• 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!

God and His Take on Human Sexuality

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
What I'm reading is that god condones sexual relations.
Yes, obviously. You have a reproductive system for a reason.

God also sees giving up the right to sexual relations that one would have in marriage in order to pursue the religious and or clerical state as even more praiseworthy. Get married, have kids and you've taken a perfectly valid Christian path. Or you could give up all your possessions, renounce the right to marriage and live a life of work, contemplation and prayer and do even better in reaching the Christian ideal.

Obviously, the latter isn't expected of the majority and Paul concedes as such.
 
Last edited:

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
I seriously doubt ether A&E knew what god was talking about when he mentioned pregnancy, what giving birth was, or what children were
Disagree strongly with this statement. When God instructed Adam, before Eve was created, to begin the studying of all the animals and naming them, he put Adam to work that probably lasted years and year.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name. 20 And Man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, he found no helpmate, his like.
It is my opinion that Adam was alone for at least 40 to 50 years doing this work, and simply existing - before God created his wife, Eve. This is why I think Adam sinned. He had been alone for so long that once he was given a companion he loved, he could not again face loneliness. While this displayed a lack of faith; it also makes him very human.
Offspring
Because of being familiar with the animals, having lived with each kind so as to give them names, he most certainly was acquainted with them bearing offspring, with them engaging in sex, with them raising their offspring.

God wants us to enjoy sex with our mates
Proverbs 5:15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Thy fountains shall be poured forth, as water-brooks in the broadways. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee. 18 Let thy fountain be blessed; and have joy of the wife of thy youth.
19: As a lovely hind and a graceful roe, let her breasts satisfy thee at all times: be thou ravished continually with her love.​
Christian times - what's up
Here I would encourage you to read 1 Cor ch. 7 several times to get the gist of it, but let me briefly show what is up.
1 Corinthians 7:28 But if thou shouldest also marry, thou hast not sinned; and if the virgin marry, they have not sinned: but such shall have tribulation in the flesh; but I spare you.​
Here we come to what is important. Paul knows that those who marry, whether we speak of men or women, will big problems in their marriages. Just look at how many today divorce relatively quickly. This is really not permitted.

He is therefore encouraging those who can to remain single and keep being single since this will bring less pains and tribulations upon the believer. This is why he tells us 'it is good not to touch a woman (sexually).'
In chapter 7, he does acknowledge the fact that many of us cannot remain single without falling into sin. He then tells the sisters and brothers to marry to avoid sinning. He also tells them how to give their mate the marriage dues and not to withhold this due.

One problem with marriage is obvious: many who marry want to divorce and marry someone else in 5 or 10 years. This is not Biblically permitted. This clearly is another reason for why singleness and abstinence may be good for some while others simply need to be married to avoid sinning.

If you need to have this expanded, you can ask for more.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
First ask yourself. Why Cain is not listed under Adam's genealogy in Genesis. In fact they are listed as 2 seperate genealogies.

That is where they come up with the "Serpent seed doctrine" that says that Eve had sex with the serpent and produced Cain.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
But now in 1 Corinthians 7:1 he unqualifiedly says that having sexual relations with a woman ain't good.
He (Paul) probably plays for the other team. :)

Marriage is a sacrament after all, therefore God clearly intends for most people to marry.
Now if only God would insist on quality, not quantity.

Exactly, The intent is to preserve blood lines.
Which is objectively silly, as God can make people out of dirt, supposedly.

Of course, if one doesn't feel Paul's words carry the authority of god---the Bible not necessarily representing the thinking of god---then almost everything he and, I assume, the other New Testament writers say is nothing more than the opinions and interpretations of mortals; carrying no more weight than that of any other Christian, then or now.
Indeed. There's more to life than Paul and his projected issues. :)

Yes, let's doom her to a lifetime of never getting laid again while the man isn't forbidden to get laid after a divorce....

Genesis 4:1-2 Again, tells us that the couple procreated. That's not a commandment.
They never have a wedding either, but somehow that's a sacrament.

It is precisely because the sexual act is so sacred in God's eyes that it is to be restricted.
For whom?

Obviously, the latter isn't expected of the majority and Paul concedes as such.
If it's only optional, it shouldn't be treated as divine mandate, then.

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name. 20 And Man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, he found no helpmate, his like.
Kinda makes you wonder how he decided the nonhumans weren't "satisfactory".

Because of being familiar with the animals
Eden wasn't the entire globe, so like the Ark, you can't fit all the lifeforms into a garden, so what about the nonhumans Adam never saw?

Doesn't Proverbs also have many misogynistic tendencies?

Biblical Men: We loathe women until we're horny.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Disagree strongly with this statement. When God instructed Adam, before Eve was created, to begin the studying of all the animals and naming them, he put Adam to work that probably lasted years and year.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name. 20 And Man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, he found no helpmate, his like.
It is my opinion that Adam was alone for at least 40 to 50 years doing this work, and simply existing - before God created his wife, Eve. This is why I think Adam sinned. He had been alone for so long that once he was given a companion he loved, he could not again face loneliness. While this displayed a lack of faith; it also makes him very human.
Offspring
Because of being familiar with the animals, having lived with each kind so as to give them names, he most certainly was acquainted with them bearing offspring, with them engaging in sex, with them raising their offspring.
Obviously you've got your own little scenario going for yourself. Can't argue with your imagination of course, but can say, it's hardly convincing.


God wants us to enjoy sex with our mates
Proverbs 5:15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Thy fountains shall be poured forth, as water-brooks in the broadways. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee. 18 Let thy fountain be blessed; and have joy of the wife of thy youth.
19: As a lovely hind and a graceful roe, let her breasts satisfy thee at all times: be thou ravished continually with her love.​
Christian times - what's up
Here I would encourage you to read 1 Cor ch. 7 several times to get the gist of it, but let me briefly show what is up.
1 Corinthians 7:28 But if thou shouldest also marry, thou hast not sinned; and if the virgin marry, they have not sinned: but such shall have tribulation in the flesh; but I spare you.​
Here we come to what is important. Paul knows that those who marry, whether we speak of men or women, will big problems in their marriages. Just look at how many today divorce relatively quickly. This is really not permitted.

He is therefore encouraging those who can to remain single and keep being single since this will bring less pains and tribulations upon the believer. This is why he tells us 'it is good not to touch a woman (sexually).'
In chapter 7, he does acknowledge the fact that many of us cannot remain single without falling into sin. He then tells the sisters and brothers to marry to avoid sinning. He also tells them how to give their mate the marriage dues and not to withhold this due.
Yup, but not before informing the reader that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” An unqualified statement.

.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I take this to mean you believe Paul's words carry the authority or sanction of god.

No, that would be 'Sola Scriptora.'

I did read them, but among those that are relevant saw that they only addressed how you or others chose to use it, not what it was, which was the issue.

.

My view was expressed as stated. The bottom line is you only allow the extreme views.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
No, that would be 'Sola Scriptora.'

My view was expressed as stated. The bottom line is you only allow the extreme views.
If "That their testimony was inspired by God" (your post 18) doesn't mean the "words carry the authority or sanction of god," then what does "inspired by god" signify? That god inspired Paul to say something about men having sexual relations with women, but Paul's “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” wasn't it? Paul got it wrong? God's inspiration failed?

.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If "That their testimony was inspired by God" (your post 18) doesn't mean the "words carry the authority or sanction of god," then what does "inspired by god" signify? That god inspired Paul to say something about men having sexual relations with women, but Paul's “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” wasn't it? Paul got it wrong? God's inspiration failed?

.

Middle ground, being inspired by God, and speaking from the limited perspective of a fallible human being does not translate to their words are the authority nor sanction of God. The authority and sanction of God would mean Revelation as in the claim of Jesus Christ, and Paul made no such claim.

Check you definition of 'inspiration,' or the verb 'inspire.'
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Middle ground, being inspired by God, and speaking from the limited perspective of a fallible human being does not translate to their words are the authority nor sanction of God.
Then coming from the limited perspective of a fallible human being they're no more trustworthy than a simple opinion coming from anyone. May as well trust Christopher Hitchens, "Religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins, and astrology ends and astronomy begins." or "The god excuse, the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument," from George Carlin.

The authority and sanction of God would mean Revelation as in the claim of Jesus Christ, and Paul made no such claim.
So no one should take anything said in the Bible as having the authority or sanctioning of god except the claims of Jesus?

.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Then coming from the limited perspective of a fallible human being they're no more trustworthy than a simple opinion coming from anyone. May as well trust Christopher Hitchens, "Religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins, and astrology ends and astronomy begins." or "The god excuse, the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument," from George Carlin.


So no one should take anything said in the Bible as having the authority or sanctioning of god except the claims of Jesus?

.

It remains a problem that you are insisting only on the possibility of extreme either or views concerning scripture to support your agenda. I made my view clear. Not much room for dialogue here.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
But then, does not.
But he does and continues to do so, nevertheless there are even better ways to live and God condones such lives even more so than the married state.

There is no contradiction. You can have both. The only difficulty is imagined by yourself.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
But he does and continues to do so, nevertheless there are even better ways to live and God condones such lives even more so than the married state.

There is no contradiction. You can have both. The only difficulty is imagined by yourself.
So it's a matter of

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

A is not B​
and
A is B​
Interesting god you've got going for yourself.
head-spinning1.jpg


.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
If you look at the entire passage, it's really just an advertisement on Paul's part to encourage men and women to get married, if they wish to have sex and steer clear of immorality.
I think that is quite incorrect. Paul was personally confused sexually, felt guilty about it, and probably had desires that we ought not talk about -- and anyway was pretty sure the whole world was gonna end soon -- so he thought the best thing to do was not bother. But if you had to, well at least restrict it to the one you're married to. And even then, couldn't you try to keep it to once or twice a year?
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
I think that is quite incorrect. Paul was personally confused sexually, felt guilty about it, and probably had desires that we ought not talk about -- and anyway was pretty sure the whole world was gonna end soon -- so he thought the best thing to do was not bother. But if you had to, well at least restrict it to the one you're married to. And even then, couldn't you try to keep it to once or twice a year?
That could be, I've heard different ideas about Paul. Personally, I've never liked that guy.
 
Top