Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: TomSmedley
Like fasting, this kind of abstinence is viewed as a temporary condition.

It is *accidentally* temporary, not *essentially* temporary. It is *accidentally* temporary because typically one or the other spouse is subject to temptation. But for those not subject to such temptation, abstinence need not be temporary, otherwise a married couple would be obligated to engage in sexual intercourse long after both spouses had, on account of advanced age or some other condition, ceased to have a desire for sexual intercourse. And therefore, since Mary and Joseph were not in such a state as to be subject to this sort of temptation, they could, without any sinfulness, or injustice toward one another, abstain from sexual intercourse permanently.

-A8

236 posted on 12/05/2006 3:46:29 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]


To: adiaireton8
"And therefore, since Mary and Joseph were not in such a state as to be subject to this sort of temptation, they could, without any sinfulness, or injustice toward one another, abstain from sexual intercourse permanently."

Even Christ was tempted by Satan. Even if we agree that Mary and Joseph abstained, why should we believe that they were not subject to sexual temptation?

238 posted on 12/05/2006 3:51:44 PM PST by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson