“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

Anyone care to explain god's (speaking through Paul) rather odd declaration here?

In context, the Chapter discusses marriage. This verse translates as don't have sex with a chick unless you're married because if you read the following verses, they go on and on to to explain how a married couple should have sex with each other and shouldn't refuse each other sex and so on...

dawny0826 said:

In context, the Chapter discusses marriage. This verse translates as don't have sex with a chick unless you're married because if you read the following verses, they go on and on to to explain how a married couple should have sex with each other and shouldn't refuse each other sex and so on...

Click to expand...

Nah. the remark stands apart from any consideration of marriage, and, in fact, is accepted as true by Paul, which is evident when he then changes the subject and says "but. . . ." Paul doesn't dispute the remark at all, but simply goes on to address immorality and its remedy.

It's no different than if you said "It is good that people do not own guns." and in turn I said "but since killing with guns occurs, each man should be licensed to own a gun. I haven't disagreed with what you've said, but merely offer a solution to the misuse of guns. And in the same way, Paul doesn't disagree that “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman,” but merely offers a solution to the sexual immorality that goes on. All of which, I am told, would be the inspired position of god.

I think that Paul is talking about not having sex for two reasons:

1) He doesn't want births in the church so everyone can concentrate on ministry and prayer

2) Possibly there is an apocalyptic motivation: the end of the world is coming soon, so let's not have sex but spread the Gospel

angellous_evangellous said:

I think that Paul is talking about not having sex for two reasons:

1) He doesn't want births in the church so everyone can concentrate on ministry and prayer

Click to expand...

Births in the church? I'm not following.

2) Possibly there is an apocalyptic motivation: the end of the world is coming soon, so let's not have sex but spread the Gospel

Click to expand...

I've had dinners that took more time than the sex that followed. I doubt time was that precious of a commodity back then.

I figure Paul was one of those fools you can find in almost every religious tradition who simply reject anything pleasant about the world. Maybe he even suffered from anhedonism.

Skwim said:

Births in the church? I'm not following.

I've had dinners that took more time than the sex that followed. I doubt time was that precious of a commodity back then.

Click to expand...

The idea is that celebacy helps people focus on God during the short time that we have. Same with kids - one shouldn't be troubled with taking care of children because it takes the focus off of God. Also, Paul may have had an understanding of the apocalypse that included famine and war on earth -- he would not have wanted parents to suffer seeing their children in pain.

Sunstone said:

I figure Paul was one of those fools you can find in almost every religious tradition who simply reject anything pleasant about the world. Maybe he even suffered from anhedonism.

Click to expand...

arh you know I normally agree with you but here you are so far off the mark. celibacy , once mastered, is the most freeing expereince. which therefore can only bring you closer to the divine (whatever you define as that). that is what paul is talking about. It may not be for all, but is the spiritual ideal.

In verse 6 of this chapter, Paul goes on to say that its 'his' opinion, not a command from God....

+Xausted said:

arh you know I normally agree with you but here you are so far off the mark. celibacy , once mastered, is the most freeing expereince. which therefore can only bring you closer to the divine (whatever you define as that). that is what paul is talking about. It may not be for all, but is the spiritual ideal.

Click to expand...

I've been voluntarily celibate for 15 years. I do not believe myself to be closer to the divine for it.

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
......
1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
1Co 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

This chapter was in response to a specific query -and was written to advise these people how to handle such matters given the distress that was occurring at the time -and essentially says that due to that distress, things would be easier if people could bear to remain single -but that it was better to marry than sin, etc....

There was much persecution at the time.

Same idea as.....

Luk 21:23But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

Skwim said:

Nah. the remark stands apart from any consideration of marriage, and, in fact, is accepted as true by Paul,

Click to expand...

why ask for clarification when you've already got it all worked out in your head?

Pegg said:

why ask for clarification when you've already got it all worked out in your head?

Click to expand...

But I didn't ask for clarification concerning the meaning of the verse, which is what dawny0826 tried to do, and why I said "Nah." I asked why god would inspire Paul to accept the notion that “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman," which dawny0826's reply ignored. Normally, asking what god thinks or, lacking evidence, why he would do such and such would be asinine--it assumes a privileged communication not in evidence---however, Christians routinely to do just that. So I'm curious as to what they would come up with as an explanation for god's rather odd view of sexual relations.

Etritonakin said:

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
......
1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
1Co 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

This chapter was in response to a specific query -and was written to advise these people how to handle such matters given the distress that was occurring at the time -and essentially says that due to that distress, things would be easier if people could bear to remain single -but that it was better to marry than sin, etc....

There was much persecution at the time.

Same idea as.....

Luk 21:23But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

Click to expand...

I recognize all this; however, it still presents god (inspiring Paul to write as he did) as believing that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

Skwim said:

But I didn't ask for clarification concerning the meaning of the verse, which is what dawny0826 tried to do, and why I said "Nah." I asked why god would inspire Paul to accept the notion that “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman," which dawny0826's reply ignored. Normally, asking what god thinks or, lacking evidence, why he would do such and such would be asinine--it assumes a privileged communication not in evidence---however, Christians routinely to do just that. So I'm curious as to what they would come up with as an explanation for god's rather odd view of sexual relations.

Click to expand...

you've taken the verse out of context and were shown the context.

the subject was well explained to you but you said 'nah' lol

If Paul is against men and women having sex, why would he tell married couples 'do not be depriving each other of it'

The fact is that in the the Corinthian congregation to whom Paul wrote, fornication was a problem. The city of Corinth was like a redlight district when it came to morals. Paul was warning the christian men about fornication.

angellous_evangellous said:

The idea is that celebacy helps people focus on God during the short time that we have. Same with kids - one shouldn't be troubled with taking care of children because it takes the focus off of God. Also, Paul may have had an understanding of the apocalypse that included famine and war on earth -- he would not have wanted parents to suffer seeing their children in pain.

Click to expand...

Sensei. :bow:

It is an ideal; the birth of the monk. Thing is, it is so - unnatural - that to make priests subscribe has produced the known results.

Skwim said:

I recognize all this; however, it still presents god (inspiring Paul to write as he did) as believing that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

Click to expand...

In that particular situation, yes -I'm sure God would agree with him, though the chapter was not necessarily DIRECTLY inspired or given by God word for word -and the writer says he is giving HIS JUDGMENT -not a command from God. He did have God's spirit, and was making a judgment (not the same sort as "judge not lest ye be judged", mind you) based on Godly principles -somewhat similar to how the judges in ancient Israel would apply the commandments, etc., to individual cases brought before them -considering the different circumstances of each.

Normally, however....

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone;

The sky is gray and the sky is blue -both are true!

Pegg said:

you've taken the verse out of context and were shown the context.

the subject was well explained to you but you said 'nah' lol

If Paul is against men and women having sex, why would he tell married couples 'do not be depriving each other of it'

The fact is that in the the Corinthian congregation to whom Paul wrote, fornication was a problem. The city of Corinth was like a redlight district when it came to morals. Paul was warning the christian men about fornication.

Click to expand...

Sorry but citing context as a reason to dismiss Paul's acceptances of the remark doesn't wash. The remark was not part of the context, but rather the impetus to construct the context; the context being the rules for having sex. As I explained to dawny0826 in post #3,The context, here is what to do with the ownership of guns, which is quite different than the claim that it is good that people do not own guns. The claim simply does not figure into the rational that establishes solution for using of guns. Like wise, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" stands apart from what follows in the chapter.

Etritonakin said:

In that particular situation, yes -I'm sure God would agree with him,

Click to expand...

Glad you agree.

though the chapter was not necessarily DIRECTLY inspired or given by God word for word -and the writer says he is giving HIS JUDGMENT -not a command from God.

Click to expand...

Not saying it need be word for word. Moreover, that only pertains to what follows after 1 Corinthians 7:12, and then farther on in 7:25. Moreover, he is speaking of commands given by god, not his convictions, which would god inspired anyway, so it doesn't really matter one way or the other. The essence (message) of what Paul wrote, including 1 Co 7:1, is what god wanted him to write.

He did have God's spirit, and was making a judgment (not the same sort as "judge not lest ye be judged", mind you) based on Godly principles -somewhat similar to how the judges in ancient Israel would apply the commandments, etc., to individual cases brought before them -considering the different circumstances of each.

Normally, however....

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone;

Click to expand...

As you well know, the Bible is riddled with contradictions, both of fact and proclamation, which I leave to the believer to sort out. Christians claim Paul's writings were inspired by god (2 Timothy 3:16) and as such, his acceptance of the idea that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" comes with the imprimatur of god.

Skwim said:

Sorry but citing context as a reason to dismiss Paul's acceptances of the remark doesn't wash. The remark was not part of the context, but rather the impetus to construct the context; the context being the rules for having sex. As I explained to dawny0826 in post #3,

"it's no different than if you said 'It is good that people do not own guns.' and in turn I said 'but since killing with guns occurs, each man should be licensed to own a gun.' I haven't disagreed with what you've said, but merely offer a solution to the use of guns."
​

The context, here is what to do with the ownership of guns, which is quite different than the claim that it is good that people do not own guns. The claim simply does not figure into the rational that establishes solution for using of guns. Like wise, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" stands apart from what follows in the chapter.


Glad you agree.

Not saying it need be word for word. Moreover, that only pertains to what follows after 1 Corinthians 7:12, and then farther on in 7:25. Moreover, he is speaking of commands given by god, not his convictions, which would god inspired anyway, so it doesn't really matter one way or the other. The essence (message) of what Paul wrote, including 1 Co 7:1, is what god wanted him to write.


As you well know, the Bible is riddled with contradictions, both of fact and proclamation, which I leave to the believer to sort out. Christians claim Paul's writings were inspired by god (2 Timothy 3:16) and as such, his acceptance of the idea that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" comes with the imprimatur of god.

Click to expand...

Don't let Christian's claims -or even your own -discount what Pail plainly stated in the chapter. Context explains the very reason he made the remark in the first place.
You are simply incorrect about this.

I have to agree with Skwim. Paul is clearly saying that lifelong chastity is preferable to marriage and the sex that goes with it.