilingus as well as the other end..) are described as bad and yet, they are not strictly prohibited by the Commandments.

Or are they? What IS sex and what IS virginity? Does sodomy make you no longer a virgin? Or is it an act seperate to intercourse according to the Bible? That is my interpretation, and not just to get fellatio. I really feel it is like that, there is zero chance of transfer of reproductive cells to the opposite sex's reproductive cells to create a baby, and therefore in my opinion it is not intercourse. What is your opinion?

To add to this, think of how many younger people who participate in those acts but claim their virginity still. It seems this is the way most people see it, younger people at least. Now let me take it one step further.

If sodomy isnt intercourse because there is no transfer of sex cells to the partner's sex cells, then what of actual intercourse where no sex cells are transferred to the partner's sex cells? In other words, "acting it out" in the truest form, but never finishing the action completely. Lets say never, not once, have you ever as a man even had an orgasm during intercourse itself and never transferred those sex cells to the woman. Are you still a virgin?

I know many will say No, intercourse is intercourse, it is the act and not the end of the act. But then let me ask, sodomy "mimics" intercourse in many, many ways, it just stops transfer of the sex cells to the partner's sex cells. So if you never transferred those in any other case, shouldn't you still be a virgin .. in the sense that "your seed is pure"? Because any time I have had intercourse and did not make that transfer, or attempt to with protection to prevent, I felt personally that it was not a full intercourse and that it was not a complete event and the objective was never achieved and the cells never transfered, therefore this was not officially intercourse in the sense of being de-virginized because the experience was nothing as it should have been, but most importantly, the objective was never achieved, a climax.

Now I know this could be twisted and you could say women who have had intercourse but never received that transfer or attempted transfer w/protection are virgins also. But what is the difference ..




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by runetang
 


Hi runetang/

Firstly let's see what the Bible says of union?
There are many passages in the Whole of the Bible....
Uniting two people together began with Adam and Eve....


"knew" Eve (Gen 4.1) This 'Knew Eve' happened after the fall from Paradise!
God says that "it is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen 2.18)

"great mystery" (Eph 5.32).
Apostle Peter urges husbands to honor their wives (cf. 1 Pet 3.7)


Psalm 128 ///
1) the prayers; 2) the crowning; 3) the Scripture readings; 4) the Lord's Prayer and the common cup and; 5) the Dance of Isaiah. The Sacrament of Crowning is initiated by the priest lifting the Holy Gospel and invoking the Holy Trinity, "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit . . . "






hmm,
this is more difficult to put into words,as this is quite lengthy in subject.

Theres also a bit in the Bible where not all(people)are called to be married, or something like that?

ok,
can I finish this tomorrow?



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Physically, it is a conundrum. You are trying to determine what is correct according to laws and technicalities. If you look at virginity through spiritual eyes, you see that all the sexual laws are meant to lead you to understanding of the "wedding supper of the lamb", which is used in parable to describe the final union between man and woman.

You see, virginity is simply not having been one with a woman, or vice versa according to a womans perspective. So you must understand the story of Genesis being not a tale from the past, but a story about to occur in the future. The creation story reveals that man is made first and woman comes from man. We all know that man comes from woman right now. But at the last day, man is created in the likeness of God, then he creates woman from man. Man then dwells within the woman. That is when the marriage union is complete.

So when you look at all the old testament laws about sexual relations, it is designed to bring about a judgment in your mind, but ultimately if you are persistent, to bring you to a full understanding of the hidden meaning behind them. Then the old law becomes new again.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
In short, you are saying intercourse as an experience, regardless of if it is a completed act, or if it is interrupted, is a symbolic de-virginization anyway because despite no climax or transfer, the person involved formerly a virgin is now had his/her eyes opened to this new experience?

I'd like to think if the intercourse did not complete from difficulties, interruptions, or a lack of a completion for either partner, and also a lack of any fertilization cells DISPENSED (not given to the other person but also never happened at all: ie im not talking about a condom) would mean that the virgin involved is still a virgin, particularly if it were a male, as there is no actual physical flesh differences in a de-virginized male as there are with the female.

Hypothetical Example: A virgin man decides out of pressure to have intercourse with a non virgin woman. Shortly into the event, he decides that this is wrong and stops before anyone has reached any level of .. well you know. And then the virgin man says I cannot do this. Just because he .. put it there .. does it mean hes no longer a virgin?

[edit on 12/5/2007 by runetang]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang

If sodomy isnt intercourse because there is no transfer of sex cells to the partner's sex cells, then what of actual intercourse where no sex cells are transferred to the partner's sex cells? In other words, "acting it out" in the truest form, but never finishing the action completely. Lets say never, not once, have you ever as a man even had an orgasm during intercourse itself and never transferred those sex cells to the woman. Are you still a virgin?



If you have sex but use a condom, there is no "transfer" of sex cells, but you are still having sex. That I'm sure of.

With regards to oral/anal sex, the lines are fuzzy... I think everyone regards these activities differently. Especially people who want to "fool around" but still refer to themselves as "virgins". I went to an all-girl, Catholic high school, and this is a conversation that we had many times amongst ourselves. I doubt there will ever be a consensus one way or another.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang

Hypothetical Example: A virgin man decides out of pressure to have intercourse with a non virgin woman. Shortly into the event, he decides that this is wrong and stops before anyone has reached any level of .. well you know. And then the virgin man says I cannot do this. Just because he .. put it there .. does it mean hes no longer a virgin?

[edit on 12/5/2007 by runetang]


Yes. He "put it there" thus de-virginizing himself.

An orgasm doesn't matter. To use your hypothetical, but changing it so that both are virgins, what if only one of those people had an orgasm? Does that mean that only the one that had the orgasm is no longer a virgin? Or would both of them have lost their virginity because of one orgasm? Neither of those scenarios make any sense to me.

Insertion = sex.

In fact, in Louisiana, if you look at the rape statutes, emission is not necessary. I am not trying to compare rape with consensual sex, but can you imagine if the statute did not contain that wording? There would be rapists trying to say that they didn't even have sex with the victim, because there was no emission!



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
Hypothetical Example: A virgin man decides out of pressure to have intercourse with a non virgin woman. Shortly into the event, he decides that this is wrong and stops before anyone has reached any level of .. well you know. And then the virgin man says I cannot do this. Just because he .. put it there .. does it mean hes no longer a virgin?


But think of it another way.......

Even if a man decides he is still a virgin because his seed is not transferred, there are two parties involved - the male and female. So if the man has made up his mind that he is still a virgin, but the female decides she is no longer a virgin because of conscious, then whom is correct? Remember God knows our thoughts. If as a course of this event, one suffers that they have sinned yet the other does not, yet both have partaken in the act, both cannot be right as a matter of law. It is a matter of having a clean mind that accepts the gift of God.

Here is a simple



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Gee, where's Bill Clinton when you need him (for a situational subjective definition in this context)?

Actually, I'm not really sure it matters at this point who's a virgin and who isn't. Probably would've been simpler if it just said, "Thou shalst not rubbeth thy naughty bits outsideth thine marital boudoir", or something.

I mean, we know the drill. No foolin' around outside marriage. Are we searching for a loophole, or... ??



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
okay, just checking.

in the hypothetical, the girl was de-virginizing the guy, and then he stopped shortly into it and said I cant do this. Was he still a virgin. To clarify. And most of you seem to say no, he is no longer a virgin.

but thats a pretty crappy deal for mr. hypothetical, lol. I mean he put it there for like 60 seconds lets say, and then stopped, and was uncomfortable the entire time, and didnt feel right.

(No! This is not me! Sheesh)



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Geez, don't you religous people read the bible? It apparently takes an atheist to set you straight. Read Genesis 38.8-10. God (Yahwey) killed Onan because he spilled his seed on the ground. That is, he didn't use his semen for procreation. All of the activities you've mentioned above that fit that are a sin. It doesn't matter whether one masturbates, has fellatio, or engages in anal intercourse. The bible considers it a sin so I would have to say that such activities definitely define non-virginity in a male.

Occam



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Occam
Geez, don't you religous people read the bible? It apparently takes an atheist to set you straight. Read Genesis 38.8-10. God (Yahwey) killed Onan because he spilled his seed on the ground. That is, he didn't use his semen for procreation. All of the activities you've mentioned above that fit that are a sin. It doesn't matter whether one masturbates, has fellatio, or engages in anal intercourse. The bible considers it a sin so I would have to say that such activities definitely define non-virginity in a male.

Occam


Actually atheists are known to see the ignorance in taking the bible literally, with good reason - abundant hypocrisy. What you are ignoring are the spiritual meanings behind all the old testament law. That particular event you mention was because it was a brothers duty to marry a brothers wife and give him children after his death, according to the law. Onan thought to himself, that the offspring would not be his children so he ejaculated onto the ground (basically primitive contraception).

What the story is trying to explain is the relationship between Jesus (our brother who physically died) and ourselves, and the fact that we are now to "marry" his wife "the so-called church/woman". If we do not become one with her, we are just as guilty as Onan.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   
A virgin is anyone pure.

One of the Saints said (I forgot who)

" I have not known women, but am not a virgin "

Its not just virgin in act, but in mind also. Looking on a women lusting after her if shes not your wife would take your virgin purity away from you in mind.

So basically the pure virgins are the ones who didnt do in act and mind/thought.

And these ones are rare, and are angels because angels dont have privates. Its the angelic virtue and is very dear to God.

Now if you dont have virginity, then it is still possible to have chastity, which behind humility the saints say is dearest to God.

peace.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Basically it boils down to the very simple explaination, that any sexual activity outside of a marriage disqualifies you from virgin status. It is in the commandments under the heading Thou shall not commit adultery, which pertains to any sexual act outside of a marriage. From the way you have spoken in your posts it looks very much like you are looking for some kind of loophole, or justification for whatever it is you or someone else close to you is wanting to do. The very idea you don't consider giving or getting head as sex itself says something as well and on that while you are throwing hypotheticals out there. You don't consider giving head as being sex, so if you caught your girlfriend performing this act on someone else it would not upset you? You wouldn't consider it cheating, I mean it isn't like she is having sex with the guy maybe this is her equivelent of shaking hands or hugging someone.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join