God and His Take on Human Sexuality

[Deidre]

I'm happy for you.... your husband is a very fortunate man to have you . Tell him Matty is jealous... I'm happy for him

Aw, I'll tell him. lol You'll always be there, Matt. My friend.

 

[Spiderman]

Aw, I'll tell him. lol You'll always be there, Matt. My friend.

I'm so lucky! Remember how hard I once had to fight for our friendship?

Well it was worth it. It has not been producing bad fruit lately....I still miss your beautiful voice via phone

Also, if it isn't too much to ask, some day could you pm me that cute pic of you in the pig tails making a funny face? Don't feel pressured, but I'd be delighted to have it. I love that pic

 

[Spiderman]

Maybe I shouldn't have asked. I just think you're really cute in pig tails. They drive me crazyyy

 

[Grandliseur]

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.

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.

.

If you take that statement alone and run with it, you loose sight of the reason for saying it. But, each to his own, and it seems you want to be right even if there is an explanation for the scripture.

 

[Deidre]

I'm so lucky! Remember how hard I once had to fight for our friendship?

Well it was worth it. It has not been producing bad fruit lately....I still miss your beautiful voice via phone

Also, if it isn't too much to ask, some day could you pm me that cute pic of you in the pig tails making a funny face? Don't feel pressured, but I'd be delighted to have it. I love that pic

haha I think we're derailing the thread now.

I will pm you, Pope. lol I remember that pic.

 

[blü 2]

Now, I seriously doubt ether A&E knew what god was talking about when he mentioned pregnancy, what giving birth was.

I agree it's not clear that he was speaking from experience.

 

[Glaurung]

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

Yes, if one is unmarried and wishes to live more resolutely in the service of God.

“It is good for a man to have sexual relations with a woman.”

Yes, if one takes on the obligations of wedlock. It's called context.

Wedlock gives you the right to sexual relations with your spouse, and that's well and good. Paul never says otherwise. (In fact Paul even states that prolonged abstinence is inappropriate for the married 1 Corinthians 7:5). However, if you renounce your right to marriage (and therefore all sexual relations) so that you can dedicate yourself entirely to the service of God then you've done something even more praiseworthy. The sanctity and dignity of the married state is not lessened by the superiority of the religious state; marriage is a good thing in and of itself, it's just not the best thing.

Interesting god you've got going for yourself.

Or you could stop being purposely obtuse.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, if one is unmarried and wishes to live more resolutely in the service of God.

Yes, if one takes on the obligations of wedlock.

How nice of you to take it upon yourself to qualify god's remark. Just guessing here, but I'm betting you didn't clear this with him first, which would be kind of arrogant, don't you think? Or maybe you don't.

Or you could stop being purposely obtuse.

Obtuse or not, it's still an interesting god you've got going.

.

 

[Glaurung]

How nice of you to take it upon yourself to qualify god's remark. Just guessing here, but I'm betting you didn't clear this with him first, which would be kind of arrogant, don't you think? Or maybe you don't.

You're the one trying to hamfist a contradiction that simply isn't there. When you take Paul's argument as a whole the goodness he ascribes to celibacy is clearly contextualized. You deliberately pretend not to see that context.

 

[blü 2]

Wedlock gives you the right to sexual relations with your spouse, and that's well and good.

I completely disagree with that phrasing.

No one has a right to sexual relations with another person.

Only free mutual competent consent should ever form the basis of an occasion of sexual relations, in or out of wedlock.

No exceptions.

 

[Glaurung]

No one has a right to sexual relations with another person.

Nevertheless marriage is a contract and contacts have terms. So while I wouldn't claim that a person has an unqualified right to sex from their spouse (you can't force someone to have sex with you) there is a just expectation of the sexual availability of one's spouse. It's kind of a part of the deal of getting married in the first place.

 

[blü 2]

Nevertheless marriage is a contract and contacts have terms. So while [...] you can't force someone to have sex with you [..] there is a just expectation of the sexual availability of one's spouse. It's kind of a part of the deal of getting married in the first place.

I agree with that.

What I'm objecting to is the assertion of sexual right, an entitlement independent of the other's consent.

 

[Glaurung]

What I'm objecting to is the assertion of sexual right, an entitlement independent of the other's consent.

In retrospect I could have phrased it better.

What I intended to mean is that a Christian is within their moral rights in having sexual relations with their spouse. (Assuming everything in good faith).

 

[Skwim]

You're the one trying to hamfist a contradiction that simply isn't there.

Sure it is, and in the dark recesses of your heart I think you know it. That your need for a flawless god requires you to wrap his words in exculpatory nonsense doesn't rectify the dilemma. It only demonstrates desperation.

When you take Paul's argument as a whole the goodness he ascribes to celibacy is clearly contextualized. You deliberately pretend not to see that context.

Paul presents no argument. All he does is present god's dictate. “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman,” which stands in stark contradiction to his former regard for sexual relations. God did a clean 180, and with no explanation and no justifying context.

.

 

[Glaurung]

Sure it is, and in the dark recesses of your heart I think you know it.

No, it's that I can read beyond a single verse and understand that verse in the context of the argument Paul is making.

And as a side note you also fail to understand that I am not a Protestant, the Bible is interpreted and understood in the greater context of the apostolic faith. It is not just the explicit words of the biblical texts but also the traditions on how those texts are to be understood. In Catholicism the Bible isn't stand alone, it exists in a context of tradition. So even if I were to grant you (for no other reason than for this point here) discrepancies in the face value readings of certain texts (such as in some of the finer details of the Gospel accounts) it wouldn't mean all that much.

That your need for a flawless god requires you to wrap his words in exculpatory nonsense doesn't rectify the dilemma. It only demonstrates desperation.

The only desperation is yours. Your strategy here has been to take a verse, read it in complete isolation, then find another "contradictory" verse(s) in a completely different book also read in isolation and then demand that said verse(s) be related in no wider context than that directly related to the initial verse in question. Never mind that those verses have no shared context at all. Never mind Genesis has little directly to do with Corinthians.

Basically, you point is this: "I've taken this one verse in Corinthians, and these here verses in Genesis. And taking these verses in isolation they contradict." You then dance around like a pigeon on a chessboard confusing snark with actual argument. You have no argument because your tactics are disingenuous.

Paul presents no argument. All he does is present god's dictate.

Firstly, your refusal to capitalize God when it is used as a proper noun speaks volumes to your childishness. But perhaps I'm just being nitpicky.

Secondly, as I said before, you can't isolate verses from all context and then dictate the terms of the interpretation of those verses. Paul does consider celibacy a good but he contextualizes such in a wider argument about marriage. If you would but read it honestly.

Thirdly, you seem fixated on sex and Christianity's relationship with it. I'll let you speculate on what others may take that to suggest about you.

 

[12jtartar]

When god made man and woman he constructed each so they could mate and produce offspring. To this end man was given a penis to insert into the woman so his sperm could reach and fertilize her eggs. In Genesis 3:15 god verifies this expectation when tells Eve:

I will cause you to have much trouble
when you are pregnant.
And when you give birth to children,
you will have much pain.​

Now, I seriously doubt ether A&E knew what god was talking about when he mentioned pregnancy, what giving birth was, or what children were. But because both A&E had been given libidos (I believe this is a logical conclusion) they did have sex. In fact this is confirmed in Genesis 4:1-2 where we read

1 Adam had sexual relations with his wife Eve. She became pregnant and gave birth to a son.
She named him Cain. Eve said, “With the Lord’s help, I have made a man!”
2 Eve gave birth again to Cain’s brother Abel.​

So god expected A&E, and presumably their descendants, to be likewise driven to have sexual relations.

In short, god created mankind to desire and have sexual relations. YET, in 1 Corinthians we read:

1 Corinthians 7:1
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
​

Evidently these "matters" concerned sexual immorality, and god--continuing to speak through the Apostle Paul---begrudgingly allows sexual relations between husband and wife.

1 Corinthians 7:2
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
​

So what's going on here? First god specially constructs humans so they can have sexual relations, AND gives them libidos to prod them to do so..

Later on he specifically tells Noah and family to pursue these sexual relations.

Genesis 9:7
As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."​

But now in 1 Corinthians 7:1 he unqualifiedly says that having sexual relations with a woman ain't good.



ANYONE CARE TO EXPLAIN?

.

​

.

Skwim,
This is not really hard to understand.
First, the ability to procreate is a sacred gift from God, and to be pleasing to God, we must treat it as such. Since God created all things, He has the right to give instructions as to the use of His gifts.
If you read the whole chapter of 1Corinthians 7 you will see that Paul was speaking about not getting married, so that a person could devote more of his time to preaching and teaching about the means of Salvation. This was especially important in the first century, because the Christian Congregation was started at Pentecost 33CE., and all the true followers of Jesus in the first century would become Co rulers with Jesus, in heaven, Romans 8:17, Revelation 20:4-6. Paul said that if they did marry they would commit no sin, but it would put pressure on them, because they would have to spend much time considering their mate, instead of teaching about the Christ.

 

[Skwim]

No, it's that I can read beyond a single verse and understand that verse in the context of the argument Paul is making.

As I've already pointed out, Paul makes no argument. All he does is present god's dictate.

And as a side note you also fail to understand that I am not a Protestant, the Bible is interpreted and understood in the greater context of the apostolic faith. It is not just the explicit words of the biblical texts but also the traditions on how those texts are to be understood. In Catholicism the Bible isn't stand alone, it exists in a context of tradition. So even if I were to grant you (for no other reason than for this point here) discrepancies in the face value readings of certain texts (such as in some of the finer details of the Gospel accounts) it wouldn't mean all that much.

That you're not a Protestant makes no difference; although, I can easily see Catholicism doing exactly what you're trying to do here. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you got your notions straight out of some apologetics resource for Catholics.

The only desperation is yours. Your strategy here has been to take a verse, read it in complete isolation, then find another "contradictory" verse(s) in a completely different book also read in isolation and then demand that said verse(s) be related in no wider context than that directly related to the initial verse in question. Never mind that those verses have no shared context at all. Never mind Genesis has little directly to do with Corinthians.

The contexts in which all the passages I quoted appear, and their appearance in different books, don't change their meaning one wit.

Basically, you point is this: "I've taken this one verse in Corinthians, and these here verses in Genesis. And taking these verses in isolation they contradict." You then dance around like a pigeon on a chessboard confusing snark with actual argument. You have no argument because your tactics are disingenuous.

"Dancing"? I've stood perfectly still and said one thing and one thing only: "god contradicts himself in his position on sexual relations. Here is my evidence: . . . . . . . . . " On the other hand, you're the one tap dancing away from the issue with your contrived explanation.

Firstly, your refusal to capitalize God when it is used as a proper noun speaks volumes to your childishness. But perhaps I'm just being nitpicky.

You know, I've been here seven years and have sometimes wondered if anyone would ever bring this up. Your the first. Congratulations on your nitpickyness. Thing is I've never considered the god of Abraham to have any more status than any of the other gods. Hence, I never capitalize the word, unless, that is, it begins a sentence or is in reference to moi.

Secondly, as I said before, you can't isolate verses from all context and then dictate the terms of the interpretation of those verses

And, as I believe I've said before, there is no context that would make a difference.

Paul does consider celibacy a good but he contextualizes such in a wider argument about marriage. If you would but read it honestly.

But it isn't Paul who is making a personal pronouncement, it's god through Paul. So it doesn't make any difference what Paul personally considers, thinks, or does.

Thirdly, you seem fixated on sex and Christianity's relationship with it. I'll let you speculate on what others may take that to suggest about you.

Why is it that although the Bible (god) has no problem talking about sex, in fact, it seems to relish the subject, so many Christians find it detestable, disturbing, disconcerting, disgusting, distressing, discomforting, distasteful, disagreeable, or just plain difficult---take your pick---to talk about? (No need to answer. I know why.) That I may seem fixated on sex is no doubt because of the Bible's extraordinary concern with so many of its aspects, which are often problematic and beg a closer look. In this case of course, sex rears its ugly head because god does a complete about-face in regard to sexual relations. Had this not happened, I wouldn't give a dry fart about his approval of them in the Old Testament.

.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim,
This is not really hard to understand.
First, the ability to procreate is a sacred gift from God, and to be pleasing to God, we must treat it as such.

Curious; in as much as everything we have supposedly comes from god, essentially making them all a gift, wouldn't they all be sacred? From where I stand the answer would be "Yes," which makes any reference to their sacredness superfluous, unless, that is, one is trying to personally hype their importance, which isn't justified anywhere I've read.

Since God created all things, He has the right to give instructions as to the use of His gifts.

Heck, even if he didn't create all living things he still has the right to give any instructions he wishes. Of course this doesn't mean one is obligated to follow them---look at how many are disregarded by Christians. And again, the "gift" thing doesn't impress.

If you read the whole chapter of 1Corinthians 7 you will see that Paul was speaking about not getting married, so that a person could devote more of his time to preaching and teaching about the means of Salvation.

In fact, I have read the whole chapter. Not at all interesting. Thing is, the verse at issue stands alone as a pronouncement of god's regard for sexual relations. That he begrudgingly does allow sexual relations between husband and wife does not change this regard.

Chapter seven is constructed much in the same way a parent might set down rules for his teenage daughter's first foray into sex.

The parent starts off with his judgment of teenage sex:

"Teenagers should not have oral, anal, or vaginal sex."
​

But recognizing that his teenage daughter will most likely engage in at least one of these anyway, he goes on:

However, because you may likely have oral, anal, or vaginal sex despite my wishes, here's what I want you to do. (Note: the father has not changed his judgment that teenagers should not have oral, anal, or vaginal sex.)

1. Respect your body and his. Never engage in anything you feel is humiliating or degrading. (Note: the father has not changed his judgment that teenagers should not have oral, anal, or vaginal sex.)

2. Never do anything that harms you. (Note: the father has not changed his judgment that teenagers should not have oral, anal, or vaginal sex.)

3. Always practice safe sex. (Note: the father has not changed his judgment that teenagers should not have oral, anal, or vaginal sex.)

4. Always have sex in a safe environment. If necessary, at home. (Note: the father has not changed his judgment that teenagers should not have oral, anal, or vaginal sex.)

5. Always feel free to say "No," and insist on it. (Note: the father has not changed his judgment that teenagers should not have oral, anal, or vaginal sex.)

6. Respect his privacy and expect him to respect yours. (Note: the father has not changed his judgment that teenagers should not have oral, anal, or vaginal sex.)

Etc.

Etc.
​

Note: The father never changed his judgment that teenagers should not have oral, anal, or vaginal sex, just as god never changed his decree that “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

.

 

[Faithofchristian]

God made male and female, instituted Marriage b

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.

​

If to what you say is correct, That Adam may have been alone for 40 to 50 years, before God created Eve.

How many times during that time before Eve, that Adam pass by the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Being tempted?

It was not Adam being deceived that was found in the transgression.
but Eve being deceived was found in the transgression.

You made some good points.Thank you

 

[Grandliseur]

God made male and female, instituted Marriage b



If to what you say is correct, That Adam may have been alone for 40 to 50 years, before God created Eve.

How many times during that time before Eve, that Adam pass by the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Being tempted?

It was not Adam being deceived that was found in the transgression.
but Eve being deceived was found in the transgression.

You made some good points.Thank you

Thank you for your kind answer.