It makes perfect sense to me, based off of my relations with women and It probably makes sense to a good deal of woman as well. With sexual relations comes a lot of luggage.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It Is Good For A Man Not To Have Sexual Relations With A Woman.
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
It makes perfect sense to me, based off of my relations with women and It probably makes sense to a good deal of woman as well. With sexual relations comes a lot of luggage.
Scott C.
Just one guy
I don't know what Paul meant. It's obvious from other scriptures that God wants people to marry, have sex, and have children.
He is speaking from experience. Now as to which he is speaking Is another topic. The holy spirit works in mysterious ways.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Paul felt that the end was near and that reproduction of the species was no linger required. God-breathed is not synonymous with rational, consistent or perfect. Everything that is God-breathed is human spoken.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Easton's Bible Dictionary - Scripture
Scripture invariably in the New Testament denotes that definite collection of sacred books, regarded as given by inspiration of God, which we usually call the Old Testament ( 2 Timothy 3:15 2 Timothy 3:16 ; John 20:9 ; Galatians 3:22 ; 2 Pet 1:20 ). It was God's purpose thus to perpetuate his revealed will. From time to time he raised up men to commit to writing in an infallible record the revelation he gave. The "Scripture," or collection of sacred writings, was thus enlarged from time to time as God saw necessary. We have now a completed "Scripture," consisting of the Old and New Testaments.
Scripture invariably in the New Testament denotes that definite collection of sacred books, regarded as given by inspiration of God, which we usually call the Old Testament ( 2 Timothy 3:15 2 Timothy 3:16 ; John 20:9 ; Galatians 3:22 ; 2 Pet 1:20 ). It was God's purpose thus to perpetuate his revealed will. From time to time he raised up men to commit to writing in an infallible record the revelation he gave. The "Scripture," or collection of sacred writings, was thus enlarged from time to time as God saw necessary. We have now a completed "Scripture," consisting of the Old and New Testaments.
______________________________________________
Then I take it you too don't believe1 Corinthians is scripture that was "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,." Fair enough.
_______________________________________________
Yup. No different than what Christians do all the time when making their points.
So, just what is this context that changes the essence of my question?
and, exactly what difference does the rest of the quote make to the statement in question: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.?
________________________________________________
Here is the basis of my post:
1 As I said, Assuming that " All Scripture is God-breathed [meaning inspired by God, due to the inspiration of God,] and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
2) Which would make1 Corinthians 7:1 a point god wanted to convey,
C) Then he wants us to know that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
And that being the case, do you care to explain god's rather odd declaration here?
.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
So what? God breathed 1 Corinthians 7:1 telling us that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
.
.
Apparently, Skwim doesn’t believe in context, lol.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
It's nice that you have some definition to use for scripture, but not that nice that your definition has no meaning regard to what I said.
OK.
So we both understand that the Bible doesn't make any such unqualified statement.
You just want to argue as though it did. Got it.
Brilliant.
Tom
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Well if you had read on down and pick up what the subject is about, Then you would see what Verse 1 is about.
As for Verse 1, people wrote to Paul, asking for a explanation, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Then in Verses 2-3, Paul explains That it is not for a man to touch a woman who is married. To avoid fornication, but to let every woman have her own husband.
It would be best for people to read and then pick up what the subject and Article is about, before jumping to conclusions.
Didn't anyone ever learn this in school in doing a book report, to find out what the subject and Article is about, before jumping into a book or Chapter or a Verse.find out first what the subject and Article is about first.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Really!
You said X is not Y: Paul's were not scripture and neither was Timothy.
I showed you that others with far more credibility than yourself say that X is Y, Paul and Timothy's writings are scripture.
Now if this doesn't make any sense then all I can say is
Have a good day.
,
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
"God breathed" to my thinking means 'inspired by' a/the divine spirit. As an artist I have been inspired by many things, including a divine spirit. But that never made what I did while so inspired "inerrant", or flawless. Nor did it make it applicable to everyone else.
I have no disagreement with the quote you posted, only with the way the "bibliolaters" (and you, in this instance) interpret it.
Note that none of this means that scripture is inerrant, nor that it is absolute (universally applicable to all humans in all situations). To read is to interpret, it is the act of interpreting words on a page, and interpretation is a subjective endeavor. To presume that it can produce an absolutely objective result is both dishonest and irrational.
Last edited:
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Indeed.
I'll repeat myself Paul and Timothy weren't scripture when they were written.
It makes as much sense as nitpicking any other word you can think of to ignore whatever I might say. If you want to discuss things, I'm here. If not, stick to whatever makes you happy.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
He isn't an atheist though.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I'm sorry you're having trouble quoting. I never said "yup" to your "Take one short bit out of context and refuse to acknowledge the rest of the quote."OK.
So we both understand that the Bible doesn't make any such unqualified statement.
You just want to argue as though it did. Got it.
Brilliant.
Tom
To this I said: "So, just what is this context that changes the essence of my question?"
Want to try again?
_____________________________________________
As I told Hockeycowboy in post #6,
God first makes the following unqualified declaration.
"It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." PERIOD!
Everything that follows is god's acknowledgement that man can't abide by this so he tells us how best to deal with our transgression of his declaration:"It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." PERIOD!
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command.
But none of this nullifies his declaration that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." Perhaps it would help to read the analogy I gave Hockeycowboy in post 6.
_______________________________________________
For this to be meaningful you'll have to show how the context you have in mind changes the essence of my conclusion.
.
Ok non-Christian then
The problem with this statement is that it is wholy incomplete. It could even be labeled "a baith"
To start... let's see the whole of the reference (interestingly enough but not surprising) so that it is complete.
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
We see here, that there is something people wrote about and not just about a man have a sexual relationship with a woman. What did they write about:
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
Sexual immorality. And then he promotes sexual relationship with your spouse.
Thus... shame, shame my dear Skwim.
Is there something deeper that you need to talk about?
Last edited: