Remaining "undefiled"; yeah, right.

by dgp 3 Replies latest jw friends

  • dgp

    I was raised as a devout Catholic myself, so I (sort of) understand the religious mindset. Not that I am foreign to sexual repression, but, don't you guys think that the idea of "remaining undefiled by a woman" is a very curious thing to hold?

    I read somewhere that Origen emasculated himself so he could preach to the women without "risk". This says little in favor of the Christians in question. It suggests that the ladies would consent to sleep with him in a second, or, even worse, that he would force them to. I also have to wonder whether such a Christian man would hold that God made him with genitals so he could emasculate himself. And then, that "be fruitful and multiply" makes no sense unless men agree to be "defiled".

    Jacob was certainly defiled many times, by several women, and that was one of the many ways God showed his blessings. Without that original defilement, alas, the House of Israel would not exist and we would have been denied salvation.

    I wonder if the virginity that was so rigidly demanded from women has anything at all with "being defiled". Apparently, not, because there is never a mention of "being defiled by men".

    A funny thought (funny in a wicked way) is that, while the Catholic Church at least nominally demands that their priests and nuns remain celibate, all others don't. Defilement, anyone?

    Wouldn't it be better to just say "don't have sex outside of marriage" and end it there?

  • LongHairGal


    Thanks for bringing this up. I always wondered about the obsession over this matter, in modern times as well as ancient times. Origen of Alexandria being one case of somebody who was extreme, to say the least. Deep seated neuroses are connected with this topic.

    I always felt the bible was contradictory with regard to this topic of 'defilement' and 'virginity' with regard to men and women. I also get the sense that things were different in the Old Testament versus the New Testament. It seems that in the OT, people were out of their minds crazy on this topic, especially with regard to women. Remember Dinah. Not that I am condoning that guy forcing her but the response from her family was totally extreme. I suppose that this was probably so intense because of their being fixated on purity of lineage.

    It seems that in the New Testament with Jesus on the scene, 'defilement' of the flesh wasn't such a big deal if a person were repentant afterward. Besides, what if a person were a victim of rape? This isn't their fault. It also seems to me that the goodness and sincerity of a person's heart was more important than the so-called purity of their body or their virginity. Remember Jesus praising the tax collectors and harlots over the pharisees and how they were more deserving of the kingdom, etc.

    So, it seems to me that the purity of somebody's body or virginity was only important depending on what age they lived in.

  • WTWizard

    Sex outside marriage (rigidly determined by the religion) is bad--unless the partner is a child that you are using a hounding call as a blind to molest. Yet, it is OK to kill and eat babies or to kidnap worldly children for use as sex slaves, as long as you do not get caught doing so.

  • MrFreeze

    Virginity was only looked well upon for women because that means their value is higher. Women back then were pretty much sex slaves. They never had any choice in the matter of marriage or maidservant or sexual intercourse.

Share this