PDA

View Full Version : Sex limitation in marriage.



Pages : [1] 2

SpeakSlow
Feb 21st 2007, 12:17 AM
Most Christians (including many on this forum), tend to think that as long as you are married to the person, there is no limitations in sex. As far as I know, The Bible doesn't go into specifics on this.

Yet, you all seem to think that anything goes. I think this is completley and definately sinful. We were intended to have sex a certain way, not pervert that way with other methods of our imaginations.

To me, oral, anal, toys, and other such things/positions are sinful. In MY opinion, I think God intended for us to have sex a certain way and not get creative.

But like many things, I am often mistaken...
Don't mean to offend anyone, but what do you guys think?

If anyone needs me to explain further, please let me know.

DAISHI
Feb 21st 2007, 12:40 AM
Oral had better not be sinful.

SpeakSlow
Feb 21st 2007, 12:43 AM
Oral had better not be sinful.

Just think about it. Doesn't it kinda seem like it wasn't God's intentions for use to do that?

ddlewis86
Feb 21st 2007, 12:48 AM
Actually I tend to believe that the Bible is pretty specific about this issue. :)
I won't even go into The Song of Solomon.


Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

SpeakSlow
Feb 21st 2007, 01:05 AM
Actually I tend to believe that the Bible is pretty specific about this issue. :)
I won't even go into The Song of Solomon.


Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

I meant what acts are specifically forbidden.

That verse just furthers my point anyway.

Christopher1990
Feb 21st 2007, 05:20 AM
Oral had better not be sinful.

Bwahaha. Glad you can be candid about that! I personally find toys to be sinful...

ddlewis86
Feb 21st 2007, 05:48 AM
I meant what acts are specifically forbidden.

That verse just furthers my point anyway.

That means whatever you do in bed with your spouse is undefiled.

Big T
Feb 21st 2007, 05:52 AM
We've already been through this in another thread in here. Scroll down to the "phone s3x" thread.

Metatron
Feb 21st 2007, 08:42 AM
SpeakSlow,

I personally believe you are very wrong in your assumptions about sex within marriage. Your ideas are very legalistic in nature which are not Christian based.

The Bible says nothing about limiting the frequenty of sexual activity in marriage nor what types of sexual activities you can engauge in. As a matter of fact, the Bible encourages frequent sex in marriage and says those who withhiold sex from their husband/wife is wrong.

SpeakSlow
Feb 22nd 2007, 12:28 AM
SpeakSlow,

I personally believe you are very wrong in your assumptions about sex within marriage. Your ideas are very legalistic in nature which are not Christian based.

The Bible says nothing about limiting the frequenty of sexual activity in marriage nor what types of sexual activities you can engauge in. As a matter of fact, the Bible encourages frequent sex in marriage and says those who withhiold sex from their husband/wife is wrong.

I know there has been a thread on this, but sex just seems wrong when not used in a traditional, and only for baby-making. Why would God allow for people to sexually use their bodies in ways they weren't meant to be used? Seems kinda dirty...I don't know....

SpeakSlow
Feb 22nd 2007, 12:46 AM
Actually I tend to believe that the Bible is pretty specific about this issue. :)
I won't even go into The Song of Solomon.


Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Can't we see this verse as an order to keep the bed undefiled?
And doesn't whoremonger mean liek someone who is perverted?

Metatron
Feb 22nd 2007, 12:58 AM
I know there has been a thread on this, but sex just seems wrong when not used in a traditional, and only for baby-making. Why would God allow for people to sexually use their bodies in ways they weren't meant to be used? Seems kinda dirty...I don't know....

First, you are thinking in a non traditional way. The sex only for baby making only is not Biblical at all. It was made up by people such as St. Augustine and use again in the Victorian Era. You are thinking only within biology. There is a very strong emotional element to sexuality as well. When people have sex they form a very strong bond with each other. This is the one of the major reasons why God forbids sex outside of marriage and encourages it strongly within marriage.

Early Hebrew teaching gives guide lines for sexual activity depending on profession. People who were unemployed were suppose to have sex very day. Donkey-drivers once a week, camel drivers once a month, and sailors once every six months.

Biologically, when younger people are more able to have healthy children their sex drives are much higher. As people get older there ability to have healthy children decreases and also their sex drive decreases and well. There are variations but this is the outline or normality.

Doberman
Feb 23rd 2007, 05:49 AM
HAHA i cant belive this thread discussing if a married man and women cant do what they want in bed...

You sound like a catholic...

Fubajuba
Feb 23rd 2007, 06:05 AM
Does anyone else see the post above as insultingly simple and juvenile?

First off, stating "You sound like a catholic" is using a term that describes millions of people in our current world, and billions of people in history. Simply using a word like that with an overwhelmingly negative connotation is not right...

And secondly... you're also insulting the men on this board by boiling an issue of actual debate to something trivial. The attitude of being able to "do what people want" in bed is a very dangerous one. There are many things people do in bed that bring absolutely no glory to God in any way, shape, or form.

Doberman
Feb 23rd 2007, 06:37 AM
Does anyone else see the post above as insultingly simple and juvenile?

First off, stating "You sound like a catholic" is using a term that describes millions of people in our current world, and billions of people in history. Simply using a word like that with an overwhelmingly negative connotation is not right...

And secondly... you're also insulting the men on this board by boiling an issue of actual debate to something trivial. The attitude of being able to "do what people want" in bed is a very dangerous one. There are many things people do in bed that bring absolutely no glory to God in any way, shape, or form.
Youre right, i appologixe to all catholics, i didnt mean it like that.

Can you give scripture backup, (not vatican). About the things mentioned here being against god?

Fubajuba
Feb 23rd 2007, 07:00 AM
How about all the scriptures commanding us to do all things to bring Glory to God. Now let's put some s*x acts into perspective (go down a list of s*xual fetishs if you really need to), and lets see how those pan out to bring glory to God. S*x can easily become a demigod in our lives. I am not for making s*x out to be some dirty thing, but I am also not for making it acceptable in every shape or form.

And also, I'm far from Catholic. Just fyi.


I know there has been a thread on this, but sex just seems wrong when not used in a traditional, and only for baby-making. Why would God allow for people to sexually use their bodies in ways they weren't meant to be used? Seems kinda dirty...I don't know....

Well, similar logic can be applied to humans and things like their minds. Us humans have always made our most impressive innovations into weapons somehow. Why whould God give humans abilities to do things against him at all? Look at the millions of ways we have of killing each other.

Doberman
Feb 23rd 2007, 07:08 AM
How about all the scriptures commanding us to do all things to bring Glory to God. Now let's put some s*x acts into perspective (go down a list of s*xual fetishs if you really need to), and lets see how those pan out to bring glory to God. S*x can easily become a demigod in our lives. I am not for making s*x out to be some dirty thing, but I am also not for making it acceptable in every shape or form.

Care to explain that? How is enjoying gods gifts, between man and a wife make us sin? Arent you greatfull for wath the lord has given you?

DAISHI
Feb 23rd 2007, 07:35 AM
I know there has been a thread on this, but sex just seems wrong when not used in a traditional, and only for baby-making. Why would God allow for people to sexually use their bodies in ways they weren't meant to be used? Seems kinda dirty...I don't know....

There is a trend of shame concerning sex. The fact that you mention the "only for baby-making" quote is interesting. This comes down to us from one of our church fathers, St.Augustine. He grew up in a pagan background where sex was used for pagan purposes, and he came to view sex very badly. Outside of reproduction he considered it wrongful.

DAISHI
Feb 23rd 2007, 07:42 AM
Can't we see this verse as an order to keep the bed undefiled?
And doesn't whoremonger mean liek someone who is perverted?

Oye. Just to settle your mind on the term "whoremonger"...

Reference number 4205
Containing the base reference "pornos", indicating to sell; sex in the context of sells, in other words, a prostitute.

KEEP GOING
Feb 23rd 2007, 11:40 AM
That means whatever you do in bed with your spouse is undefiled.

Surely an@l sex is wrong.......even within marriage.......surely.

It may cause men to start fantasizing over male an@l sex as one is the same as another.

This is no good at all !

No way is an@l sex allowed.

Fubajuba
Feb 23rd 2007, 01:24 PM
Care to explain that? How is enjoying gods gifts, between man and a wife make us sin? Arent you greatfull for wath the lord has given you?

Ok, in all honesty... I'm not going to respond to those questions... You're aiming loaded and pointless questions at me. That happens to be one of the things I lack patience entirely for.

God did give us s*xuality, but he also gave us brains. Our brains cause us to sin all the time. Our hands cause us to sin. Our eyes, ears, mouth, legs, etc.... Just because god gave us a s*xual side, we are not given a ticket to do what ever our defiled heart desires. I Am actually surprised that this concept is so alien to Christians. I think the whole concept of abstinence and s*x until marriage has made an even more distorted view than the Victorian or Puritan view of s*x. We as Christians then train our minds to abstain from what the rest of the world indulges in until we're married. Once we're there, we suddenly go just as crazy as a non-Christian would. We are called to live above our flesh. We cannot rebel entirely against it, for God did give us what we have. But to simply do any s*xual thing you want is just merely indulgence, no matter your rationalization.

Doberman
Feb 23rd 2007, 03:58 PM
Surely an@l sex is wrong.......even within marriage.......surely.

It may cause men to start fantasizing over male an@l sex as one is the same as another.

This is no good at all !

No way is an@l sex allowed.
homosexuality is a mental dissorder, it only sick people. You can be abused as a child and grow up to be sick, or you can simply be sick and go to prison and perform that.

I agree that hole is off limits, its not made for that, god gave it another purpose. But if you would travel back there it dosent make you think about men.

Fubajuba
Feb 23rd 2007, 06:32 PM
By that mentality, how can oral s*x be rationalized as ok?

Doberman
Feb 23rd 2007, 07:00 PM
Oral s*x is justified between a married man and women that want to share their love. What about kissing? Its a man and a woman, they are both enjoying it, but is it wrong? Cause its not making children?

Steve M
Feb 23rd 2007, 07:07 PM
You know, in my Church we have a saying. "Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent."

Which is my fancy way of saying ... it's fine to say what you think, but where's the scripture on the subject?

Fubajuba
Feb 23rd 2007, 07:37 PM
Oral s*x is justified between a married man and women that want to share their love. What about kissing? Its a man and a woman, they are both enjoying it, but is it wrong? Cause its not making children?

I honestly don't see how you'd justify oral s*x between a man and a woman if you see anal s*x as completely wrong... The mouth wasn't made for those body parts just as the anus was not made for them.

Doberman
Feb 23rd 2007, 07:52 PM
I honestly don't see how you'd justify oral s*x between a man and a woman if you see anal s*x as completely wrong... The mouth wasn't made for those body parts just as the anus was not made for them.

The lips where made for kissing!? Its impovizing.

No neither of us seem to be able to use scripture in this, cause its not related to christianity!

Toolman
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:00 PM
God did give us s*xuality, but he also gave us brains. Our brains cause us to sin all the time. Our hands cause us to sin. Our eyes, ears, mouth, legs, etc....

Fuba,

Do you believe it is possible for a man and wife to have sex that is not sinful?

If our brains cause us to sin at all times then how is it possible to do anything that is not sinful?


Just because god gave us a s*xual side, we are not given a ticket to do what ever our defiled heart desires.

What is the final authority in all matters of faith in a Christian's life?

Is it not the scriptures?

So, again, the call goes out. Where is the scriptural text that tells us how to behave in the marriage bed?

I know what I would point to if asked that question. I'm curious to what scriptural text you go to.

If there is none then I would think there should be some concern that it is simply opinion of man and not the authority on which we are to base our faith.

SpeakSlow
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:17 PM
There are certain things in The Bible that aren't addressed specifically, (like drug-abuse and this particular topic).

BUT, we can infer using other parts of the Bible that other things not specifically mentioned are wrong.

Like we can use excesive alcohol consumption as a parallel to drug use.

So saying that there is no scripture on sex limitations and since there is no scripture on it so anything goes is wrong.

Doberman
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:23 PM
you compare drugs to oral? are you serious? This is so sad...

Toolman
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:24 PM
There are certain things in The Bible that aren't addressed specifically, (like drug-abuse and this particular topic).

I disagree and I think there is quite a bit on sexual relationships between man and wife in the scripture.


BUT, we can infer using other parts of the Bible that other things not specifically mentioned are wrong.

Like we can use excesive alcohol consumption as a parallel to drug use.

So saying that there is no scripture on sex limitations and since there is no scripture on it so anything goes is wrong.

Ok, then lets continue that line of thinking.

What parts of scripture do you use to infer the limitations you have put forth in this thread?

Those limitations were "oral, anal, toys, and other such things/positions are sinful".

Lets start with what scripture infers what position sex is to be performed in?
We can begin there and continue forward.

I am truly interested and am not trying to be a jerk (you never know on a message board so I'm making it clear hopefully).

Toolman
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:25 PM
you compare drugs to oral? are you serious? This is so sad...

I think he was paralleling drugs to alcohol abuse not to oral sex.

That's what I understood anyway.

Christopher1990
Feb 23rd 2007, 11:31 PM
I disagree and I think there is quite a bit on sexual relationships between man and wife in the scripture.



Ok, then lets continue that line of thinking.

What parts of scripture do you use to infer the limitations you have put forth in this thread?

Those limitations were "oral, anal, toys, and other such things/positions are sinful".

Lets start with what scripture infers what position sex is to be performed in?
We can begin there and continue forward.

I am truly interested and am not trying to be a jerk (you never know on a message board so I'm making it clear hopefully).

First off, the Bible says that if you have sex with your wife while she is menstruating than you should be put to death...

NHL Fever
Feb 23rd 2007, 11:40 PM
There are many things people do in bed that bring absolutely no glory to God in any way, shape, or form.

I agree. The marriage bed undefined doesn't mean whatever happens there is fine. I could beat my wife up in bed and that wouldn't be ok. It's good to be creative though, anything that improves the relationship between husband and wife is honoring to God, since he wants as strong a marriage as possible. Plenty of sexual things can also hurt the marriage relationship, so you need to make sure it's something that brings you together emotionally.

SpeakSlow
Feb 23rd 2007, 11:49 PM
I disagree and I think there is quite a bit on sexual relationships between man and wife in the scripture.



Ok, then lets continue that line of thinking.

What parts of scripture do you use to infer the limitations you have put forth in this thread?

Those limitations were "oral, anal, toys, and other such things/positions are sinful".

Lets start with what scripture infers what position sex is to be performed in?
We can begin there and continue forward.

I am truly interested and am not trying to be a jerk (you never know on a message board so I'm making it clear hopefully).

C'mon, if the Bible did have the answer to my question, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

In my opinion, dirty sex acts are another example of man perverting one of God's gifts. People like Doberman (I'm not appreciating his sarcasm), think anything goes because media, pop culture, and the way he was brought up has influenced him.

SpeakSlow
Feb 23rd 2007, 11:51 PM
First off, the Bible says that if you have sex with your wife while she is menstruating than you should be put to death...

Umm okay, and I agree but that wasn't disproving anytihng I have said.

Metatron
Feb 23rd 2007, 11:52 PM
I find this thread highly ironic since marriage and having any sort of sex is not true. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 12:06 AM
First off, the Bible says that if you have sex with your wife while she is menstruating than you should be put to death...

Under the Old Covenant this is exactly true and should give us some indicators under the New Covenant.

SpeakSlow
Feb 24th 2007, 12:07 AM
I disagree and I think there is quite a bit on sexual relationships between man and wife in the scripture.



Ok, then lets continue that line of thinking.

What parts of scripture do you use to infer the limitations you have put forth in this thread?

Those limitations were "oral, anal, toys, and other such things/positions are sinful".

Lets start with what scripture infers what position sex is to be performed in?
We can begin there and continue forward.

I am truly interested and am not trying to be a jerk (you never know on a message board so I'm making it clear hopefully).

Ok, I'll try to explain more clearly.

Granted, I am not as familar with God's word as much as you, as I've only been a Christian for a short time. I am trying not to sound obtrusive here when I talk about this but as long as the actual intercourse is normal (vaginal) it is acceptable in my opinion. So maybe saying "sex positions" was a bit misleading on my part. To answer your question of providing scripture, I believe the Bible doesn't go into specifics, but I might be wrong.

It's like...
You go to a dinner party and when they sit you down you have a beautiful, elegant napkin, a wet-nap, nice silverware, and an expensive piece of china for a plate. The host tells you to "eat and be merry." Some people would dig in like pigs, talking with your mouth open, and ignoring the napkin and wet-nap. While other people would take their time, and be sure to wipe their mouths periodically. The host didn't think he had to tell people to have manners at this up-scale dinner party because he assumed they would know how to act considering the enviornment, and just have moral standards. But, hearing no rules from the host, they assume "anything goes" and begin eating with no regard for themselves or anyone around them.

I hope this helps...

p.s. Anyone like my parable?! ;)

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 12:09 AM
C'mon, if the Bible did have the answer to my question, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

You brought up the discussion which may mean you are ignorant of what the scripture does declare on this subject (ignorance does not equal stupidity btw) in fact your statements IMO indicate man's opinion and not a biblical basis.


In my opinion, dirty sex acts are another example of man perverting one of God's gifts.

What is a "dirty sex act" to you. You indicate that the scripture infers what position that Christian couples should engage in and I await your post on what those scriptures are that infer this, otherwise I must see it as yet man's opinion and classify it accordingly.


People like Doberman (I'm not appreciating his sarcasm), think anything goes because media, pop culture, and the way he was brought up has influenced him.

What has influenced you?

SpeakSlow
Feb 24th 2007, 12:16 AM
So you only abide by the things that are clearly stated in the word?
How about hell, do you believe in hell?

And as I stated before, there is no scripture that I know of that gives a specific position we are to use. And frankly, I'm glad God didn't think he had to spell it out to us, makes me feel not so dumb.

SpeakSlow
Feb 24th 2007, 12:21 AM
And somehow, the fact that Jesus stayed celebate his whole life, makes me have a lot more respect for him.

What would Jesus say if you asked him if those things were acceptable?
Think about it...

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 12:27 AM
Ok, I'll try to explain more clearly.

Granted, I am not as familar with God's word as much as you, as I've only been a Christian for a short time. I am trying not to sound obtrusive here when I talk about this but as long as the actual intercourse is normal (vaginal) it is acceptable in my opinion. So maybe saying "sex positions" was a bit misleading on my part.

Well, I would suggest if you are going to take a position (no pun intended) on a subject and defend it then you had best make sure you are accurate in your approach because scripture says that teachers will be judged more harshly than others. Just a word of advice.


To answer your question of providing scripture, I believe the Bible doesn't go into specifics, but I might be wrong.

The scripture is quite clear on these areas and gives us several passages to contemplate.

Love our wives as Christ loves the Church (Ephesians 5:25)
Submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21)
Don't be bitter towards your wife (Colossians 3:19)
Give honor to her (1 Peter 3:7)
Your body (and sex) are for your wife's pleasure and sexual needs (1 Corinthians 7:3-4)
Sexual talk is godly (Song of Solomon)

Do you see how the word of God addresses the heart? The word of God leaves a great deal of liberty in the area of sexual relations because it addresses the heart.

If 2 people are at liberty within their marriage for a certain position or other thing you might deem "dirty" and they are treating one another as the scriptures indicate then they have liberty.

Liberty is a scary thing to those who want a bunch of rules, but nonetheless it is the heart of the New Covenant.


It's like...
You go to a dinner party and when they sit you down you have a beautiful, elegant napkin, a wet-nap, nice silverware, and an expensive piece of china for a plate. The host tells you to "eat and be merry." Some people would dig in like pigs, talking with your mouth open, and ignoring the napkin and wet-nap. While other people would take their time, and be sure to wipe their mouths periodically. The host didn't think he had to tell people to have manners at this up-scale dinner party because he assumed they would know how to act considering the enviornment, and just have moral standards. But, hearing no rules from the host, they assume "anything goes" and begin eating with no regard for themselves or anyone around them.

I hope this helps...

p.s. Anyone like my parable?! ;)

If your conscience only allows you to have a certain type of sex in a certain position with your wife then I think scripture is clear that that is what you should do.

That is only because that is your conviction.

If others conscience is clear to have more liberty in their sex with their wife then the scripture is clear that that is what they should do.

Romans 14 is clear on this.

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 12:30 AM
So you only abide by the things that are clearly stated in the word?

I believe that scripture is the FINAL authority in all matters of faith and if someone comes and says "God only allows sex in a single position" I would FIRST require what scripture do you base that on?

After that I would ask what reason, logic, history and tradition would address that issue.


How about hell, do you believe in hell?

Off topic and ad hominem.


And as I stated before, there is no scripture that I know of that gives a specific position we are to use. And frankly, I'm glad God didn't think he had to spell it out to us, makes me feel not so dumb.

I agree God gave us liberty in this area. If you feel restricted to a single position then I believe that is what YOU should obey.

But if you try to put that yoke on others you need to have a solid biblical reason for doing so. And you do not.

SpeakSlow
Feb 24th 2007, 12:33 AM
Ok, great, I was trying to express my opinion and my personal stance on something and now because I was teaching it, I'm going to Hell, cool, that's great.

You can teach Sunday school and when the children ask you, "What is sex?" you can tell them anything you want as long as your married.

Do you think Saint Augustine is in hell now because of his moral stance, and trying to get others to share in his morals?

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 12:33 AM
And somehow, the fact that Jesus stayed celebate his whole life, makes me have a lot more respect for him.

What would Jesus say if you asked him if those things were acceptable?
Think about it...

I have and I believe Jesus is absolutely approving of a man and wife enjoying a fantastic sexual life.

Remember Jesus is the one who created the orgasm, the penis, the vagina, the nipples, and the clitoris (which the only purpose of the clitoris is to give female orgasm, its serves NO other purpose).
That's a God who gave sex for enjoyment!

SpeakSlow
Feb 24th 2007, 12:37 AM
I believe that scripture is the FINAL authority in all matters of faith and if someone comes and says "God only allows sex in a single position" I would FIRST require what scripture do you base that on?

After that I would ask what reason, logic, history and tradition would address that issue.



I'm gonna say the Catholic Orthodox church. We are told in the bible to obey tradition and word of mouth. I was brought up Catholic, and I still hold alot of their beliefs. The main problem with protestantism I have is that they are far too liberal. Apparently, all you have to do is sit on your rear-end all day and acknowledge that Jesus is your savior, and you are saved.

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 12:38 AM
Ok, great, I was trying to express my opinion and my personal stance on something and now because I was teaching it, I'm going to Hell, cool, that's great.

Let's not put words in my mouth. If you cannot discuss this in a rational environment of brotherly love and respect then perhaps we should refrain.

I only spoke what the scriptures say about teachers.

If it is simply your opinion and not biblical I am cool with that but let's make that absolutely clear that it is only the opinion of man and not scriptural.

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 12:40 AM
I'm gonna say the Catholic Orthodox church. We are told in the bible to obey tradition and word of mouth. I was brought up Catholic, and I still hold alot of their beliefs. The main problem with protestantism I have is that they are far too liberal. Apparently, all you have to do is sit on your rear-end all day and acknowledge that Jesus is your savior, and you are saved.

Well, it appears to me that the roots of the problem here are much deeper than "what position of sex is biblical" and go to a much more theological depth.

As I said, if YOUR conviction is to follow the teachings of the RCC and Augustine then I believe that is what YOU should do.

SpeakSlow
Feb 24th 2007, 12:44 AM
Let's not put words in my mouth. If you cannot discuss this in a rational environment of brotherly love and respect then perhaps we should refrain.

I only spoke what the scriptures say about teachers.

If it is simply your opinion and not biblical I am cool with that but let's make that absolutely clear that it is only the opinion of man and not scriptural.

Look, I'm probably wrong about all of this. I just feel that if the Bible and society didn't glorify sex so much we wouldn't be so eager to try it out (pre-marital sex).

It just makes me mad, I recently had to attend a sex-ed program at a high school where sex was discussed in a public enviornment and it totally just embarrased the kids, made them self-conscience.

The Bible comes off to me as being very strict, rule based. Maybe I got the idea that sex is supposed to be conservative like that.

Maybe the joke is on me, perhaps I'm the one who is corrupted.

p.s. How can anyone teach Christianity with the constant fear of perhaps teaching something wrong with all the good intentions of the world and end up in hell because of it?

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 12:52 AM
Look, I'm probably wrong about all of this. I just feel that if the Bible and society didn't glorify sex so much we wouldn't be so eager to try it out (pre-marital sex).

Society is not the foremost problem. Our wicked hearts are. Yours and mine.
Admitting that is the first step to godliness.

God gave a wonderful gift and it is up to us to seek His best in that area and to remember it is HIM who gave it and gave it to be a pleasure.


It just makes me mad, I recently had to attend a sex-ed program at a high school where sex was discussed in a public enviornment and it totally just embarrased the kids, made them self-conscience.

I believe sex ed should be first taught at home and secondly supported by the Church.


The Bible comes off to me as being very strict, rule based. Maybe I got the idea that sex is supposed to be conservative like that.

That is for you to decide and follow however the Spirit convicts you.


Maybe the joke is on me, perhaps I'm the one who is corrupted.

Sometimes it takes a brother calling us to the "wood shed" to get a point thru to our heads. It has happened to me MANY times and I have changed positions on several areas because other brothers were courageous enough to challenge me with scripture and questions that made me think.


p.s. How can anyone teach Christianity with the constant fear of perhaps teaching something wrong with all the good intentions of the world and end up in hell because of it?

You must decide for yourself what God means by teachers being judged harshly. Does that mean God is going to burn them eternally or that we should be as careful as we can with the word of God and will be held accountable for our words.

I think the latter but you must decide for yourself.

James 3:1 - My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

Doberman
Feb 24th 2007, 11:50 AM
Do you think Saint Augustine is in hell now because of his moral stance, and trying to get others to share in his morals?
Yes hes a catholic, and the bible is very clear on the vatican. In catholic doctrine the church is allowed to decide who goes to heaven and hell if theyfind it necessary, they clam to be Jesus christ embassy in earth...
And Augustine followed this idol worshipping so yes hes burning in hell.

This is my favourite scripture when im talking about those idol worshipping pagan catholics.
Matthew 25:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray.

Drums4Him
Feb 24th 2007, 01:15 PM
Yes hes a catholic, and the bible is very clear on the vatican. In catholic doctrine the church is allowed to decide who goes to heaven and hell if theyfind it necessary, they clam to be Jesus christ embassy in earth...
And Augustine followed this idol worshipping so yes hes burning in hell.

This is my favourite scripture when im talking about those idol worshipping pagan catholics.
Matthew 25:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray.

So why bash Catholics? Is this really necessary? I was rasied in the Catholic faith and even went to parochiacal school.

Doberman
Feb 24th 2007, 01:36 PM
So why bash Catholics? Is this really necessary? I was rasied in the Catholic faith and even went to parochiacal school.
Im not bashing catholics! Im bashing the cult. JW, Catholics, they should really read the bible...

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 02:35 PM
Yes hes a catholic, and the bible is very clear on the vatican.

Doberman,

I have to say this is a somewhat ignorant view of history because ALL of the Church was Catholic at the point in history of Augustine. Are you making the claim that all Christians until the protestant reformation were unsaved?

KEEP GOING
Feb 24th 2007, 02:57 PM
I have and I believe Jesus is absolutely approving of a man and wife enjoying a fantastic sexual life.



Straight forward question.....

Toolman, do you feel an@l sex is ok within a Godly marriage??

:hmm:

Scruffy Kid
Feb 24th 2007, 03:13 PM
Dear Doberman,
Welcome to Bible forums :hug:
I'm glad that you're here. :pp :pp :pp

But I'm not glad to see vituperative language, or false & arrogant statements, even when made in ignorance. Please stop doing that, dear brother!
the bible is very clear on the vatican There was no vatican when the Bible was written, so it is nowhere mentioned.

In catholic doctrine the church is allowed to decide who goes to heaven and hell Nope! You are in error.

Love does not seek to exagerate the faults of others-- does "not rejoice in iniquity", but "rejoices in truth" (I Cor. 13:6). We are strictly charged by Jesus (e.g. Matt 5), and by the 10 commandments (Exod. 20, Deut. 5), not to bear false witness, but to be very fair and accurate in our speech, especially about others. Yet you have made a variety of erroneous, exagerated claims about Catholics.
And Augustine followed this idol worshipping so yes hes burning in hell. The Catholic Church, as a matter of fact, does not claim to say who is and who is not in hell, much less to be able to decide that matter. But you here presume to judge who is in hell: Augustine is, according to you. "Who are you to judge another man's servant?" (Rom 4:14) Or to insult others.
I'm talking about those idol worshipping pagan catholics
Im not bashing catholics! Catholics believe that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead, and that He alone is God, the one God, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. They affirm these things every week in their Church services, and read the Bible at every church service. To call this large group of people "idol worshipping pagans" would ordinarily be called "bashing" -- it's language which is exagerated and insulting.

Your remarks about Augustine reveal a peculiar view of Church history. Is it your view that all Christians prior to 1500 (Martin Luther) went to hell? From the early centuries virtually all Christians were either Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox (who also venerate icons, and pray to -- that is, ask for the prayers of -- saints and the Theotakis). Do you think that somehow God was unable to save anyone who worshipped Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while they read and hand-copied the Bible (the printing press only was invented in the 15th century) for century after century? That the martyrs of Jesus slain by Pagans, Muslims, and other unbelievers through those 1500 years all went to Hell because they didn't believe exactly as you do?

However, we are not here to debate these matters. The thread is not about catholics, it's about what sexual behavior is appropriate in marriage. You are derailing the thread by your inappropriate behavior. Kindly stop.

There are many long-term, highly respected Catholics on this board. (I myself am a Protestant, and have never been a member of the Catholic church.) It is extremely rude to them to speak as you have just done.

No one is suggesting that you cannot make reasoned arguments, however passionate, for your view that Roman Catholicism is full of evil doctrine. That is not the point. If you want to start a thread in which you attack Catholicism, that is permitted in the World Religions forum. Discussion of Catholicism is not permitted in other forums.

Also, regardless of what you think of Roman Catholicism, and regardless of whether or not you are 100% right in those views, your behavior on this thread is grossly unbiblical. The Bible does not counsel us to insult others, regardless of their beliefs.

Jesus tells us emphatically not to insult others (e.g. Matt. 5:22) -- and warns, incidently, that those who do so may be thrown into Hell. Jesus does this in the context of warning against anger. Your responses seem to indicate that anger against those who you disagree with is a significant problem. Perhaps that would be worth reflecting on.

Paul (Acts 17) on the Aeropagus -- specifically in a context in which he is pained by the idolatry of the Athenians -- does not insult them, but speaks politely to them, referring respectfully to their sages in explaining the true faith. He tells us to be at peace with all (Rom 12:18), so far as that is possible, as a way of living out a transformed life in Christ; and to correct others with gentleness (e.g. 2 Tim 2:24-25, and in awareness that we all stumble (e.g. Gal. 6:1-5). He tells Timothy that those who are servants of the Lord "must be gentle to all" and "patient" and "meek in instructing those who oppose the truth."

Peter tells us (I Peter 3:15) that in defending the faith we should reply to others "with meekness and reverence." Peter is speaking in a context of converting Pagans -- even abusive Pagans -- by a "gentle spirit" which is "precious to God." Jude (1:9) notes that the archangel Michael, even in disputing about a crucial matter with the devil himself, "did not presume to bring a reviling judgment", but spoke with tact and moderation; and Jude, in opposing the most terrible errors, urges us to seek to save those who are in error in the love of God, and with pity.

In this Jesus and the apostles of course follow the counsel of the OT, which is never in contradiction to the NT -- for the Bible is reliable and self-consistent as a whole. Proverbs tells to reply softly, not to stir up wrath, and Psalms tell us that it is the meek who inherit the earth.

You might do well to follow the advice you give to others. You "should really read" your Bible and follow the advice of Jude, Peter, Paul, and Jesus: speak of others with politeness and respect, and without misrepresentation, regardless of what you think of their views, and regardless of how wrong those views actually are.

I am sorry to have to speak bluntly about your post.
I'm sure that you have much to offer the board, and I am glad, as I mentioned, to have you among us. But it is necessary, IMO, to be frank at times -- both for the sake of the individual who transgresses and of the community. (Prov. 27:4-6)

In friendship, :)
Scruffy Kid

This post was begun immediately after Doberman's last, and crossed Toolman's and Keep Going's

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 03:18 PM
Straight forward question.....

Toolman, do you feel an@l sex is ok within a Godly marriage??

:hmm:

Scripture does not condemn it within a marriage so I believe it to fall under the area of Christian conscience as laid out in Romans 14.

Unlike oral manipulation which we have some fairly good evidence that this is approved within a marriage the scripture is silent on anal intercourse.

I personally have other areas, outside scripture, for why I would not engage in the practice but nonetheless if another Christian couple are at liberty I am not within scriptural boundaries to call it sin IMO.

KEEP GOING
Feb 24th 2007, 03:23 PM
Scripture does not condemn it within a marriage so I believe it to fall under the area of Christian conscience as laid out in Romans 14.

Unlike oral manipulation which we have some fairly good evidence that this is approved within a marriage the scripture is silent on anal intercourse.

I personally have other areas, outside scripture, for why I would not engage in the practice but nonetheless if another Christian couple are at liberty I am not within scriptural boundaries to call it sin IMO.

Thanks for your reply...

Personally I also see nothing wrong with oral.......but fear my mind could not handle an@l, very fragile is this head of mine.

The bible does speak about sodomy....and the great sins of Gomorrow, or something......doesn't it

Toolman
Feb 24th 2007, 03:26 PM
The bible does speak about sodomy....and the great sins of Gomorrow, or something......doesn't it

I would be willing to examine those scriptures if you would like to in a friendly, brotherly environment of edification. Feel free to post them and lets examine them. It never hurts to dig into God's word!

KEEP GOING
Feb 24th 2007, 03:32 PM
I would be willing to examine those scriptures if you would like to in a friendly, brotherly environment of edification. Feel free to post them and lets examine them. It never hurts to dig into God's word!

cool......i will.......need to to a bit of research.....chat later

:spin:

pnewton
Feb 24th 2007, 03:40 PM
I wasn't going to jump in, but since the subject has been broached, I will. I, too, follow the teaching of my Church, as many of you would give heed to your spiritual leader, the pastor, even if you are do not feel as bound as us poor Catholics. Still, I can except the teaching of my church in this because I believe it to be balanced. Specifically, the purpose of intimacy is both procreative and unitive. This does not deny any specific "thingie" (pardon my technical language) but means that one must be open to life.

Now, how might this translate to the people here? First, being open to life means being open to God's will for a couple. I do not think anyone will disagree that being open to God's will is something every Christian should do.

Second, let us say that you believe in contraception, as do most Christians do nowdays. Being open toGod's will may not mean being open to life, for you. I still believe that the unitive aspect of intimacy should apply. Is mutual pleasure unitive? Absolutely! There is nothing wrong with pleasure in marriage in it's many, various and creative forms. However, the law of love must apply most especially to the spouse and all things (and "thingies") must be done in love. Only then will the two become one and not merely in the same room.

Wise-Owl
Feb 24th 2007, 04:23 PM
I have just read this thread. I must say the wisdom, clarity and scripture by TOOLMAN is great advice to any man. Thank you.

A thought guys: Can a man LUST after his wife? How do I see my wife in the area of intimancy? Is she a s@x object to be used or to be loved? Big difference. Just my 2 cents, Nick.

irlandes
Feb 24th 2007, 06:13 PM
At least half of women in the world desire o**l, and more probably would if they ever experienced it. A smaller number are curious about a**l, though most of them once they experience it for themselves, they don't ask again.

Christians have the same divorce rate as non-C, and s*xual tempation causes most divorce, contrary to standard feminist claims. You can debate THE LAW all you wish, but in the end, if you don't give your wife what she wants, the evidence is, she will find it elsewhere.

But, that's okay, because after she's gone and your kids with her, you can use all the extra time to study THE LAW. Cool!

It is strange, though, that so much attention is focused on THE LAW when the Bible itself makes it very clear that salvation through THE LAW is not possible.

Beam me up, Scotty...

Steve M
Feb 24th 2007, 10:08 PM
I wasn't going to jump in, but since the subject has been broached, I will. I, too, follow the teaching of my Church, as many of you would give heed to your spiritual leader, the pastor, even if you are do not feel as bound as us poor Catholics. Still, I can except the teaching of my church in this because I believe it to be balanced. Specifically, the purpose of intimacy is both procreative and unitive. This does not deny any specific "thingie" (pardon my technical language) but means that one must be open to life.

Now, how might this translate to the people here? First, being open to life means being open to God's will for a couple. I do not think anyone will disagree that being open to God's will is something every Christian should do.

Second, let us say that you believe in contraception, as do most Christians do nowdays. Being open toGod's will may not mean being open to life, for you. I still believe that the unitive aspect of intimacy should apply. Is mutual pleasure unitive? Absolutely! There is nothing wrong with pleasure in marriage in it's many, various and creative forms. However, the law of love must apply most especially to the spouse and all things (and "thingies") must be done in love. Only then will the two become one and not merely in the same room.
I like a lot of what you said here, but can I just focus on that last line? I really liked that.

The law of love. Awesome.

I could hear in a lot of the arguments way back in this thread the underlying theme to a lot of what was said, and it went something like this; this is a thing that men do, seeking to gratify themselves at some cost to their wives.

Am I right?

Well, the underlying problem is bigger than particular sex acts. The problem is one of selfishness.

I've been sick, and good for nothing recently. So I was lying on the couch watching movies. (great waste of my time... when I got done, I turned to my brother, and we both said at the same time 'I will never get those hours back!')

We watched three romantic comedies inbetween the Jack Lemmon/Henry Fonda/James Cagney movies and the Kurosawa flick. (not his best, but anytime you get Shakespeare done with samurai, it's worth at least one viewing) They all had a theme. Love and dating and marriage as a gratification of self.

Not necessarily just the gratification of the body, either. Emotionally, these were all about individuals seeking their own good, something to make them happy. Something entirely for them. Only one of them was really about doing something for the other person. (Just Like Heaven, Mark Ruffalo and Reese Witherspoon... which was also the least over-sexualized of the three. Not to say it wasn't sexualized...)

Only one.

Why? Because to a shallow, self-involved person, the only benefit is to self.

But as Christians, we're told to hold the other higher. The Law of Love PNewton brought up.

And I think that holds true in sex as well as the rest of life.

If you're truly seeking the other's higher good, not your own, seeking their gratification, not your own, that's the Christian way. That's Love. (big L)

Otherwise we're no better than the people of the world.

jordan
Mar 1st 2007, 04:17 PM
you compare drugs to oral? are you serious? This is so sad...

It's not so outrageous. The brains of couples who are in love resemble those of people who are high on certain drugs, and sex is known to have an effect on the brain similar to that of many drugs. It can even be addictive.

Here's a more ambiguous analogy: how about comparing masturbation to drugs? There are many similarities in how it is employed, its effects and its implications. Oral sex is basically masturbation with someone else's help. (Unless you are very flexible. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

Personally I'd never seriously compare the two on either a moral or a physiological level, but it's a perfectly valid comparison nonetheless.

jordan
Mar 1st 2007, 04:23 PM
Sexual talk is godly (Song of Solomon)

I love how for all the other points, you quote chapter and verse, but for this one you just quote the whole book. :lol: It reminds me of a scene in Keeping Mum:


Walter: That [the Song of Solomon] is the passionate declaration of a devout man to his God.
Grace: No, it's about sex.

VerticalReality
Mar 1st 2007, 07:01 PM
Actually I tend to believe that the Bible is pretty specific about this issue. :)
I won't even go into The Song of Solomon.


Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Many believe that when you read this in the original language, it states "LET not the wedding bed be defiled", which would insinuate that it is not a statement stating you can do whatever you want in the bed, but that there is a responsibility there to not "let" the wedding bed be defiled. I personally do not believe that sodomy is appropriate in the wedding bed, which is both anal or oral sex.

VerticalReality
Mar 1st 2007, 07:14 PM
Also, I found this research interesting . . .

Not only is the definition of sodomy both anal and oral sex, but the first dictionary defined it as "a crime against nature".

Just a little interesting fact I thought I would throw in there. It's funny how views change over time and the inhibitions can grow increasingly nonexistant.

SpeakSlow
Mar 1st 2007, 11:15 PM
Also, I found this research interesting . . .

Not only is the definition of sodomy both anal and oral sex, but the first dictionary defined it as "a crime against nature".

Just a little interesting fact I thought I would throw in there. It's funny how views change over time and the inhibitions can grow increasingly nonexistant.

Hmm...then by a dictionary definition, it would seem that the people that were in Sodom and Gahmorra were killed for doing oral/anal.

So maybe I was right?

jordan
Mar 1st 2007, 11:42 PM
Not only is the definition of sodomy both anal and oral sex, but the first dictionary defined it as "a crime against nature".

Extended and tangentially related rant alert... ;)

To be honest, I've never really believed that "crime against nature" means anything at all. You can commit a crime against God; you can commit a crime against the law; but how do you commit a crime against "nature"?


na·ture
—noun
1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature.
8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.
10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.
11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.
12. the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
13. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
14. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.

How does one commit a crime against any of these abstract concepts?

In fact, God often calls upon us to operate in direct opposition to what is natural. Adultery, fornication... Animals do it, human beings have a natural drive to do it, but we are commanded not to. Exclusive monogamy is one of the most unnatural types of relationship in existence, and is found in almost no non-human animals. (Penguins are often cited as monogamists; this is a gross distortion of their actual mating habits!) God requires us to do precisely the opposite of obeying our "biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements," and the entire plan of salvation is the path which God provided, in His grace, to lead us away from the "original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind." The models for human behaviour set out in the Bible are the exact opposite of a "primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state".

"Good" and "natural" have never meant the same thing. When something is described in the KJV version of Leviticus as "abomination," it is emphatically not being called unnatural; the actual definition of the term is closer to "ritually unclean." Ritual is precisely the opposite of nature. Very occasionally, the concept of "nature" is referred to in the Bible, but it is never, to my knowledge, expressed that the goodness of something is contingent on its being natural.

That said, the most powerful concepts in the Bible are those which channel our natural drives and urges into a God-given plan and purpose—for example, marriage. So it would be untrue to say that our nature is always inherently evil. It is only evil we use these energies, insofar as we can control them, in a manner which is not in accordance with God's will.


(By the way, that was not a rant against you, VerticalReality; it's just something which I've been rallying against for a long time now. :) )

jordan
Mar 1st 2007, 11:52 PM
Hmm...then by a dictionary definition, it would seem that the people that were in Sodom and Gahmorra were killed for doing oral/anal.

So maybe I was right?

Not necessarily. It could just mean that common knowledge disagreed with the prophet Ezekiel, who said that the main sin of Sodom was being inhospitable and not welcoming the poor and needy:


"Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
—Ezekiel 16:49–50

By this reckoning, "sodomy" should actually mean inhospitality, or being uncharitable. Although I concede that there are other interpretations (as was pointed out by EarlyCall on another thread), it is not necessarily true that anal and oral sex were considered the main sins of Sodom.

SpeakSlow
Mar 2nd 2007, 01:29 AM
Not necessarily. It could just mean that common knowledge disagreed with the prophet Ezekiel, who said that the main sin of Sodom was being inhospitable and not welcoming the poor and needy:



By this reckoning, "sodomy" should actually mean inhospitality, or being uncharitable. Although I concede that there are other interpretations (as was pointed out by EarlyCall on another thread), it is not necessarily true that anal and oral sex were considered the main sins of Sodom.

True, but were they not still listed as sins? Granted they probably were not the main sins, but still.

We name a sex act after a city that was detested and destroyed by God, and we still do it.

jordan
Mar 2nd 2007, 01:59 AM
True, but were they not still listed as sins? Granted they probably were not the main sins, but still.

I'd be distorting the truth if I claimed that there were no indication that Sodom and Gomorrah were considered to be rife with sexual immorality, but I don't believe that they were considered its main sins. According to Jewish tradition and the words of Ezekiel (which are later echoed by Jesus), the sins which were considered more grievous were those against charity, kindness and hospitality.


We name a sex act after a city that was detested and destroyed by God, and we still do it.

The leopard takes its name from the mistaken belief that it is a hybrid between the lion ("leo") and the panther ("pard"). You can see why I generally don't hold much stock in "argument by etymology." :)

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 2nd 2007, 02:50 AM
Hello again, im moving the discussion from the phone sex thread to here.

So far, there has been some pretty good banter back and forth, but i believe we all need to take into consideration what is sodomy? You can look in the dictionary, and see sodomy defined as sexual intercourse that is not natural (ie ordered to procreation). The Catholics have this right, and despite your scruples with this church, their message is 100% consistent on this teaching.

This is how we understand sodomy. The word in greek actually means "unnatural desires" and i have seen it translated this way in more than a few bibles.

SpeakSlow
Mar 2nd 2007, 02:54 AM
Hello again, im moving the discussion from the phone sex thread to here.

So far, there has been some pretty good banter back and forth, but i believe we all need to take into consideration what is sodomy? You can look in the dictionary, and see sodomy defined as sexual intercourse that is not natural (ie ordered to procreation). The Catholics have this right, and despite your scruples with this church, their message is 100% consistent on this teaching.

This is how we understand sodomy. The word in greek actually means "unnatural desires" and i have seen it translated this way in more than a few bibles.

So, what's your opinion on the matter?

SpeakSlow
Mar 2nd 2007, 03:00 AM
The leopard takes its name from the mistaken belief that it is a hybrid between the lion ("leo") and the panther ("pard"). You can see why I generally don't hold much stock in "argument by etymology." :)

I don't think your comparison is proportional. But, I would be interested in knowing who originally called 'unnatural sex acts', sodomy.

p.s. Didn't you know Jordan? When you breed a white stallion and a black mustang, you get a zebra?

Drums4Him
Mar 2nd 2007, 03:09 AM
Hello again, im moving the discussion from the phone sex thread to here.

So far, there has been some pretty good banter back and forth, but i believe we all need to take into consideration what is sodomy? You can look in the dictionary, and see sodomy defined as sexual intercourse that is not natural (ie ordered to procreation). The Catholics have this right, and despite your scruples with this church, their message is 100% consistent on this teaching.

This is how we understand sodomy. The word in greek actually means "unnatural desires" and i have seen it translated this way in more than a few bibles.

The Catholics have the right to do what?

jordan
Mar 2nd 2007, 03:10 AM
So far, there has been some pretty good banter back and forth, but i believe we all need to take into consideration what is sodomy? You can look in the dictionary, and see sodomy defined as sexual intercourse that is not natural (ie ordered to procreation). The Catholics have this right, and despite your scruples with this church, their message is 100% consistent on this teaching.

I dispute that sodomy is any less natural than playing the piano, and that it can be considered sinful within marriage if both partners consent to it, but I agree with you that the Catholic position is quite consistent. (As with many Catholic teachings, I may think they are wrong, but they're definitely carefully thought-out. :))

jordan
Mar 2nd 2007, 03:18 AM
I don't think your comparison is proportional. But, I would be interested in knowing who originally called 'unnatural sex acts', sodomy.

Well, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it originates from the 13th Century. I think it's a valid comparison; in either case, the words represent an inaccurate historical opinion, so any argument based on etymology is rooted in the same inaccuracy. Though of course, it depends on whether or not you think the critical sins of Sodom include oral sex in the context of a married couple. :)


p.s. Didn't you know Jordan? When you breed a white stallion and a black mustang, you get a zebra?

:lol:

jordan
Mar 2nd 2007, 03:20 AM
The Catholics have the right to do what?

I think she is referring to correctness, not privilege, Midy. :)

SpeakSlow
Mar 2nd 2007, 03:36 AM
Well, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it originates from the 13th Century. I think it's a valid comparison; in either case, the words represent an inaccurate historical opinion, so any argument based on etymology is rooted in the same inaccuracy. Though of course, it depends on whether or not you think the critical sins of Sodom include oral sex in the context of a married couple. :)



:lol:

Ooook the 13th century was actually much later then I thought. I was thinking that the observers of Sodom and Gahmorra were like "Oh ok they were defiling the bed, so we'll call that sodomy." And like people would make that connection.

flaming sulfur destroying city=something you shouldn't be doing :idea:

jordan
Mar 2nd 2007, 03:47 AM
[F]laming [sulphur] destroying city=something you shouldn't be doing :idea:

Of course. It all depends upon whether or not you think the big thing they shouldn't have been doing is a sexual act which is not spoken out against elsewhere in the Bible (ie. consensual sodomy between married couples), which admittedly Jude alludes to, or what Ezekiel (later backed up by Jesus) explicitly described as the sin which was responsible for their destruction—a passage which I consider to be a pretty major hint!

VerticalReality
Mar 2nd 2007, 03:52 AM
(By the way, that was not a rant against you, VerticalReality; it's just something which I've been rallying against for a long time now. :) )

I'm glad I could be a part of it!:lol:

jordan
Mar 2nd 2007, 04:03 AM
Ooook the 13th century was actually much later then I thought.

It's entirely possible that a similar word was coined earlier, but since the idea that homosexuality/whatever was the main reason for its destruction is a relatively late invention, I strongly doubt anyone would have used such a word to mean what we nowadays refer to as sodomy.

In the spirit of full disclosure, it may be implied by Jude that sexual immorality is the reason that the cities burned:


"[The wicked are sentenced to suffer] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjacent towns--which likewise gave themselves over to impurity and indulged in unnatural vice and sensual perversity--are laid out [in plain sight] as an exhibit of perpetual punishment [to warn] of everlasting fire."
—Jude 1:7, Amplified Bible

However, such an interpretation is still in complete disagreement with Ezekiel, Jesus and the prevailing wisdom at the time. I note that it is easily possible to interpret this verse as referring making a dual comparison with the individuals mentioned earlier in the chapter; that is, comparing their fates and their immorality separately, without necessarily saying that the sexual immorality of the cities is the reason that these cities burned. This does not appear to be an artefact of translation, since it is possible to interpret the verse thus in most translations. Since this interpretation fits the data we have best, and is actually the only one which doesn't lead to a direct contradiction, that is how I choose to read the verse.

jordan
Mar 2nd 2007, 04:05 AM
I'm glad I could be a part of it!:lol:

How magnanimous—thank you for being such a gracious rant participant! :D I have plenty more where that came from.

Toolman
Mar 2nd 2007, 04:35 PM
So far, there has been some pretty good banter back and forth, but i believe we all need to take into consideration what is sodomy? You can look in the dictionary, and see sodomy defined as sexual intercourse that is not natural (ie ordered to procreation). The Catholics have this right, and despite your scruples with this church, their message is 100% consistent on this teaching.

This is how we understand sodomy. The word in greek actually means "unnatural desires" and i have seen it translated this way in more than a few bibles.

Where is the word sodomy used in the bible? :hmm: and what greek word are you referring to?

Gods Creation
Mar 3rd 2007, 07:16 AM
I really have not been following this conversation much, but I don't think that anybody posted the following verse (which kind of answers Toolman's question). 1 Corinthians 6:8-11: Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Frankly, I don't know how or what "sodomite" meant in the times of Paul. Judging from what I've seen a whole lot of other people say elsewhere, many seem to have different and sometimes opposite interpretations. All sides tend to support their argument with theology and historical "facts."

Personally, I don't really care as I don't plan to be sexually involved with anyone until I am married, and I don't plan to marry anytime in the near future. In other words, my interpretation might change when and if the time comes. That said, I don't believe that there are sexual restrictions in marriage. I've kind of been studying the Bible closely in regards to "God and rules" and just thinking about the way God appears to be, and personally, I am starting to realize that it seems that people place a whole lot of restrictions on things that God never intended to be viewed as inherently sinful (e.g. "these are sin: smoking, drinking, tattoos, rap, [fill in the blank]"). After Jesus, God seemed to have placed very few restrictions on us. Yes, some things are still inherently sinful and are explicitely mentioned to be (e.g. fornication, adultery, drunkeness, etc), but the vast majority of things on earth are not inherently sinful. Some might be pretty stupid for us to do as they harm our bodies, but therein ends that harm. The NT seemed to emphasize quite simply only two things throughout... love God and love others. The great majority of other things are up to the relationship with God and the individual.

This isn't to discourage discussion (as digging in the Bible will probably lead you to stumble about something else unrelated, but useful nonetheless). I'm curious... has anybody noticed that there exist two views on this thread of people that are equally as convinced about their position and the sexual acts being inherently sinful or not. On a given day, I believe that every person would classify the other as a Christian and count him as a brother without a question. Yet, both seem to be getting different interpretations from God. Doesn't this kind of point to the idea that this thing is up to interpretation. It is also kind of interesting to point out that it is doubtful that early Christians (who obviously did not have the complete Bible, at least in anywhere near the form we have it in now) knew about Paul's letter to the Corinthian church. I also have doubts that they thus had reason to believe that the act was sinful. If they did, it was more than likely strictly based off of the Holy Spirit telling that specific individual that they should abstain from the act.

Anyway, just my 2c.

Toolman
Mar 3rd 2007, 02:54 PM
I really have not been following this conversation much, but I don't think that anybody posted the following verse (which kind of answers Toolman's question). 1 Corinthians 6:8-11: Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Frankly, I don't know how or what "sodomite" meant in the times of Paul.

GC,

The greek word there is ajrsenokoivth (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=733&version=kjv) and the Strong's defines it this way:

one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

IMO that makes no mention whatsoever of relations between a man and his wife.

FWIW.

atrus912
Mar 3rd 2007, 04:21 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

When one gets married, and as long as his wife is up for it: anything goes.

When I get married. I will be a freak.

Just saying.

Drums4Him
Mar 3rd 2007, 05:08 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

When one gets married, and as long as his wife is up for it: anything goes.

When I get married. I will be a freak.

Just saying.

I would say, freak out brother! Since there isn't any specific reference to the do's and don't of intimacy between married couples in the Bible, (if there is please enlighten us), then let the Lord be the guide us on what we can or can't do. You'll know what he approves of what feels right to both husband and wife.

Gods Creation
Mar 4th 2007, 04:49 AM
Thanks Toolman! I didn't have access to a concordance when I posted that, but it seems to make things a lot clearer. Kind of funny how different the meaning can become if one takes a certain word out of a certain version of the Bible and defines it by using a secular dictionary of another language.

Warrior4God
Mar 10th 2007, 05:19 AM
Does anyone else see the post above as insultingly simple and juvenile?

First off, stating "You sound like a catholic" is using a term that describes millions of people in our current world, and billions of people in history. Simply using a word like that with an overwhelmingly negative connotation is not right...

And secondly... you're also insulting the men on this board by boiling an issue of actual debate to something trivial. The attitude of being able to "do what people want" in bed is a very dangerous one. There are many things people do in bed that bring absolutely no glory to God in any way, shape, or form.

If you are meaning things like having a prostitute or threesomes in one's bed, then sure, it brings no glory to God. However, a husband and wife engaging in sex is just fine. To be honest, the Bible does not give any hard and fast rules on what a wife and husband may do with one another, sexually. What you may find unpleasant and unsavory may be just fine for another couple to engage in and vice versa. Everybody can come up with things they think are not a good idea to do, but in the end, it's all personal opinions and preferences. It all boils down to what will bother your conscience. If oral sex bothers you...don't do it. If anal sex seems wrong to do...don't do it. However, people should keep their opinions to themselves and not be judgemental about things others may do. Sex is a personal matter between husband and wife. It's not a spectator sport requiring input and comments from an audience. For instance, some Christians don't like oral sex. That's fine. They don't have to like it or do it. But to be honest, most women respond very well to this act performed on them. Most women don't often reach orgasm from penile/vaginal intercourse. There is usually not enough stimulation of the woman's clitoris to bring this about from "regular" intercourse. Other ways of stimulation (fingers, mouth) do a much better job of bringing sexual satisfaction to a woman. Sex was meant to be enjoyed and is not just for reproduction as female orgasms are NOT required for procreation. That being the case, why did God create women with the ability to climax? Because it brings them pleasure, that's why. When it comes to sex in marriage, it's best summed up with this: whatever a husband and wife can do in agreement and good conscience...

jordan
Mar 12th 2007, 02:53 AM
Sex is a personal matter between husband and wife. It's not a spectator sport requiring input and comments from an audience.

That more or less sums up most of what I feel about this discussion. :)

TSP
Mar 13th 2007, 11:22 AM
sex just seems wrong when not used in a traditional, and only for baby-making.

My fiancé` and I are getting married in august, we decided we don't any kids right away being that I'll only be 23 and she 22. So do you think it’s untraditional to use condoms or birth control, since we won’t be having sex for reproduction purposes?

Chimon
Mar 14th 2007, 02:07 AM
Romans 14

The Weak and the Strong
"1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. [....] 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. "

John 14
"16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth."

John 15
26"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."

Galatians 5:18
"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law."

The Greek and Hebrew words for sodomy refer specifically to homosexual, extramarrital intercourse, as have been mentioned and cited earlier.

I think if you don't feel convicted by the Holy Spirit in whatever sexual practive you're performing INSIDE marriage, then you're okay. At the risk of sounding like a realitivist, some things may be wrong for some people but not for others.

I think the bible supports the idea that if a man can have anal sex with his wife without thinking demeaning thoughts about her or women generally, or thinking about homosexual things, or otherwise commiting other sins, then it is not wrong, i.e. its not wrong in and of itself, but for some men (or women) it may create other sins, and then it's wrong.
What Paul says about things you do being wrong if they cause others to sin does not apply because no one needs to know what you're doing with your wife. Bestiality and threesomes are outside of marriage, and thus wrong.

The difference between oral and masturbation is that masturbation is usually outside marriage. People usually can't masturbate without 'commiting adultery in their hearts' because they aren't married and so are lusting after whatever they are masturbating to. In theory, you could masturbate without lust and just 'because it feels good' but I think most men who masturbate don't do this and couldn't do this. So, it seems unwise. If you were married and masturbating with your wife in mind and no one else, then I'd say you're okay.

I don't find any scriptual evidence against contraception. Some kinds of contraception can cause abortions, so I'd say you should know what you're using and what it can do, and not use kinds that can 'accidentally' allow a child to be concieved and then result in its death. But obviously a condom can't cause an abortion, and there are others that don't, so i don't think theres anything wrong with those.

I think if God didn't want us to use sex other than for child-bearing, He wouldn't have made nipples sensitive or arrousing. You can argue that the clitoris serves an evolutionary purpose int hat it makes females WANT to procreate, enjoying nipple stimulation has no biological purpose. And because we can learn thing about God from his creation, I think we can deduce that he wanted us to enjoy sex for things other than making children. It contributes to the emotional health of a marriage. Sorry to talk so much...

Fubajuba
Mar 14th 2007, 04:27 AM
I'm still yet to see how the fact that God created s*x to be enjoyed makes anything in the bed not only acceptable, but morally upstanding in a way.

Toolman
Mar 14th 2007, 02:22 PM
Romans 14

The Weak and the Strong
"1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. [....] 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. "

John 14
"16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth."

John 15
26"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."

Galatians 5:18
"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law."

Just for the record here are 2 posts that mention Romans 14 as well as several other scriptures:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1167454&postcount=43
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1167939&postcount=58

While some of the thread may have been speculative much of it has been based around sola scriptura.


The Greek and Hebrew words for sodomy refer specifically to homosexual, extramarrital intercourse, as have been mentioned and cited earlier.

I think if you don't feel convicted by the Holy Spirit in whatever sexual practive you're performing INSIDE marriage, then you're okay. At the risk of sounding like a realitivist, some things may be wrong for some people but not for others.

I think the bible supports the idea that if a man can have anal sex with his wife without thinking demeaning thoughts about her or women generally, or thinking about homosexual things, or otherwise commiting other sins, then it is not wrong, i.e. its not wrong in and of itself, but for some men (or women) it may create other sins, and then it's wrong.
What Paul says about things you do being wrong if they cause others to sin does not apply because no one needs to know what you're doing with your wife. Bestiality and threesomes are outside of marriage, and thus wrong.

The difference between oral and masturbation is that masturbation is usually outside marriage. People usually can't masturbate without 'commiting adultery in their hearts' because they aren't married and so are lusting after whatever they are masturbating to. In theory, you could masturbate without lust and just 'because it feels good' but I think most men who masturbate don't do this and couldn't do this. So, it seems unwise. If you were married and masturbating with your wife in mind and no one else, then I'd say you're okay.

I don't find any scriptual evidence against contraception. Some kinds of contraception can cause abortions, so I'd say you should know what you're using and what it can do, and not use kinds that can 'accidentally' allow a child to be concieved and then result in its death. But obviously a condom can't cause an abortion, and there are others that don't, so i don't think theres anything wrong with those.

I think if God didn't want us to use sex other than for child-bearing, He wouldn't have made nipples sensitive or arrousing. You can argue that the clitoris serves an evolutionary purpose int hat it makes females WANT to procreate, enjoying nipple stimulation has no biological purpose. And because we can learn thing about God from his creation, I think we can deduce that he wanted us to enjoy sex for things other than making children. It contributes to the emotional health of a marriage. Sorry to talk so much...

Some very good points and thoughts.

chal
Mar 14th 2007, 03:40 PM
There are certain things in The Bible that aren't addressed specifically, (like drug-abuse...

chal > Drug abuse is specifically addressed in the Bible;

Galatians 5: 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


witchcraft:
5331 pharmakeia far-mak-i'-ah
from 5332; medication ("pharmacy"), i.e. (by extension) magic
(literally or figuratively):--sorcery, witchcraft.
see GREEK for 5332
(05331, StrongsGreek)

chal > I think that knowledge can be gleaned from the bible much more effectively if we approach it from a positive perspective, IOW, "What can I do to glorify God?" rather than "How much can I (or others) sin and still be forgiven?" If the Bible says that something is a sin, then there is no debate, but if it doesn't we can't just thow it into the mix because it seems wrong in our opinion.

Fubajuba
Mar 14th 2007, 07:55 PM
One of the main reasons I do not, and most likely will never, agree that anything is permisable in the marriage bed is because I've noticed a scary mentality in young Christians (men in particular).... The mentality that yes... s*x of any form before marriage is wrong... blahblahblah.. but once they get married... WOOOHOOO!!... The whole idea of maintaining a God-driven relationship to bring Glory to God, to edify the woman of the relationship as Christ did the Church. To honor, cherish, and appreciate the woman for who she is spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Men simply boil marriage down to the ticket to do what ever their body tells them to. Christians are called to be above the flesh and its insatiable desires... God did give us a s*xual side... I am not denying that. I am also not telling people to not enjoy s*x with their wife... but it's absolutely insane and even immature to live by the rule of "Until I'm not told to do it, it's ok to do it..."

Also, for anyone going to pull the "I need scripture" card... I'd like someone to show me a verse telling us Christian men to have s*x *insert random position* (I won't put the names in because it'd be vulgar... but I can easily to get the point across, since i think perspective is needed horribly on this topic).

Us Christian men are given many things to do to our wives... To use them to fulfill the s*xual desires we've bottled up since pre-marriage is not one of them....

Toolman
Mar 14th 2007, 10:54 PM
One of the main reasons I do not, and most likely will never, agree that anything is permisable in the marriage bed is because I've noticed a scary mentality in young Christians (men in particular).... The mentality that yes... s*x of any form before marriage is wrong... blahblahblah.. but once they get married... WOOOHOOO!!... The whole idea of maintaining a God-driven relationship to bring Glory to God, to edify the woman of the relationship as Christ did the Church. To honor, cherish, and appreciate the woman for who she is spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

A married couple can enjoy a fulfilling, radical, orgasmic sexual relationship and still honor, cherish, appreciate and love one another. The 2 are not mutually exclusive and in fact are complimentary.


Men simply boil marriage down to the ticket to do what ever their body tells them to. Christians are called to be above the flesh and its insatiable desires... God did give us a s*xual side... I am not denying that. I am also not telling people to not enjoy s*x with their wife... but it's absolutely insane and even immature to live by the rule of "Until I'm not told to do it, it's ok to do it..."

It would be equally insane and immature to live by the rule "I'm not going to do it until I'm told to". That type of statement is way to broad and cuts both ways.


Also, for anyone going to pull the "I need scripture" card... I'd like someone to show me a verse telling us Christian men to have s*x *insert random position* (I won't put the names in because it'd be vulgar... but I can easily to get the point across, since i think perspective is needed horribly on this topic).

That is why its called liberty Fuba. I know it is scary to alot of people and yes, liberty does come with great responsibility, but nonetheless liberty scares many who want to have a list of rules.

The scripture does not give us a list of rules governing much of the marriage bed specifics, i.e. what position, etc. God has given the Christian married coupld MUCH liberty in the area of their sexuality and it is a beautiful thing.


Us Christian men are given many things to do to our wives... To use them to fulfill the s*xual desires we've bottled up since pre-marriage is not one of them....

That is incorrect. The wife is for that exact purpose and we are for that purpose for her. Our wives are given to us to fulfill our sexual desires and we to them (and much more of course).

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 - Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Paul clearly teaches here that part of the role of husbands and wives is to fulfill each other's sexual desires and needs. When this is done sexual immorality is avoided.

jordan
Mar 14th 2007, 11:05 PM
I think that you are right that s*x should not be the number one priority in a Christian marriage. However, Paul made it quite clear that a couple should not deprive each other of s*xual enjoyment unless both are agreed to it, and even then only for a short time. Christians are also instructed to marry in order that they "do not burn with lust".

The fact is, God did not prescribe one approved manner in which Christians could have s*x. This is probably because He knows that there are many, many ways in which a couple can express their love for each other, and that different couples will enjoy different means of expression.

In this matter, I think that the only appropriate position is to trust couples to decide for themselves how they choose to share their affection. Even Paul, who quite frankly discusses s*x and marriage, did not venture to place limits on a married couple's s*xual liberties; it seems almost reckless to intrude upon the intimacy and best judgement of a married couple.

jordan
Mar 14th 2007, 11:08 PM
One final note, which I have separated from my previous post in case it is considered just a little too graphic!

Some males suffer from a condition called phimosis, which is basically a tight foreskin. It is observed at a higher incidence among men who did not m*sturbate during puberty. (Don't worry; I'm not about to argue that Christians should m*sturbate!) Treatment often means surgical intervention. It may be that a sufferer, when faced with this prospect, would prefer to either adapt his sexual practises to his condition; alternatively, they may try engaging in a form of kinaesthesiology, i.e. therapeutic m*sturbation, with his partner, in an attempt to remedy the condition without painful mutilation. Note that phimosis would actually prevent conventional, penetrative s*x; however, if they do not engage in some form of mutual activity they are explicitly breaking Paul's injunction not to withhold s*xual pleasure from each other.

Could we actually argue that the man who chooses either of these two options is sinning?

Fubajuba
Mar 15th 2007, 03:12 AM
This topic is one of the more frustrating ones... Since it doesn't even boil down to this issue.. it boils down to the whole relativity vs. absolute thing...

I also am interested that almost no one even considers the multitude of times that we are told not to live by the flesh... (and when the topic comes up, people break into semantic-battles, throwing greek around like snowballs).



It would be equally insane and immature to live by the rule "I'm not going to do it until I'm told to". That type of statement is way to broad and cuts both ways.

I'm not living by the "don't do it until you're told to" mentality... however... most Christians *DO* live by the one I spoke of..


That is incorrect. The wife is for that exact purpose and we are for that purpose for her. Our wives are given to us to fulfill our sexual desires and we to them (and much more of course).

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 - Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Paul clearly teaches here that part of the role of husbands and wives is to fulfill each other's sexual desires and needs. When this is done sexual immorality is avoided.

that's assuming a lack of self-control... I do understand that verse, and I am not telling people to not have s*x... I'm simply saying that burning with the lulst all the way until marriage with the idea of "Yes... I can be a freak (as someone advised another Christian to be) once I get married!"...


But, unfortunately, I must cut this reply short because I have a paper that I have put off for over a week...

Warrior4God
Mar 15th 2007, 04:56 AM
One of the main reasons I do not, and most likely will never, agree that anything is permisable in the marriage bed is because I've noticed a scary mentality in young Christians (men in particular).... The mentality that yes... s*x of any form before marriage is wrong... blahblahblah.. but once they get married... WOOOHOOO!!... The whole idea of maintaining a God-driven relationship to bring Glory to God, to edify the woman of the relationship as Christ did the Church. To honor, cherish, and appreciate the woman for who she is spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Men simply boil marriage down to the ticket to do what ever their body tells them to. Christians are called to be above the flesh and its insatiable desires... God did give us a s*xual side... I am not denying that. I am also not telling people to not enjoy s*x with their wife... but it's absolutely insane and even immature to live by the rule of "Until I'm not told to do it, it's ok to do it..."

Also, for anyone going to pull the "I need scripture" card... I'd like someone to show me a verse telling us Christian men to have s*x *insert random position* (I won't put the names in because it'd be vulgar... but I can easily to get the point across, since i think perspective is needed horribly on this topic).

Us Christian men are given many things to do to our wives... To use them to fulfill the s*xual desires we've bottled up since pre-marriage is not one of them....

First off, you sound sexually frigid.:hmm: I think you begrudgingly admit sex is meant for more than mere procreation purposes only because others have pointed this out to you with much proof of this fact... (clitorises, nipples have arousing capabilities, erogenous zones that serve no other purposes other than to bring intense physical pleasure, etc.) It seems to me that deep down inside you likely find sex to be "icky" or "dirty." Were you brought up in a sexually sterile environment? Had numerous negative sexual experiences? If so, I'm sorry to hear that, but if that's the case, it's not scriptural for you to try to twist everything that everybody else does and label it "sinful" just because you don't personally like it. The comment about others using the Bible to make their point...show me where some of these sex acts you don't like are specifically mentioned, or even hinted at, as being ones that are not to be done between a man and his wife. True, there are various sex acts that God looks down on such as homosexual sodomy, (nothing about heterosexual sodomy. God doesn't like homosexual sodomy because it's an act taking place between two males, which is contrary to His design for sex. It's to be between a man and a woman in marriage.:idea: ) bestiality, incest, adultery, fornication. However, the Bible doesn't really go into detail about what sex acts are forbidden between a man and his wife. Out of curiosity, is there anything specific you think is ok to do sexually between husbands and wives? I get the impression you could come up with quite a list of what you think is NOT "ok" to do, but I'm sure the list for "ok" would be extremely small to non-existent.:lol: The comment about not living according to the flesh...that doesn't mean we aren't to find any pleasure in this life. Life does not have to be continuously pious, dreary, and depressing so we can show others how "holy" we are. (Look! I'm so miserable and life sucks! No pleasure for me! God must really be happy with me! I'm so Holy now!) There are many things of the flesh we should avoid. Being filled with unrighteous anger or hate. Envy. Greed. Jealousy. Gluttony. Pride. Hurtful talk. Emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. However, there are many things we enjoy in a fleshly sense. Is looking at a beautiful sunset wrong? Smelling a pretty flower? Tasting a juicy steak? Listening to some soothing or uplifting music? Holding a cute, furry puppy? Sex is also a fleshly thing, yet the Bible indicates men and women were created for each other, sex is to be enjoyed in the bonds of marriage, and sex is in fact a marital obligation due to each other and it should not be deprived from one another except by mutual consent. The Bible indicates it is more honorable to marry than to continuously burn with sexual desire, because marriage is the correct place to express sexual passion and being single puts one into sexual temptation, and often sin, much of the time. Most people do not have the desire or ability to remain sexually celibate for life. Therefore, they marry. That is not to say sex is the only reason to marry, and I seriously doubt very many people, if any, marry solely for this reason.:rolleyes: But to deny the sexual aspect of marriage, or to say it's not important is stupid, to be quite honest.:hmm:

Fubajuba
Mar 15th 2007, 05:18 AM
I've never said s*x should be for solely for procreation. It serves much more of an important purpose. (emotional, spiritual... etc... also take into consideration people unable to bear children... if you cannot procreate, obviously having s*x with your wife is not wrong). Nor am I denying the importance of it... To think that I am would require jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth...

I actually believe that there are a lot of s*xual things that are fine... I just cannot stand seeing Christians using this freedom we have to go and do everything they can up to the point where it's barely righteous... The very concept of "anything goes" should not be in a Christian mind at all... Especially when it comes to s*xuality, being that the rest of the world has the very same mindset without any influence of God at all...

I am mainly speaking out against obvious perversions of s*x, including the hundreds of fetishes that exist. I cannot see how anyone that claims that anything between a husband and wife (Christians, might I add) can do anything they want, but when it comes to experimenting with things like Kama Sutra is apparently clearly wrong.

I, as you'd expect, am not endorsing any fetishes or tantric behaviors, including Kama Sutra-esque stuff.

Also, I'd appreciate a lack of assertions about my life or experiences... I've actually had different s*xual experiences, all of them wrong, regardless of the acts themselves (never been married... yes...). But regardless, I do not find s*x to be "icky" at all. I actually find it to be one of the greatest gifts given to man. However, humans have tainted just about everything given to them, and s*x cannot be seen as exempt to that.

Also, I have never judged anyone on here, condemning anyone saying they are wrong or horrible or dirty or anything else that I could be condemned for. I'm actually mainly surprised that fewer people have a dissenting voice to the popular opion of this message board. I am not attempting to rob myself of any of the happiness or pleasure that apparently so many of you on here have derived from having s*x with no boundaries whatsoever with your wife. I, however, am not planning on doing anything that pops into this sinful mind of mine to my wifes body. I have more respect for both my wife and myself than to do such a thing.

Sadly, anything I say here will be in vain. Most of anything that goes against the grain of the popular ideology of this board is simply chalked up to "Well, it must be wrong for him... but I don't see it as wrong for myself, so it isn't". Which is quite unfortunate.

jordan
Mar 15th 2007, 11:30 AM
I am mainly speaking out against obvious perversions of s*x, including the hundreds of fetishes that exist.

The definition of "sexual fetishism," according to the DSM, is a fixation on an inanimate objects or body parts. This encompasses many things, including:

enjoying frilly underwear;
liking certain types of outfit (I'm sure you've heard of girls who love a man in uniform);
appreciating certain body parts to a high degree. (I'd prefer not to give examples!)

While certain types of fetishism might well detract from the mutual self-gift of a married couple, or even be dangerous, I don't see how those outlined above are really an issue to most Christian couples. If indulged responsibly and in a mutually enjoyable fashion, they do nothing but add richness, variety and enthusiasm to sexual congress.

I know this is an extreme, but no one ever said that we had to have sex wearing burlap sacks, strategically covering any distracting body parts. Sexual fetishism doesn't replace the focus of a partner's affection, it simply acknowledges the existence of things or features which can make sex more interesting.


I cannot see how anyone that claims that anything between a husband and wife (Christians, might I add) can do anything they want, but when it comes to experimenting with things like Kama Sutra is apparently clearly wrong.

I, as you'd expect, am not endorsing any fetishes or tantric behaviors, including Kama Sutra-esque stuff.

I agree that following the teachings of another religion would be hard to justify. However, I'll note that it would not be improper to take inspiration from sexual positions suggested in the Kama Sutra. If a man or woman sees something, and thinks "hmm, that looks a bit more interesting than the way we do it now" then I think they're entirely justified to give it a shot. In the same way, I occasionally use positions while exercising such as the lotus position to increase flexibility; that doesn't mean I subscribe to the underlying philosophy of yoga. (Wow, I think that might be a cool discussion to have!)


Also, I'd appreciate a lack of assertions about my life or experiences...

Actually, I was quite unhappy about that, and I think it was highly inappropriate to start speculating about your sexual experience or tastes. I'm very impressed that you took it with such equanimity! Someone recently made a similar comment about me, and I was extremely hurt by it.


I actually find it to be one of the greatest gifts given to man. However, humans have tainted just about everything given to them, and s*x cannot be seen as exempt to that.

I'm inclined to think that these are errors of context (i.e. unmarried sex) rather than errors of practice.


I am not attempting to rob myself of any of the happiness or pleasure that apparently so many of you on here have derived from having s*x with no boundaries whatsoever with your wife.

*ahem* I appreciate that this is a "guys only," club, but for the sake of your wives/future wives can I just mention that women have sexual needs and expectations of their own? Far too many married women have not experienced an actual orgasm. If anyone here is too restrained to indulge their wife sufficiently for her to enjoy sex as much as they want to, may I respectfully suggest that this is something they need to reconsider.

Both the husband and the wife have a responsibility to each other in this respect. How they fulfil it, I don't care; so long as they are fulfilling each other.


I, however, am not planning on doing anything that pops into this sinful mind of mine to my wifes body. I have more respect for both my wife and myself than to do such a thing.

No one is suggesting that you do so. First, as Paul has pointed out, none of us are in a position to judge you for restricting yourself to whatever set of practises and boundaries you see fit, so long as you are both being fulfilled. Second, if anyone does want to engage in dangerous, harmful practises with their partners, this would be biblically incompatible and would probably qualify them for psychiatric treatment.


Sadly, anything I say here will be in vain. Most of anything that goes against the grain of the popular ideology of this board is simply chalked up to "Well, it must be wrong for him... but I don't see it as wrong for myself, so it isn't". Which is quite unfortunate.

To an extent, this is simply diversity of opinion, which I think is a good thing. Nobody here is trying to argue that partners should do anything which is biblically indefensible. As has been mentioned many times, Paul has allowed us a great deal of agency in what rules we choose to impose upon ourselves. You can choose to have your children circumcised; you can choose not to. I can choose to be vegetarian, you can choose to eat five steaks a day. If God prescribed an ideal position on everything, I think the Bible would be a much more boring and less accessible book, and Christians would be a pretty boring culture.

No one is saying "do what you want". But it is pretty clear that within established doctrinal limits, we are instructed to act in accordance with our own best conscience. None of us should deplore your own worthy and faithful self-regulation; neither should you deplore ours. :saint:

jordan
Mar 15th 2007, 11:48 AM
aaron,

I think that you overstepped a line with that post. It was deeply personal and it's highly inappropriate to speculate on how someone experiences sex, or the range of experiences they have had. You had some really great points, and I'm glad you're making them; but I think it would show a great strength of character if you apologised to Fubajuba, especially considering how politely and calmly he responded to you.

VerticalReality
Mar 15th 2007, 12:32 PM
The most alarming thing I see about this topic is that I don't see much of, "How can I please my spouse and show them my love and attraction to them?"

I'm seeing, "Boy, I can't wait till I get married so I can be a freak!"

The very concept of being a "freak" should raise alarms right off the bat, IMO. What is "freakish" about having sex with your spouse? Why would any action with your spouse make you a "freak"? That very term has extremely raunchy and perverted connotations.

It seems by many of these comments it is not what is pleasing to your spouse that is the goal. It seems the goal with some of the comments is how we can satisfy some carnal lust of our own.

1 Corinthians 7 also says that your body is not your own, so your ultimate goal, IMO, shouldn't be how you can please and satisfy your flesh, but rather how you can submit your body to your spouse in love. Sex isn't about some animalistic lust to fulfill your "freakish" desires. That's not what it is was meant to be, IMO.

jordan
Mar 15th 2007, 01:18 PM
The most alarming thing I see about this topic is that I don't see much of, "How can I please my spouse and show them my love and attraction to them?"

I'm seeing, "Boy, I can't wait till I get married so I can be a freak!"

That's a great point. Marriage should fulfil our lusts to an extent, but it would be very wrong to use it as an opportunity to go crazy doing whatever we want to do to our spouses. Christians should always keep pleasing, satisfying and connecting with one's spouse at the fore when having sex, and the most satisfied married Christians that I know are the ones who commit to this.

That doesn't mean that every Christian couple must do exactly the same thing in bed, nor be as unconventional as they want to be if that's how they enjoy sex. Sexual pleasure between a married couple is sacred, and God never said they shouldn't be inventive in finding ways to please each other.


The very concept of being a "freak" should raise alarms right off the bat, IMO. What is "freakish" about having sex with your spouse? Why would any action with your spouse make you a "freak"? That very term has extremely raunchy and perverted connotations.

I think that people were being hyperbolic in this respect; what I hope they were expressing is their desire to express themselves sexually with their partner without trying to fit in with what other couples enjoy. Every man and woman is an individual; different things please different people. I feel quite sorry for Solomon, because I think most people have a hard enough time pleasing one woman! :lol: So in this context, they didn't mean "freak" to imply "operating outside of God's established principles"; they meant "expressing myself as an individual, and respecting my married partner as an individual in like manner".


It seems by many of these comments it is not what is pleasing to your spouse that is the goal. It's seems the goal with some of the comments is how we can satisfy some carnal lust of our own.

Marriage is meant to satisfy and control our carnal lusts, and we should feel no shame that it does. That's why Paul said that it is "better to marry than to burn with lust," and that sex should be withheld only through mutual consent, and for a short time. But you're right that it would be dangerous and unbiblical to use marriage solely to obtain satisfaction, or to indulge those lusts irrespective of your partner's wishes and desires.


1 Corinthians 7 also says that your body is not your own, so your ultimate goal, IMO, shouldn't be how you can please and satisfy your flesh, but rather how you can submit your body to your spouse in love. Sex isn't about some animalistic lust to fulfill your "freakish" desires. That's not what it is was meant to be, IMO.

An excellent perspective. I hope that none of us doubt that our bodies are to be used in loving submission to our partners.

Warrior4God
Mar 15th 2007, 01:20 PM
aaron,

I think that you overstepped a line with that post. It was deeply personal and it's highly inappropriate to speculate on how someone experiences sex, or the range of experiences they have had. You had some really great points, and I'm glad you're making them; but I think it would show a great strength of character if you apologised to Fubajuba, especially considering how politely and calmly he responded to you.

Very well. If Fubajuba was offended by my post, I apologize for that. It was not my intent to be offensive to him or others. I was only inquiring, which he did not have to reply if he chose not to, in order to get some insight as to why he had such a narrow view of sex. If he has had a normal upbringing and he feels his sex life is personal for him that's perfectly fine. I wasn't trying to imply anything. It just seems that he has the view that if a Christian man enjoys sex it must mean he is "selfish" and "carnal." Well, first of all, we are supposed to enjoy sex! God put some deliberate effort and time into designing the human body, male and female, to respond in sexual ways that are not necessary for mere reproductive purposes. Also, I don't know that anybody is advocating here that literally ANYTHING goes as far as sex between a man and his wife goes. Threesomes? Of course not. That would be adultery, regardless if wife and husband both consented. Viewing pornography? Nope. That's committing mental and emotional adultery. Using an animal in a sexual way? (yuck!) Nope. That's bestiality. There are some things a married couple clearly just cannot do and hopefully wouldn't want to do. There are other things that, while you may not personally like for various reasons, are not prohibited in scripture. Also, nobody is advocating that only one person be satisfied in the sexual relationship. It isn't just about "what can I get." Yes, it's normal to want to be satisfied for yourself, but if one is a caring person, they will make the effort to please their spouse, too.

Steve M
Mar 15th 2007, 01:31 PM
I'm actually mainly surprised that fewer people have a dissenting voice to the popular opion of this message board.

A brief word here on this comment, Fuba.

I'm painfully aware that through my own past sins with p0rnography I've tainted my mind with thoughts that really are not beneficial in any way to any kind of relationship, and lead me into entirely the wrong frame of mind for a loving, wholesome relationship.

Any woman I marry will probably have a whole lot less in the way of mental baggage to carry into the relationship. Which, given how much baggage most people carry, is a heck of a statement...

In any relationship that I get into I'm committed to not letting what I've done in the past taint my future.

All that explanation is just to explain why on a certain level I do agree with you. (what's that, he says? you do? Wait for the punchline, bucko)

In any relationship I would not push any of my desires because I don't want any part of me to fixate for too long on what I want. Instead I would be fixated on trying to make sure that she got what she wanted/needed. I don't necessarily mean that in a sexual way, either.

All that said...

I believe it was Martin Luther who said that which is not explicitly forbidden is implicitly allowed, or words to that effect. He was speaking about different issues, of course. He was speaking to a generation of people who held themselves to an entirely extrabiblical set of rules. Lent, sex was only for procreation, etc. etc.

But, still, the Bible does not forbid these things. Instead it insists, in the scripture just given above, that your primary concern should be for the other person. A lot of people go 'huh-huh-huh' when they hear the part about the woman's body not being her own, but miss the part about their body not being their own, but hers.

I cannot in good conscience tell a Christian couple what is or is not acceptable, beyond that. That is what the Lord saw fit to put in place as a limit in marriage, and in sexual matters. YOUR BODY IS NOT YOUR OWN.

That's a two-edged sword of an arguement, too. Sure, it might be taken to mean that if your wife is uncomfortable with something you have no business pressing the issue. But what if she's the curious one? I'm not really sure of irlandes' statistics that he threw out earlier in the thread, but it sounds true. What then?

I agree with VR, and would point out I said the same thing at least three weeks before you, dude.

The problem I have is, as I said before... when we start just making up rules based not on specific scripture but based on our feelings, or what we FEEL is fleshly or not fleshly, we're on pretty shaky ground. How can I call something sin where the Bible does not explicitly call it sinful?

If we're going to start on that, then you know what? I've got some rules I'd like to make, if we're in that business.

You read what I said there and the frothing starts. "That's not what we're doing!"

If it's not in the Bible and we're trying to make it a rule based on words like worldly or make no provisions for the flesh, and the desires thereof, how are we not making up our own rules?

So, Fuba... while in practice I would agree with you, and on scriptural principle I think anytime a Christian man is getting away from putting his wife higher than himself and honoring her he's seriously straying from what the scripture says, EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU THAT FAR, I can't go any further. Why?

Because the Bible is the sole authority, and it sets forward some pretty specific rules on things that were considered important. But on this matter the Lord remained silent, and His silence must also mean my silence.

Because He makes the rules. Not me. Whether I want more permissive rules or less permissive rules.

And that principle holds true in every part of the Bible. God made the rules regarding... eating meat. He said everything there was to say on the subject. And He topped it all off with an injunction that meat-eaters were not to look down on those who didn't eat, and those who don't eat were not to despise those who do eat.

Literally everything we need to know about eating meat.

We are perfectly equipped for every good work, the Bible tells us. That means God thought He gave us everything we needed to know about marriage when He said YOUR BODY IS NOT YOUR OWN.

So, to conclude (again! :))...

I can appreciate your reasoning here, Fuba. But I can't follow you further than that.

atrus912
Mar 15th 2007, 02:15 PM
The most alarming thing I see about this topic is that I don't see much of, "How can I please my spouse and show them my love and attraction to them?"

I'm seeing, "Boy, I can't wait till I get married so I can be a freak!"

AHEM. As the aspiring sexual freak who posted that, I have to say a few things.

I did not say that I can't wait to get married so that I can become a freak. I said that when I get married I will be a freak. I was stating what is an already established fact. I was not declaring my future wife to be an object to me.


The very concept of being a "freak" should raise alarms right off the bat, IMO. What is "freakish" about having sex with your spouse? Why would any action with your spouse make you a "freak"? That very term has extremely raunchy and perverted connotations.

That is my very point. There is nothing freakish about having sex with my spouse. My statement was meant to express my belief that there is no reason to be worried about sexual imitations in marriage, as the Bible doesn't state any. Some have taken verses and tried to twist them around so that they will, but at the end of the day, the bedroom is fair sexual ground.


It seems by many of these comments it is not what is pleasing to your spouse that is the goal. It seems the goal with some of the comments is how we can satisfy some carnal lust of our own.

I do not have "eternal lust". For you to describe my sexual aspirations (with my future wife, nontheless) is extremely insulting. My goal is to have a wife whom I love. Whom I can share the rest of my life with and who will love me in return. I want to be able to enjoy making love with my wife. If that's a problem for anyone here, then take a look at Song of Solomon if you would like to clarify what I would like to have in a wife.


1 Corinthians 7 also says that your body is not your own, so your ultimate goal, IMO, shouldn't be how you can please and satisfy your flesh, but rather how you can submit your body to your spouse in love. Sex isn't about some animalistic lust to fulfill your "freakish" desires. That's not what it is was meant to be, IMO.

That was not my original post. You very well know it. You are hanging on the word "freak" like I've spoken some evil heresy. I'm sorry to make this seem so personal. But when you stickman me like this, then it's personal.

jordan
Mar 15th 2007, 02:18 PM
AHEM. As the aspiring sexual freak who posted that, I have to say a few things.

:lol: Well, I hope my attempt at interpretation on your behalf wasn't too far off the mark!

VerticalReality
Mar 15th 2007, 02:47 PM
I did not say that I can't wait to get married so that I can become a freak. I said that when I get married I will be a freak. I was stating what is an already established fact. I was not declaring my future wife to be an object to me.

What if your future wife doesn't want to be a "freak" with you? What if your future wife doesn't agree with sodomy, or any other sexual act that you may or may not agree with? Therefore, you can't really make such a statement with any accuracy. Many women feel that oral or anal sex is degrading and just downright unnatural. I agree with them. However, that is something you have to be led by with your own conscience.


That is my very point. There is nothing freakish about having sex with my spouse. My statement was meant to express my belief that there is no reason to be worried about sexual imitations in marriage, as the Bible doesn't state any. Some have taken verses and tried to twist them around so that they will, but at the end of the day, the bedroom is fair sexual ground.

Not necessarily. You simply do not override someone else's conscience, and you are really in no position to state what will or will not be permissable in the bedroom with your future spouse.


I do not have "eternal lust". For you to describe my sexual aspirations (with my future wife, nontheless) is extremely insulting.

What is "eternal lust"? I never stated anything about that.


My goal is to have a wife whom I love. Whom I can share the rest of my life with and who will love me in return. I want to be able to enjoy making love with my wife. If that's a problem for anyone here, then take a look at Song of Solomon if you would like to clarify what I would like to have in a wife.

The Song of Solomon is beautiful. It's about a bride and bridegroom who are deeply in love with one another and express that love in a sexual way. There's nothing wrong with that at all. However, if you'll notice as well that they were satisfied with each other. They didn't need outside influence. They didn't need sex toys or any other worldly product to make their sexual relationship fulfilling. He was satisfied with her body and her with him. The book is about love and passion. It's not about lust and perversion. It's important to distinguish between the two. I'm not making this statement directed at you. I'm making this statement directed at the many comments I've seen in this thread. This idea of "anything goes" in the marriage bed is not the case at all. As a matter of fact, you won't find too many Christian women who want "anything" to go in the bedroom.


That was not my original post. You very well know it. You are hanging on the word "freak" like I've spoken some evil heresy. I'm sorry to make this seem so personal. But when you stickman me like this, then it's personal.

I'm not trying to make this personal toward you. I'm basing these comments off many things I've seen in this thread. Not just from you.

Toolman
Mar 15th 2007, 03:01 PM
This topic is one of the more frustrating ones... Since it doesn't even boil down to this issue.. it boils down to the whole relativity vs. absolute thing...

I also am interested that almost no one even considers the multitude of times that we are told not to live by the flesh... (and when the topic comes up, people break into semantic-battles, throwing greek around like snowballs).

Have we not learned from scripture that part of "living by the flesh" is placing extra-biblical rules upon others and infering that what God has created is "dirty".

Back to the original post, are there sexual limitations and instructions in marriage? Absolutely there are and we have them defined in scripture as I pointed out earlier:

Love our wives as Christ loves the Church (Ephesians 5:25)
Submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21)
Don't be bitter towards your wife (Colossians 3:19)
Give honor to her (1 Peter 3:7)
Your body (and sex) are for your wife's pleasure and sexual needs (1 Corinthians 7:3-4)
Sexual talk is godly (Song of Solomon)

The scriptures speak to the HEART on these issues and give LIBERTY to a couple to have a healthy, loving, God honoring, orgasmic sex life that is built upon being open before Christ and one another.

So if a couple have a MUTUAL desire to experience sex in a way that both enjoy and desire then the scripture guides them to do so.

Many times it is the flesh and religion (false) that get in the way of a Christian couple having a fulfilling sexual life. The woman feels "dirty" because of her sexual desires or the man feels inadequate because of his lack of knowledge of how to sexually satisfy a woman, etc.

I think it would be God glorifying if within the home and Church Christian men and women could learn the correct view of sex and the actual mechanics of sex. Alas, home and Church often fall short in this area.


I'm not living by the "don't do it until you're told to" mentality... however... most Christians *DO* live by the one I spoke of..

Way to broad a stroke my friend. Most Christians definitely do not live by what you spoke. There are absolutely millions of Christians alive today and billions who have passed and I would say the vast majority do not and have not lived by that mantra.


that's assuming a lack of self-control... I do understand that verse, and I am not telling people to not have s*x... I'm simply saying that burning with the lulst all the way until marriage with the idea of "Yes... I can be a freak (as someone advised another Christian to be) once I get married!"...

Simply miscommunication IMO. I think Atrus was expressing his thankfulness to God that while he remains celibate now he will rejoice in his and his wife's sexuality when he is married.

atrus912
Mar 15th 2007, 03:57 PM
:lol: Well, I hope my attempt at interpretation on your behalf wasn't too far off the mark!

Nah, dude. You're cool. The individual I was addresing knows who he is. You're totally fine, man. Don't worry about it.

jordan
Mar 15th 2007, 05:24 PM
I'm just going to select one part of your very long post, VR, since I feel that a lot of what you're criticising can be reduced to this one point:


As a matter of fact, you won't find too many Christian women who want "anything" to go in the bedroom.


If the woman is not happy with it, her husband should not do it. This is indisputable.
Who actually knows what they want from sex until they have had it? Many of my friends have confirmed that their expectations of sex changed after having it. Give the couple time to get accustomed to each other's tastes, bodies, needs, desires... Then they will be equipped to make an informed decision about what they want to do in bed. And it ill behoves us to pass judgement.

Fubajuba
Mar 15th 2007, 06:38 PM
Ok, this is slightly too crazy for my liking...

I'd like to set the record straight...


aaron, I am not offended, so no worries. Though I do appreciate Jordan noticing the statements made. They were in appropriate, but I have had much worse thrown at me by people that I actually knew in person and loved dearly, so it did not harm me much. So really, don't worry about it.

And to everyone else.... It is not my mission to come on here and condemn things that you guys do with your wives. I'm not here to say what is right and what is wrong... I do find certain things wrong (i.e fetishes, tantric s*x, and other things that are completely primal in nature). I am mainly alarmed by the fact that I see christian men looking forward to s*x, and not actually making love to/with their wives. Such alarm isn't even directed at those of this board, but mostly at the Christian guys, either my age or older, that have some twisted mentalitly about s*x, and that they can just go crazy when they get married.

I personally don't really care about what any of you do with your wives. Most likely you guys don't do CRAZY things that I personally see as wrong. And if you do, ok, we might disagree when talking about all of this, but all in all, we're still brothers in Christ.

So, I apologize if it ever seemed as if I was condemning anyone or finger pointing. I was merely alarmed and concerned by a common mentality found in Christian men, and I am very fervent about wanting to love my future wife in a manner that glorifies God, and I take such a thing very seriously. I've made horrible mistakes in the past, giving me all the more reason to do it right in the present and the future.

VerticalReality
Mar 15th 2007, 06:41 PM
You are really starting to try my internet patience.

Then perhaps you should calm down and not take yourself so seriously. Nothing on this forum is worth all that. Take a minute and step away from the discussion until your "internet patience" is back in Kingdom order.


More stickman. I never ever said that I would force or try to coerce my wife into doing something she didn't want to do. That would be flirting along the lines of rape. What I was stating was that I have no problem with anything a man and his wife choose to do between themselves in the bedroom sexually.

I never stated you would "force" anything either, so who is "stickmanning"? I'm simply commenting on your opinion of what you "would" do when or if you get married. The fact is you have no idea what you "would" do since you aren't married and you don't have the conscience of another individual entering into the equation. Basically what I'm saying is that you're trying to speak about that which you have no firsthand knowledge of. What I'm saying is that this situation is not black and white as some want to make it. I've seen it stated countless times in this thread that what goes on in the bedroom of a married couple should be labeled as "anything goes". My opinion is that this is far from the truth. It is NEVER "anything goes". There are always boundaries, especially when dealing with two different people with two different viewpoints.


You're right. It's a good thing I never said that now isn't it? Stickman.

You do state that when you say "anything goes". Anything does not go when you have two people making a decision on any subject matter.


Well, I find the accusation that I would not want The Holy Spirit right there in the bedroom with me to be insulting in the extreme. So it really doesn't make that any better.

I'm not really understanding what you're trying to say here.


Okay, I'm now going to point you to the original post in which I used the word "freak". I said that as long as my wife is up for it, anything goes. That puts your entire argument completely out of context, dude. Sorry.

Not really. Even if your wife is "up for it" . . . it is still not the best term in the world to describe it with. That is a term that the world uses to describe how nasty and dirty they can get when engaging in sexual activity.

I remember when I was unsaved and behaving like a heathen with my buddies the ideas that would enter our mind if we heard someone was a "freak". It wasn't a term used in very high regard to the person we were talking about. It usually meant that they were VERY sexually deviant. Or in other words, it had very wicked and sinful connotations.

Since we are to be separate from the world, that is the last thing I would want to portray when it comes to a sexual relationship with my wife. Sex with our spouse is about a loving relationship with someone we respect and adore. It's not a situation where I want to see just how "freaky" I can be. You say this was not your intention, and that is great. However, that is still the image you are portraying when you use such terminology.


Oh, and as for sex toys and lingerie, two words: mail order.

What does mail order have to do with sex toys and lingerie?


Yes, well unfortunatley you did make it personal when you started twisting my words around and stickmanning me. So, sorry, but there it is.

I'm sorry you take things so personally, but as I suggested earlier . . . simply take a step back and don't take everything so seriously. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm simply stating my opinion about the terminology you are choosing to use.

Steve M
Mar 15th 2007, 06:48 PM
but mostly at the Christian guys, either my age or older, that have some twisted mentalitly about s*x,

That is something I have observed myself, FB. This American culture we live in is one of hedonism. And I see a lot of the Church around me absorbing the culture rather than repulsing it.

Toolman
Mar 15th 2007, 07:01 PM
That is something I have observed myself, FB. This American culture we live in is one of hedonism. And I see a lot of the Church around me absorbing the culture rather than repulsing it.

It seems to cut both ways though guys.

The twisted ideas about sex are either "sex is dirty" (religious idea) or that "Whatever feels good to me do it" (worldly).

The wordly mentality we see here in the U.S. is very much a reaction to the "religious" idea that had permeated the country for most of its existence. We, the Church, hold some of the blame.

Surely we, as godly men, can try to find the proper biblical balance between:

1) Understanding that sex, sexuality and all of its beautiful aspects are created by God who desires to give us pleasure (revealed through the created)

2) We live under a King who has formed boundaries around this gift for our good and for His glory. These boundaries find there root in love.

Pendulum's swing wide as always but as men of Christ it seems we should be seeking neither what "religion" would teach or worldliness but the proper balance.

I heard someone say "Balance is what I swing through on my way to the other extreme".

That seems to often be the case with us humans.

Steve M
Mar 15th 2007, 07:09 PM
but as men of Christ it seems we should be seeking neither what "religion" would teach or worldliness but the proper balance.That's very true. Well said. All I would add to that is: "the proper balance, that is, what the Bible shows us."

In the face of the worldly attitude towards sex, which is both self-serving and filled with every kind of perversion man can imagine, God said simply 'set the other higher than yourself.'

That solves somewhere around seventy or eighty percent of all bedroom discussions by itself, right there. Or it should, anyway.

Fubajuba
Mar 16th 2007, 02:48 AM
That is something I have observed myself, FB. This American culture we live in is one of hedonism. And I see a lot of the Church around me absorbing the culture rather than repulsing it.

Yes, that is a sad fact that I greatly detest.

Drums4Him
Mar 18th 2007, 03:59 PM
It seems to cut both ways though guys.

The twisted ideas about sex are either "sex is dirty" (religious idea) or that "Whatever feels good to me do it" (worldly).

The wordly mentality we see here in the U.S. is very much a reaction to the "religious" idea that had permeated the country for most of its existence. We, the Church, hold some of the blame.

Surely we, as godly men, can try to find the proper biblical balance between:

1) Understanding that sex, sexuality and all of its beautiful aspects are created by God who desires to give us pleasure (revealed through the created)

2) We live under a King who has formed boundaries around this gift for our good and for His glory. These boundaries find there root in love.

Pendulum's swing wide as always but as men of Christ it seems we should be seeking neither what "religion" would teach or worldliness but the proper balance.

I heard someone say "Balance is what I swing through on my way to the other extreme".

That seems to often be the case with us humans.

This is right on, you nailed it Toolman. Number 2 says it so eliquently and sums it up.

Romulus
Mar 23rd 2007, 06:30 PM
I know there has been a thread on this, but sex just seems wrong when not used in a traditional, and only for baby-making. Why would God allow for people to sexually use their bodies in ways they weren't meant to be used? Seems kinda dirty...I don't know....

Sex is the procedure so to speak......making Love(in marriage) is what it is about. Making love is an outward expression of what is in your heart for your wife. Children are just an outpouring or example of that Love. Making Love is just one of the examples (albight THE MOST ENJOYABLE!) that we express our Love for a woman. If it was just for baby-making we have totally removed Love from the equation. Plus, if a woman or man was not able to have children then would there be no reason for having sex and are they useless? Of course not. Even if no children, that Love can still be expressed.

Fubajuba
Mar 26th 2007, 12:44 AM
I still don't think anyone is debating the fact that s*x is for love, not just babies. The debate is whether or not a line exists where s*x can turn into sin between a man and a wife. Most on this board think that there is no line. I am one of those who believes there is a line to be drawn somewhere.

So, I hope this doesn't resort back to the squabbling over semantics and doctrine that we had before.

Toolman
Mar 26th 2007, 01:13 AM
I still don't think anyone is debating the fact that s*x is for love, not just babies. The debate is whether or not a line exists where s*x can turn into sin between a man and a wife. Most on this board think that there is no line. I am one of those who believes there is a line to be drawn somewhere.

Fuba,

I have to disagree with your conclusion above.

I would say most on this board would say that there can DEFINITELY be sin between a man and woman but that it is more of a heart issue than a "what position" or what type of sex a man and woman have.

A man could forcefully take his wife and have vaginal intercourse with her during a time when she was unwilling and that would definitely be an issue of sin (multiple scriptures address this).

Another couple could lovingly and giveingly give each other oral sex and not be in sin because both are doing so out of an open, honest and giving relationship.

Goes back to my post #43 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1167454&postcount=43) where the scriptures address the "heart" and not so much the various acts. If scripture addresses any "acts" we need to be aware of those but I would say those addressing a married couple are very slim.

FWIW.

Fubajuba
Mar 26th 2007, 02:21 AM
I don't wish to start this debate again...

I apologize for any lack of clarity, since I know was simply assuming that rape would be considered a sin regardless...

I do still take the stance that a line is drawn somewhere... and I'm not drawing it before oral s*x. I've drawn it before things that even people of the world consider perverse. So, as I've said earlier; I'm not here to say that anything you guys do with your wives, or any right-minded Christian would do with their wives, is wrong. I'm simply clarifying that we should not do any little thing that you can possibly concieve.

Warrior4God
Mar 26th 2007, 11:42 PM
I don't wish to start this debate again...

I apologize for any lack of clarity, since I know was simply assuming that rape would be considered a sin regardless...

I do still take the stance that a line is drawn somewhere... and I'm not drawing it before oral s*x. I've drawn it before things that even people of the world consider perverse. So, as I've said earlier; I'm not here to say that anything you guys do with your wives, or any right-minded Christian would do with their wives, is wrong. I'm simply clarifying that we should not do any little thing that you can possibly concieve.

I would agree with you to a point. There are definitely some sex acts that are forbidden for a man and wife to do... spouse swapping, threesomes, bestiality (Yes, messing with animals is gross, but there are some perverts out there that get off on this stuff. Unfortunately, I have seen stuff on the internet to know this.:blush: ), watching pornography, etc. There are limits on sex, even though one is married. However, there are various things a couple is able to do that the scriptures don't neccessarily directly address. In this case, it's up to the couple to decide what they will allow themselves to do. If they can do it without their consciences being bothered and the Bible is silent on the matter then the couple has liberty in the Lord to bring sexual pleasure to their marriage how they see fit. I would definitely say it's NOT "anything goes." God does put some limits on things, as I've pointed out earlier. He has to. If He didn't we would totally self-destruct in time. Mankind is so strongly sinful that, even with the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, we do wrong things at times.:B It's a good thing He is still willing to forgive us, isn't it? :hmm:

Toolman
Mar 26th 2007, 11:49 PM
I would agree with you to a point. There are definitely some sex acts that are forbidden for a man and wife to do... spouse swapping, threesomes, bestiality (Yes, messing with animals is gross, but there are some perverts out there that get off on this stuff. Unfortunately, I have seen stuff on the internet to know this.:blush: ), watching pornography, etc.

Aaron,

Nice post but I would just like to point out that the things you mention above are sex acts OUTSIDE of marriage and are not between a man and wife.

Spouse swap - adultery with another woman/man
Threesome - same thing
Bestiality - Sex with an animal
Pornography - Sex with a prostitute

All of these are restricted because each is a sex act that is not within the bounds of marriage, i.e. sexual act between a husband and wife.

Just for clarification.

Warrior4God
Mar 27th 2007, 12:13 AM
Aaron,

Nice post but I would just like to point out that the things you mention above are sex acts OUTSIDE of marriage and are not between a man and wife.

Spouse swap - adultery with another woman/man
Threesome - same thing
Bestiality - Sex with an animal
Pornography - Sex with a prostitute

All of these are restricted because each is a sex act that is not within the bounds of marriage, i.e. sexual act between a husband and wife.

Just for clarification.

Well, thanks. However, I was just pointing out there are sexual acts which one can engage in, some alone and some with their spouse, while being married, that are sinful. For instance, I'm embarassed to admit this, but my wife and I used to like to watch porno movies together before we were Christians. It was a form of visual/emotional adultery that we both engaged in and enjoyed. :blush:

Toolman
Mar 27th 2007, 12:51 AM
Well, thanks. However, I was just pointing out there are sexual acts which one can engage in, some alone and some with their spouse, while being married, that are sinful. For instance, I'm embarassed to admit this, but my wife and I used to like to watch porno movies together before we were Christians. It was a form of visual/emotional adultery that we both engaged in and enjoyed. :blush:

I'm totally hip to what you are saying and completely agree and was just making the point that those things which you mentioned are definitely things which the scriptures address and which are outside of the marriage bed, i.e. sex between and man and his wife.

Hope that makes sense.

Fubajuba
Mar 27th 2007, 07:36 PM
There are still things that are IN the marriage bed that are wrong... I really would rather I didn't have to be vulgar... but if I were to simply list the fetishes out there in this world (that most of you have known of or at least heard of), anyone with a conscience would be able to determine what was right and wrong of them...

Toolman
Mar 27th 2007, 07:43 PM
There are still things that are IN the marriage bed that are wrong... I really would rather I didn't have to be vulgar... but if I were to simply list the fetishes out there in this world (that most of you have known of or at least heard of), anyone with a conscience would be able to determine what was right and wrong of them...

I would imagine most of those are covered by scripture also but since we don't want to list them I'll leave it at that.

Scripture doesn't leave us orphaned on these matters, it really is the final authority on all matters of faith. We don't have to rely on our imaginations or what we think is best. The scriptures really can guide us. That is my basic point, we don't have to rely on our own thoughts about matters but measure those thoughts against scripture.

Fubajuba
Mar 28th 2007, 01:04 PM
Well, I'm talking about the extremely strange ones that even scripture wouldn't address specifically... i.e ingesting different bodily fluids/wastes... Or the multitude of psdeudo violent/saddistic things people do to each other because in some strange way it gets them "turned on".

Toolman
Mar 28th 2007, 01:21 PM
Well, I'm talking about the extremely strange ones that even scripture wouldn't address specifically... i.e ingesting different bodily fluids/wastes... Or the multitude of psdeudo violent/saddistic things people do to each other because in some strange way it gets them "turned on".

I understand which ones you are regarding and I believe scripture does address what we are to eat (eating human waste is not it) and also addresses our body as a temple, so destroying that temple in some fetish is out (violent/abusive sex).

I seriously doubt there is a single Christian (true believer and not name only) couple in the world who would try to justify such acts as falling within God's will for their marriage and would readily admit that they have a psychological problem in this area.

As I said I believe scripture does give us a lamp to our feet in all areas of faith. Where it is silent on certain matters we must leave to the conscience of the Christian couple. Where it speaks we must also speak.

This is my belief not only in the area of marriage and sex but all areas.

Fubajuba
Mar 28th 2007, 05:30 PM
Oh yes, I know that no Christians would try to justify such things. But, that is an example of there being limitations, no matter how extreme they are, being placed in the marriage bed. Neither of those fetishes are spoken directly against, however, so it requires some form of extrapolation.

But essentially, we don't really disagree on this.

Toolman
Mar 28th 2007, 06:17 PM
Oh yes, I know that no Christians would try to justify such things. But, that is an example of there being limitations, no matter how extreme they are, being placed in the marriage bed. Neither of those fetishes are spoken directly against, however, so it requires some form of extrapolation.

But essentially, we don't really disagree on this.

No doubt and for the record I think you will see me consistent on this stance throughout this thread...

That stance being that there ARE limitations and boundaries placed on the marriage bed (I don't see a single poster disagreeing with this point) and that there is also a TREMENDOUS amount of liberty in the marriage bed and that scripture has not left us to our own on this but can lead and guide believers on how they are to enjoy the sexuality of our mates.

Faith44
Mar 30th 2007, 07:28 AM
I want to bring up a theory that I have about manual sex (stimulation to your partner by hand) and oral sex. Please keep in mind this is a theory of mine. I do not preach this as a fact and I myself still debate this topic.

WARNING: I do include a descriptive sexual act in this post. If you do not wish to read such things, skip it now please. Also I must make it clear that I am posting for educational and debatable discussion. I in no way intend for this to be taken erotically.

I feel that manual sex and oral sex could be ok in sex between spouses. My reason for this is the clitoris. I have researched quite a bit on sexual studies over the years and countless sources, including Dr. Alfred Kinsey's studies. (For those who do not know, Dr. Kinsey was a very famous and well respected sexual psychologist and research specialist, whom studied and surveyed thousands of sexually active people) They all conclude that the vast majority of sexual pleasure a woman gets is from the clitoris. Most women claimed they require stimulation of it to reach climax. Less that 14% of those in Kinsey's studies claimed they received stronger stimulation from vaginal intercourse than they did through stimulation of the clitoris.

The reason why this is important is because the clitoris is not stimulated by regular vaginal intercourse. It is outside and above the vagina. The only way to stimulate it is by applying pressure to it (i.e. via fingers, tounge, etc.). Added to that, the clitoris serves no other function than to bring a woman to orgasm. Many women claim that the moist light touch of a tounge to it brings a stronger stimulation than fingers might.

Men's most sensetive pleasure point is located just beneath the head on the front of the penis. Lucky for us, the most traditional and widley accepted sexual act/position brings this part of our body entierly inserted during intercourse, rendering it to be fully stimulated and almost always gauranteeing that we be brought to full climax. Unfortunetly for women, their most vital part to orgasm is left ignored, thus leaving them unsatisfied. Many women claim they have had either few or even no orgasms at all via vaginal sex. It is because their clitoris receives no stimulation.

If spouses are supposed to enjoy God's gift of sexual pleasure, then both should be able to reach orgasm. The traditional/most morally accepted accepted sexual act (woman laying on her back, man laying on top, facing her, vaginal insertion only) will always please a man, but often neglects the woman of climax (though women still do receive some pleasure through vaginal stimulation). So is it wrong to help your wife complete the act by means of manual or oral stimulation, since that is what most women require in order to do so?

Again, I am bringing this up for debate. I am not saying that it is wrong or right. I only feel that it is a valid theory. If this has offended you, I apologize. If any admin feels this is not acceptable for the forum, feel free to take it down. I understand.

Warrior4God
Mar 30th 2007, 01:16 PM
I want to bring up a theory that I have about manual sex (stimulation to your partner by hand) and oral sex. Please keep in mind this is a theory of mine. I do not preach this as a fact and I myself still debate this topic.

WARNING: I do include a descriptive sexual act in this post. If you do not wish to read such things, skip it now please. Also I must make it clear that I am posting for educational and debatable discussion. I in no way intend for this to be taken erotically.

I feel that manual sex and oral sex could be ok in sex between spouses. My reason for this is the clitoris. I have researched quite a bit on sexual studies over the years and countless sources, including Dr. Alfred Kinsey's studies. (For those who do not know, Dr. Kinsey was a very famous and well respected sexual psychologist and research specialist, whom studied and surveyed thousands of sexually active people) They all conclude that the vast majority of sexual pleasure a woman gets is from the clitoris. Most women claimed they require stimulation of it to reach climax. Less that 14% of those in Kinsey's studies claimed they received stronger stimulation from vaginal intercourse than they did through stimulation of the clitoris.

The reason why this is important is because the clitoris is not stimulated by regular vaginal intercourse. It is outside and above the vagina. The only way to stimulate it is by applying pressure to it (i.e. via fingers, tounge, etc.). Added to that, the clitoris serves no other function than to bring a woman to orgasm. Many women claim that the moist light touch of a tounge to it brings a stronger stimulation than fingers might.

Men's most sensetive pleasure point is located just beneath the head on the front of the penis. Lucky for us, the most traditional and widley accepted sexual act/position brings this part of our body entierly inserted during intercourse, rendering it to be fully stimulated and almost always gauranteeing that we be brought to full climax. Unfortunetly for women, their most vital part to orgasm is left ignored, thus leaving them unsatisfied. Many women claim they have had either few or even no orgasms at all via vaginal sex. It is because their clitoris receives no stimulation.

If spouses are supposed to enjoy God's gift of sexual pleasure, then both should be able to reach orgasm. The traditional/most morally accepted accepted sexual act (woman laying on her back, man laying on top, facing her, vaginal insertion only) will always please a man, but often neglects the woman of climax (though women still do receive some pleasure through vaginal stimulation). So is it wrong to help your wife complete the act by means of manual or oral stimulation, since that is what most women require in order to do so?

Again, I am bringing this up for debate. I am not saying that it is wrong or right. I only feel that it is a valid theory. If this has offended you, I apologize. If any admin feels this is not acceptable for the forum, feel free to take it down. I understand.

Well, to be honest, I think what you wrote is right on. I really don't see anything wrong with oral sex or manual stimulation. God designed the human body (male and female) to enjoy sex, and pleasure can be brought in various ways. It's apparent the "missionary" position, as it's called, doesn't often bring enough stimulation to a woman for her to reach orgasm, which God obviously designed a woman's body to do. Some people may not like oral sex or manual stimulation, and that's fine, but that's not the same thing as it being wrong to do. :hmm:

Toolman
Mar 30th 2007, 02:02 PM
I want to bring up a theory that I have about manual sex (stimulation to your partner by hand) and oral sex...

I see no debate in this whatsoever. There is nothing scripturally that would prohibit either manual or oral stimulation (in fact I would put forth that Song of Solomon encourages couples to do so).

Any man who does not understand a woman's physiology is going to be frustrated with himself because one of man's deepest desires is to be a good lover so I just don't see any debate here whatsoever, especially in regards to manual stimulation.

Chimon
Apr 6th 2007, 07:27 AM
I also am interested that almost no one even considers the multitude of times that we are told not to live by the flesh... (and when the topic comes up, people break into semantic-battles, throwing greek around like snowballs).

Sex is not living by the flesh. The Bible strongly supports the premise that sex is deeply emotional and spiritual. I would argue that since sex is (arguably) the greatest expression of love, and God is Love, marital sex is a direct encounter with God.

Also, the Bible states that durring sex a man and woman become one flesh, and even though this includes the word flesh, this actually supports the assertation that sex is not of the flesh. Becoming one flesh might be better expressed in our language as merging souls. The two were considered intrinsically and empirically one.

Sexual positions, toys, and (safe, intermatital) fetishes are not simply for fufilling worldly fantasies, but for bringing a couple closer together, and allowing them to uniquely express love, and thereby experience God. When Paul warns against living by the flesh, he is refering to extramarriage sex, as well as other vices such as gluttony. Intermarital sex is anything but 'of the flesh.' It uses flesh, but in fact, because it is a gift of God, it is actually 'of the spirit.'

I also know of a married couple that enjoy restraints and spanking within marriage as a form of foreplay. While this seems strange to me, I dont really see a problem with it. If anyone would like to submit a arguement on this subject, I would be interested to read it.

Fubajuba
Apr 6th 2007, 05:49 PM
Sex is not living by the flesh. The Bible strongly supports the premise that sex is deeply emotional and spiritual. I would argue that since sex is (arguably) the greatest expression of love, and God is Love, marital sex is a direct encounter with God.

Also, the Bible states that durring sex a man and woman become one flesh, and even though this includes the word flesh, this actually supports the assertation that sex is not of the flesh. Becoming one flesh might be better expressed in our language as merging souls. The two were considered intrinsically and empirically one.

Sexual positions, toys, and (safe, intermatital) fetishes are not simply for fufilling worldly fantasies, but for bringing a couple closer together, and allowing them to uniquely express love, and thereby experience God. When Paul warns against living by the flesh, he is refering to extramarriage sex, as well as other vices such as gluttony. Intermarital sex is anything but 'of the flesh.' It uses flesh, but in fact, because it is a gift of God, it is actually 'of the spirit.'

I also know of a married couple that enjoy restraints and spanking within marriage as a form of foreplay. While this seems strange to me, I dont really see a problem with it. If anyone would like to submit a arguement on this subject, I would be interested to read it.

Well, aside from the fact that nearly all of what I've said aside from the statement you've quoted was completely ignored, I guess I don't have much to say. Not due to a lack of arguement, but more due to a lack of a desire to repeat myself.

So, in short, I completely disagree with you about the fetishes, and believe most of what you've said was an over-intellectualization of pre-existing arguments already made here...

Using s*x toys and indulging in the countless fetishes out there *IS* simply fufilling worldly desires... it brings a married couple closer together based upon worldly desires, not promoting spiritual growth, but merely physical desire, bringing little or no glory to God. S*x is spiritual.... S*x is awesome. However, many things of this world that God has created are awesome until humans take it to the extreme. Gluttony is a perfect example. I'm just surprised that people can say that everything but extramarital s*x is ok, yet say something like gluttony is a sin. Also, I have no idea where/how you seperated intermarital and extramarital s*x in the whole "living by the flesh" concept. Unfortunately, we cannot escape our flesh, we can simply strive for something better. Would you care to extrapolate upon how you came to that conclusion?

Warrior4God
Apr 6th 2007, 11:31 PM
Well, aside from the fact that nearly all of what I've said aside from the statement you've quoted was completely ignored, I guess I don't have much to say. Not due to a lack of arguement, but more due to a lack of a desire to repeat myself.

So, in short, I completely disagree with you about the fetishes, and believe most of what you've said was an over-intellectualization of pre-existing arguments already made here...

Using s*x toys and indulging in the countless fetishes out there *IS* simply fufilling worldly desires... it brings a married couple closer together based upon worldly desires, not promoting spiritual growth, but merely physical desire, bringing little or no glory to God. S*x is spiritual.... S*x is awesome. However, many things of this world that God has created are awesome until humans take it to the extreme. Gluttony is a perfect example. I'm just surprised that people can say that everything but extramarital s*x is ok, yet say something like gluttony is a sin. Also, I have no idea where/how you seperated intermarital and extramarital s*x in the whole "living by the flesh" concept. Unfortunately, we cannot escape our flesh, we can simply strive for something better. Would you care to extrapolate upon how you came to that conclusion?

I just find it interesting that, though we all are claiming to be followers of Christ, we can have so many various views on things. Sex toys are wrong. They're not. Oral sex is ok. It isn't. Could the reason that there is so much debate on the matter be because the Bible really doesn't address the matter? There are various sex acts that the Bible does address and clearly condemns. There are others that the Bible does not discuss. That being the case, who are we to constantly designate sex acts as being wrong for all people, simply because we personally don't enjoy them? That often seems to be the case. For example, the vast majority of people that portray oral sex as sin are the same people who have engaged in it, didn't like it for whatever reason, and are trying to convince others it's "sin." Well, maybe oral sex isn't enjoyable for some, and that's fine. That does not make it "sin," though. If it violates your conscience to do, then avoid doing it. But, don't presume to judge others that do engage in it. That situation is between God and the married couple. If God doesn't exactly condemn it in law or principle, who are we to try to rise above His authority? :confused Are we trying to show others how "holy" we are? Are we trying to impress others?

CoveredInHisBlood
Apr 8th 2007, 05:59 PM
I am very disheartened at the vast majority of opinion in this thread, we are called to discern all things, not just assume because something IS NOT denied, that we are free to go for it.

There are countries in which it is perfectly legal to take girls as young as 12 years old as a wife (actually in one country it is 9) and consumate that marriage as well, since the bible does not define an exact age at which marriage is allowed, is this ok?

Maybe people with pedophilia tendacies should go to these places to seek a partner so as to avoid sin, how would you feel about that? Do you think God would approve, even though He doesn't specifically deny?

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age for the various ages of many countries.

CoveredInHisBlood
Apr 8th 2007, 06:21 PM
What causes homosexuality? Sexual desire outside of God's plan for man and woman of course, so doesn't this show that just because we desire something, does not make it right?

Does it not make more sense to stick to what is obviously natural when the bible is silent, rather than assume that anything goes?

The basic idea promoted in this thread is that the man and his wife are the final authority in sexual conduct in their marriage. Since when did man and women get elevated to having final authority on any matter? I though God was the final authority? Is it now true that if God doesn't speak directly to a matter that we become that final authority? Discernment is no longer required because if God does not say something is wrong, then it must be right... It sounds a familiar tune, "Did God really say...".

CoveredInHisBlood
Apr 9th 2007, 12:54 PM
Can a mod tell me what happened to my last post? It seems it has been deleted without so much as a hint as to why?

Fubajuba
Apr 9th 2007, 01:14 PM
Oh, and to clarify, I was asking if they cared to extrapolate upon how they arrived at their logic. Sorry, confusing set-up.


I just find it interesting that, though we all are claiming to be followers of Christ, we can have so many various views on things. Sex toys are wrong. They're not. Oral sex is ok. It isn't. Could the reason that there is so much debate on the matter be because the Bible really doesn't address the matter? There are various sex acts that the Bible does address and clearly condemns. There are others that the Bible does not discuss. That being the case, who are we to constantly designate sex acts as being wrong for all people, simply because we personally don't enjoy them? That often seems to be the case. For example, the vast majority of people that portray oral sex as sin are the same people who have engaged in it, didn't like it for whatever reason, and are trying to convince others it's "sin." Well, maybe oral sex isn't enjoyable for some, and that's fine. That does not make it "sin," though. If it violates your conscience to do, then avoid doing it. But, don't presume to judge others that do engage in it. That situation is between God and the married couple. If God doesn't exactly condemn it in law or principle, who are we to try to rise above His authority? Are we trying to show others how "holy" we are? Are we trying to impress others?


There are countless things that are directly mentioned in the Bible that people disagree about, so that argument is null and void. Simply look at the NOSAS and OSAS arguments, the Predestination vs. Free will arguments... and this one.

James 3:15 "This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic"

Our natural inclinations are all against God.... Natural is used in conjunction with "demonic", which is pretty scary...

I still think it is not only foolish, but detrimental to go by the rules of "not mentioned, must be ok", since there are millions of things not mentioned that cannot be deemed either righteous or beneficial in any way.

Fubajuba
Apr 9th 2007, 01:15 PM
Oh, and to claim that those arguing that there are boundaries are simply doing so out of self-righteous ambitions, that's is not only wrong, but immature to do so.

Warrior4God
Apr 9th 2007, 01:30 PM
What causes homosexuality? Sexual desire outside of God's plan for man and woman of course, so doesn't this show that just because we desire something, does not make it right?

Does it not make more sense to stick to what is obviously natural when the bible is silent, rather than assume that anything goes?

The basic idea promoted in this thread is that the man and his wife are the final authority in sexual conduct in their marriage. Since when did man and women get elevated to having final authority on any matter? I though God was the final authority? Is it now true that if God doesn't speak directly to a matter that we become that final authority? Discernment is no longer required because if God does not say something is wrong, then it must be right... It sounds a familiar tune, "Did God really say...".

You indicate God has the final authority on matters. Yet, you indicate man should have "discernment," which is, in essence, man figuring out for himself that a matter is wrong or right. Well, which is it? You are trying to have it both ways. If God Himself is silent on a matter, how is man truly to figure out right and wrong? If God doesn't think something is important enough to address, then why do we get all high and mighty and try to label things as "sin" and condemn others for doing them, all without any real scriptural basis? It's all based on "I don't like it, so it's wrong for anybody else to do as well." I think it's totally possible for you and I to use "discernment" on the same subject, yet come to totally opposite conclusions. Well, actually, in that case, because I didn't see things your way you would say I didn't use good discernment. :lol:

Steve M
Apr 9th 2007, 01:36 PM
Can a mod tell me what happened to my last post? It seems it has been deleted without so much as a hint as to why?
See the sticky about the database corruption that resulted in the rebooting of the bibleforums database.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=84080

Fubajuba
Apr 9th 2007, 06:34 PM
You indicate God has the final authority on matters. Yet, you indicate man should have "discernment," which is, in essence, man figuring out for himself that a matter is wrong or right. Well, which is it? You are trying to have it both ways. If God Himself is silent on a matter, how is man truly to figure out right and wrong? If God doesn't think something is important enough to address, then why do we get all high and mighty and try to label things as "sin" and condemn others for doing them, all without any real scriptural basis? It's all based on "I don't like it, so it's wrong for anybody else to do as well." I think it's totally possible for you and I to use "discernment" on the same subject, yet come to totally opposite conclusions. Well, actually, in that case, because I didn't see things your way you would say I didn't use good discernment. :lol:

Who said I'm trying to have both ways?

I mainly have an issue with the line of thinking of "If it's not illegal, then it's fine to do it"... because that is simply pure idiocy. I also have a huge issue with the line of thinking that resembles moral relativity. The world is impressing such mindsets upon all of us in it, Christians included.

The real truth is the fact that us as men are called to be leaders in our relationships. We are to bring glory to God and be a thing set apart from the world. I see nothing bringing glory to God in tying your wife up in forms of bondage, using s*x toys, or experimenting in the countless perversions our minds can piece together. Instead of all that, here I see a rationalization (or at least an attempt) of making worldly things not only acceptable, but encouraged, between a man and wife. Instead of trying to be something that people actually see as different, a man of principle and purity, it seems that Christian men are simply trying to be men living as Christians, yet holding onto as many of the indulgences of this world as possible. And THAT is disturbing seeing; seeing that as being not only deemed "ok", but as something to be strived for is quite disheartening.

Now I'd appreciate it if you'd please direct this debate away from me, and make it more of a neutral thing. Your language is directed to me, as if I'm the only one in the world to believe this.

Warrior4God
Apr 10th 2007, 12:37 AM
Who said I'm trying to have both ways?

I mainly have an issue with the line of thinking of "If it's not illegal, then it's fine to do it"... because that is simply pure idiocy. I also have a huge issue with the line of thinking that resembles moral relativity. The world is impressing such mindsets upon all of us in it, Christians included.

The real truth is the fact that us as men are called to be leaders in our relationships. We are to bring glory to God and be a thing set apart from the world. I see nothing bringing glory to God in tying your wife up in forms of bondage, using s*x toys, or experimenting in the countless perversions our minds can piece together. Instead of all that, here I see a rationalization (or at least an attempt) of making worldly things not only acceptable, but encouraged, between a man and wife. Instead of trying to be something that people actually see as different, a man of principle and purity, it seems that Christian men are simply trying to be men living as Christians, yet holding onto as many of the indulgences of this world as possible. And THAT is disturbing seeing; seeing that as being not only deemed "ok", but as something to be strived for is quite disheartening.

Now I'd appreciate it if you'd please direct this debate away from me, and make it more of a neutral thing. Your language is directed to me, as if I'm the only one in the world to believe this.

Well, if it's not "illegal," as you called it, to do something, then why are we necessarily to refrain from doing it? If God has no apparent problem with something we are doing, then why should any mere man have a problem with it, and better yet, why should any of us feel obliged to refrain from doing something that God and/or scripture doesn't condemn? God used His Word to give us the main things we need to know about how to act, what's wrong and right, etc. If the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn something in an outright way, or even in a way that you could find in some principle, then you or I don't have the right to be judgmental about it. Period. I don't like cowboy hats. Does that mean I have the right to expect everybody to stop wearing them because I think they look dorky? No. Why? Because I don't have that right to try to force everyone to bend to my point of view. As far as the various sex acts you mentioned at the beginning of the post...Granted, I personally don't like them, just as you apparently don't, either. However, you can't condemn them as sin on mere personal opinion alone. It has to be on scriptural law or principle. After all, if personal opinion is the standard to base it on, then anybody's opinion, including the total opposite of yours, is just as good as anybody else's. I am sorry if you feel I am somehow picking on you, but I assure you I am not. I am sure there are others who share your point of view. I am not making this personal for you. You indicate we should do everything in a way that brings glory to God, including what we do sexually. In principle I agree with you. However, what specifically do we do that brings glory to God in the area of sex? I think there are various sex acts that definitely are to be avoided. They are spelled out pretty clearly in scripture. Homosexuality. Incest. Fornication. Adultery. Bestiality. There are others that aren't named explicitly, but if you thought about them for awhile, you could see why you may not want to do them; they violate some principles of Christian conduct, are unhealthy, are rooted in cruelty, etc. There are others that you may just think are weird, though not necessarily violating any scriptural principles or laws. In other words, you just don't like them. If that's the case, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But that's all it is. Just an opinion. Nobody is obligated to see it your way.:hmm:

CoveredInHisBlood
Apr 10th 2007, 01:14 AM
You indicate God has the final authority on matters. Yet, you indicate man should have "discernment," which is, in essence, man figuring out for himself that a matter is wrong or right. Well, which is it? You are trying to have it both ways. If God Himself is silent on a matter, how is man truly to figure out right and wrong? If God doesn't think something is important enough to address, then why do we get all high and mighty and try to label things as "sin" and condemn others for doing them, all without any real scriptural basis? It's all based on "I don't like it, so it's wrong for anybody else to do as well." I think it's totally possible for you and I to use "discernment" on the same subject, yet come to totally opposite conclusions. Well, actually, in that case, because I didn't see things your way you would say I didn't use good discernment. :lol:
I wonder why it is that you only attacked my caution for discernment? Is it that the other stuff I said you cannot come back against? Lets hear your input of those other things that God does not speak on, why do you go against such things if God does not speak against them?

Discernment is not man making up his own mind by what feels or seems good, discernment is looking at all things God has said and making judgements based on them. For example God charges homosexuals with going against what is natural (Romans 1:27), so clearly God wants us to stay within the natural order of things which were set by Him. There are many sex acts which immediately fall outside of natural which can be seen just by evaluating what the function of certain areas of our bodies are for.

I am very interested in hearing peoples ideas about kids as young as 9 being married? This is not expressly forbidden, so is it acceptable? More to the point, would you accept it for your own children? What would you think if someone requested to marry your 9 year old child (assuming menstruation has started)? Would you apply the same line of thinking or would you label them a pedophile and codemn their actions as sin? By this line of thinking, a 9 year old who has started menstruation must be capable of entering into such a relationship seeing as though God doesn't define when a person is ready for such a relationship we can only assume that the onset of menstruation means its time.

Aaron as I have shown above, going against what is natural is a principle of God, is it not? Therefore a number of things listed in this thread as being acceptable could not be as they fall from the realm of "natural use".

Fubajuba
Apr 10th 2007, 01:14 AM
I've never once tried to force or guilt anyone into doing what I think...

I am also under no obligation to agree with anyone concerning this. I am also allowed to be worried and concerned for those who do not see it this way.

The Bible doesn't address millions of sets of circumstances that are all wrong, and we should be able to discern right from wrong. Thinking s*x is exept simply because it is allowed during marriage is not only foolish, but also irresponsible.

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 01:28 AM
Discernment is not man making up his own mind by what feels or seems good, discernment is looking at all things God has said and making judgements based on them. For example God charges homosexuals with going against what is natural (Romans 1:27), so clearly God wants us to stay within the natural order of things which were set by Him. There are many sex acts which immediately fall outside of natural which can be seen just by evaluating what the function of certain areas of our bodies are for.

A woman's breasts are naturally for feeding a baby and not for sexual intercourse. I am assuming that the discernment of what is natural would fall into no manual or oral manipulation of a woman's breasts, since that would not be the natural function of breasts.

CoveredInHisBlood
Apr 10th 2007, 02:09 AM
First up, you will notice that I have not stated anything specifically as right or wrong. You may be able to ascertain some of what I believe, but my intention is not to say what people can and cannot do, I am simply stressing the need for caution and not rushing headlong into something without thinking first.

That being said, I believe without a doubt, if a person cannot make a case for their belief from scripture (and I mean proper and open interpretation) then their belief is man made and not that of God.

So can a case be made from scripture to support the use of breasts for purposes other than feeding infants?

Warrior4God
Apr 10th 2007, 04:19 AM
First up, you will notice that I have not stated anything specifically as right or wrong. You may be able to ascertain some of what I believe, but my intention is not to say what people can and cannot do, I am simply stressing the need for caution and not rushing headlong into something without thinking first.

That being said, I believe without a doubt, if a person cannot make a case for their belief from scripture (and I mean proper and open interpretation) then their belief is man made and not that of God.

So can a case be made from scripture to support the use of breasts for purposes other than feeding infants?

Yep. Proverbs 5:18,19..."Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and always be enraptured with her love." It is pretty clear the author isn't advising the young man to enjoy breast-feeding off his wife. ;) Oh, check out Song of Solomon 1:13... "A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me, that lies all night between my breasts." This is from a book that deals with sexual and romantic love. It's not talking about a woman's breasts being used to feed junior. :lol: I do agree with you that one shouldn't rush headlong into doing something without thinking about it first. It's just that I believe after doing so it's still possible to disagree with others at times about whether some things are ok to do or not.

Warrior4God
Apr 10th 2007, 04:35 AM
I wonder why it is that you only attacked my caution for discernment? Is it that the other stuff I said you cannot come back against? Lets hear your input of those other things that God does not speak on, why do you go against such things if God does not speak against them?

Discernment is not man making up his own mind by what feels or seems good, discernment is looking at all things God has said and making judgements based on them. For example God charges homosexuals with going against what is natural (Romans 1:27), so clearly God wants us to stay within the natural order of things which were set by Him. There are many sex acts which immediately fall outside of natural which can be seen just by evaluating what the function of certain areas of our bodies are for.

I am very interested in hearing peoples ideas about kids as young as 9 being married? This is not expressly forbidden, so is it acceptable? More to the point, would you accept it for your own children? What would you think if someone requested to marry your 9 year old child (assuming menstruation has started)? Would you apply the same line of thinking or would you label them a pedophile and codemn their actions as sin? By this line of thinking, a 9 year old who has started menstruation must be capable of entering into such a relationship seeing as though God doesn't define when a person is ready for such a relationship we can only assume that the onset of menstruation means its time.

Aaron as I have shown above, going against what is natural is a principle of God, is it not? Therefore a number of things listed in this thread as being acceptable could not be as they fall from the realm of "natural use".

To be honest, the thought of nine year-old girls being allowed to marry is indeed a strange thought, at least in Western World ideology. It's mostly a cultural thing, in many ways. In some places it wouldn't be so out of the ordinary. In biblical times, girls often married at very young ages (14 or 15) that we currently wouldn't think was very appropriate, but to be honest, people also lived much shorter lives than we do now. "Kids" often had to grow up much faster than they do now. If you lived in one of those countries where nine year-old girls got married, you wouldn't be considered a pedophile. I know that sounds strange, but it's true. The Bible really doesn't address this situation, so any "right" or "wrong" answers we come up with would be from our own conclusions, rather than anything the Bible has to say. Obviously, people could come up with many reasons for why these girls shouldn't be marrying at such a young age, but I'm just pointing out that the Bible doesn't talk about this situation. Is it sin or not? I don't know. There are many reasons why it wouldn't be a good thing to do from a Western point of view, but is it out and out sin from God's view? :hmm: Admittedly, if somebody wanted to marry my nine year-old daughter it would creep me out and it wouldn't be allowed. But I'm an American. I live in a different culture than, say, somebody in Africa or Asia. It appears that some things just must not be a big enough deal for God to worry about. Why else would He not address some things in His Bible? It seems to me that He leaves some things for us to figure out on our own as to whether or not they are a good thing for us to do. Sometimes we find out some things are ok to do and others are not.

CoveredInHisBlood
Apr 10th 2007, 01:13 PM
Yep. Proverbs 5:18,19..."Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and always be enraptured with her love." It is pretty clear the author isn't advising the young man to enjoy breast-feeding off his wife. ;) Oh, check out Song of Solomon 1:13... "A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me, that lies all night between my breasts." This is from a book that deals with sexual and romantic love. It's not talking about a woman's breasts being used to feed junior. :lol: I do agree that one shouldn't rush headlong into doing something without thinking about it first. It's just that I believe even after doing that it's possible to still disagree with others at times about whether some things are ok to do or not.
While I wasn't the one who suggested involving the breasts in sexual intercourse may be wrong, I was pretty certain there were verses that did support it, I did try and find them before that post but was unable to which is why I ask if it could be supported rather than showing the support, thanks for finding it, it is definitly nice to know there is support for it ;).


To be honest, the thought of nine year-old girls being allowed to marry is indeed a strange thought, at least in Western World ideology. It's mostly a cultural thing, in many ways. In some places it wouldn't be so out of the ordinary. In biblical times, girls often married at very young ages (14 or 15) that we currently wouldn't think was very appropriate, but to be honest, people also lived much shorter lives than we do now. "Kids" often had to grow up much faster than they do now. If you lived in one of those countries where nine year-old girls got married, you wouldn't be considered a pedophile. I know that sounds strange, but it's true. Is that a right or wrong thing to do? To be honest, I don't really know. The Bible really doesn't address this situation, so any "right" or "wrong" answers we come up with would be from our own conclusions, rather than anything the Bible has to say. Obviously, people could obviously come up with many reasons why these girls shouldn't be marrying at such a young age, but I'm just pointing out that the Bible doesn't talk about some of these things. :hmm: Admittedly, if somebody wanted to marry my nine year-old daughter it would creep me out. But I'm an American. I live in a different culture than, say, somebody in Africa or Asia. It appears that some things just must not be a big enough deal for God to worry about. Why else would He not address some things in His Bible? It seems to me that He leaves some things for us to figure out on our own as to whether or not they are a good thing for us to do.
Please don't take offence, but that sounded like one big cop-out. Culture does not determine what God approves or disapproves of so using culture as a reason to allow or deny something is not valid IMO.

The length of ones life does not in anyway mean that they are ready for marriage early, personally I think 9 is ridiculous (I am almost positive I could put together some indirect scriptural support for this), 13 and up I think is a little more reasonable (although I would need a pretty good reason to allow it). Pedophilia is defined as an adult who is sexually attracted to a child, again culture does not play a part, just because a culture allows it does not change the meaning.

I really am shocked by the fact that you think God would leave us alone on anything. God wants us to seek perfection and He is not about to leave us to figure it out ourselves, in fact Jesus explicitly tells us that He will be with us ALWAYS (Matthew 28:20), so I hardly doubt He is going to leave us in the dark when He thinks something is a non-issue, but really how could anything be a non-issue with the Person who is sovereign in all issues?

Scripture is the basis of ours lives, there is no issue, doctrine, belief or anything that scripture cannot guide us on (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). When it comes to scripture interpretation, if two people disagree over an interpretation of scripture then one or both of them is wrong, there is no other way about it. The reason disputes remain over scripture is because instead of trying to calmly go through each doctrine and work it out each side is so busy trying to prove the other wrong that that fail to see the truth, there really is no reason at all for any part of scripture to be misunderstood, God is not the author of confusion so therefore ALL scripture must be comprehendable. I do not claim to understand all of scripture, very far from it, but I have absolutely no doubt that this is the key to proper understanding.

It might be just me, but I truly believe that if you cannot find valid support in scripture for anything that you wish to do, then it should not be done, complete sexual satisfaction can be attained through "standard" sexual intercourse, the only reason people feel they are missing out is because the world promotes sexual deviousness as something to be desired, it has been implanted in our minds and we are slowly but surely accepting the worlds perversions as something that is natural and acceptable.

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 02:19 PM
First up, you will notice that I have not stated anything specifically as right or wrong. You may be able to ascertain some of what I believe, but my intention is not to say what people can and cannot do, I am simply stressing the need for caution and not rushing headlong into something without thinking first.

I can agree with that but what you stated is that scripture infers that we only use body parts for their "natural" purpose. It is not the natural use of the breast to use for sexual pleasure. The natural use is breast feeding.
That was my point, that body parts have multiple uses, especially in regards to sex otherwise we would not have errogenous zones.


That being said, I believe without a doubt, if a person cannot make a case for their belief from scripture (and I mean proper and open interpretation) then their belief is man made and not that of God.

So can a case be made from scripture to support the use of breasts for purposes other than feeding infants?

That and more. There is support for many things under the umbrella of liberty that scripture speaks of. If scripture does not condemn something then a Christian couple (who are filled with the Spirit) are at liberty to follow their conscience in what they allow and do not allow.

That's why it is called liberty.

The scripture as Aaron pointed out does specifically address breasts (as well as oral sex in the Song of Solomon as pointed out in other threads in this forum), so those we can openly encourage as part of the marriage bed if a couple desires such and the rest we commit to liberty.

Toolman
Apr 10th 2007, 02:32 PM
Please don't take offence, but that sounded like one big cop-out. Culture does not determine what God approves or disapproves of so using culture as a reason to allow or deny something is not valid IMO.

The length of ones life does not in anyway mean that they are ready for marriage early, personally I think 9 is ridiculous (I am almost positive I could put together some indirect scriptural support for this), 13 and up I think is a little more reasonable (although I would need a pretty good reason to allow it). Pedophilia is defined as an adult who is sexually attracted to a child, again culture does not play a part, just because a culture allows it does not change the meaning.

I for one would be interested in seeing your scriptural support for what age is appropriate for marriage.


I really am shocked by the fact that you think God would leave us alone on anything. God wants us to seek perfection and He is not about to leave us to figure it out ourselves, in fact Jesus explicitly tells us that He will be with us ALWAYS (Matthew 28:20), so I hardly doubt He is going to leave us in the dark when He thinks something is a non-issue, but really how could anything be a non-issue with the Person who is sovereign in all issues?

God makes some people different from other people and gives them tastes and desires that sometimes differ. That is why He gives liberty to believers in some areas to follow their own desires in the way He created them.

One person likes broccolli, another likes cauliflower. Let each have liberty to eat what they desire. Neither is sin or wrong.. just different.


Scripture is the basis of ours lives, there is no issue, doctrine, belief or anything that scripture cannot guide us on (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). When it comes to scripture interpretation, if two people disagree over an interpretation of scripture then one or both of them is wrong, there is no other way about it. The reason disputes remain over scripture is because instead of trying to calmly go through each doctrine and work it out each side is so busy trying to prove the other wrong that that fail to see the truth, there really is no reason at all for any part of scripture to be misunderstood, God is not the author of confusion so therefore ALL scripture must be comprehendable. I do not claim to understand all of scripture, very far from it, but I have absolutely no doubt that this is the key to proper understanding.

That is true but we do have various levels of "faith" and Romans 14 says 2 people can have completely different convictions on something and yet the strong is not to despise the weak and the weak is not to judge the strong.
Just something to keep in mind, especially in this area.


It might be just me, but I truly believe that if you cannot find valid support in scripture for anything that you wish to do, then it should not be done, complete sexual satisfaction can be attained through "standard" sexual intercourse,

That is actually not the case and a great majority of women cannot reach orgasm through intercourse either sometimes or ever, so a man who knows a woman's physiology and how to bring her to orgasm when intercourse does not do so is a godly, giving man who is not just wrapped up in himself.


the only reason people feel they are missing out is because the world promotes sexual deviousness as something to be desired, it has been implanted in our minds and we are slowly but surely accepting the worlds perversions as something that is natural and acceptable.

The flip side of that coin is the Church has been promoting a lie that sex is "dirty" and bringing guilt upon people for their sexuality (created by God) for centuries.

The Church should be celebrating sexuality within the bounds and the liberty God has graciously given us instead of being filled with fear and guilt over it.

There is a correct balance and so far we are missing it on the whole.

CoveredInHisBlood
Apr 11th 2007, 10:53 AM
I am going to remove myself from this discussion, I feel as though I am passing unacceptable judgment which is not my intention and I am in no position to do it.

God Bless You All. :hug:

Chimon
Apr 12th 2007, 05:38 PM
John 15:26, Romans 14

I hate to sound like a relativist, but what is wrong for you may not necessarily be wrong for me. There are things that are specifically forbidden in the Bible that are universally wrong. Things that are not discussed in the Bible are guided individually by the Holy Spirit. If you can't do something without feeling guilty, then its wrong for you, but don't assume that that means its wrong for someone else.

Also, God is not vague, when He didn't want his people to do something, He would forbid it. He would not expect them to extrapolate what was from from a general phrase such as 'desires of the flesh.' Those desires of the flesh that are universally evil are forbidden elsewhere. Those that are not are left to the Holy Spirit.

Look at how specific Leviticus is, it tells you what fabric your clothes can be made of, it lists specific times you must make specific sacrifices in a certain way, it doesn't say 'Do not commit incest' it names the specific relations you can't have sex with. I think if oral sex (for example) was universally wrong, God would have stuck it in there. If the argument against oral sex is all from what Paul said, how were the OT Hebrews to know it was wrong?

In conclusion, the Holy Spirit tells us what is right and wrong for us, but we should not take what the Holy Spirit says about us and apply it to other people. Because if the Holy Spirit did have a problem with other people doing it, He has already told them.

SpeakSlow
Apr 12th 2007, 09:28 PM
John 15:26, Romans 14

I hate to sound like a relativist, but what is wrong for you may not necessarily be wrong for me. There are things that are specifically forbidden in the Bible that are universally wrong. Things that are not discussed in the Bible are guided individually by the Holy Spirit. If you can't do something without feeling guilty, then its wrong for you, but don't assume that that means its wrong for someone else.

Also, God is not vague, when He didn't want his people to do something, He would forbid it. He would not expect them to extrapolate what was from from a general phrase such as 'desires of the flesh.' Those desires of the flesh that are universally evil are forbidden elsewhere. Those that are not are left to the Holy Spirit.

Look at how specific Leviticus is, it tells you what fabric your clothes can be made of, it lists specific times you must make specific sacrifices in a certain way, it doesn't say 'Do not commit incest' it names the specific relations you can't have sex with. I think if oral sex (for example) was universally wrong, God would have stuck it in there. If the argument against oral sex is all from what Paul said, how were the OT Hebrews to know it was wrong?

In conclusion, the Holy Spirit tells us what is right and wrong for us, but we should not take what the Holy Spirit says about us and apply it to other people. Because if the Holy Spirit did have a problem with other people doing it, He has already told them.

Why in the world would it be a sin for some people but not for others?

Toolman
Apr 12th 2007, 09:35 PM
Why in the world would it be a sin for some people but not for others?

Romans 14

1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord;[a] and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.[c] 11 For it is written:

“ As I live, says the LORD,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.”[d]

12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.

14 [b]I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things[e]is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.[f] 22 Do you have faith?[g] Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

Warrior4God
Apr 12th 2007, 10:22 PM
I think if oral sex (for example) was universally wrong, God would have stuck it in there. If the argument against oral sex is all from what Paul said, how were the OT Hebrews to know it was wrong?


Just out of curiosity, where does Paul specifically talk about oral sex as being sin, or at least, where do people claim he does or implies it in some way? :confused By the way, Toolman, you were solid in your last post. You nailed it right on the head in your response to the poster asking how some people can see various things as "wrong," yet it not be "wrong" for others to do. :cool:

blindlizard
Apr 18th 2007, 06:23 PM
Romans 14

1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord;[a] and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.[c] 11 For it is written:

“ As I live, says the LORD,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.”[d]

12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.

14 [B]I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things[e]is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.[f] 22 Do you have faith?[g] Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
Toolman, thank you for this. I have been seeking something so plainly writen. :hug:

Toolman
Apr 18th 2007, 06:26 PM
Toolman, thank you for this. I have been seeking something so plainly writen. :hug:

np bro... anytime.

Stonewall
Apr 19th 2007, 10:03 PM
Reading some of this, if sin is sin, it is sin for all. Paul was talking about leftovers from the law, such as eating, ect...not s#xual immorality. We can't say that something is sin for one may not be for the other. That doesn't even make sense. Sin is sin.

When we bring other things into the bedroom such as toys, we really are
commiting adultery. Our focus is not on our partner, but on worldly items, all sold to promote the s#x industry. So when you buy that stuff, realize
the culture where your investing your money and the type of people that benefit from it...the porn industry.

Why we are free to have relations with our spouse, we should not do anything that would arouse worldly desire. When you open yourself up
to toys, S&M, porn, kinky things, you are promoting the world in your bedroom. I can't believe what I'm reading in here. I'm new, but this is amazing all the sexu#l sin christians accept.

Warrior4God
Apr 19th 2007, 10:59 PM
Reading some of this, if sin is sin, it is sin for all. Paul was talking about leftovers from the law, such as eating, ect...not s#xual immorality. We can't say that something is sin for one may not be for the other. That doesn't even make sense. Sin is sin.

Some of what you say here is true. You say "sin is sin." However, what you should have said is TRUE sin is sin. There are often disagreements between Christians about whether or not something is truly a sin. The problem is that the Bible doesn't list EVERY imaginable type of sins, including sexual ones, that a person could commit so there is no completely hard and fast rules about some sexual things wives and husbands do in the bedroom. Yes, there are many sins, including sexual sins, the Bible does address and explicitly condemns and warns us to stay away from. However, there are some sex acts that married couples engage in that are up for debate as to whether they are "wrong" or "right" to do. In the case where scripture doesn't directly address it, the best thing to do is look at various Bible principles, pray to God for insight, and make sure the acts don't violate your conscience. Am I supposed to stop from doing something because YOU may not personally like it, even though it does not appear wrong to me, especially if you can't back anything up with scripture and you are just telling me how you "feel" about the matter? Also, who are you that I'm obligated to necessarily agree with your interpretations of scripture? Toolman quoted scripture by Paul about whether eating meat was sin or not. Some people evidently believed it was and others didn't. In fact, that scripture he quoted was written for the bigger picture. It wasn't just written about whether or not the literal eating of meat was ok to do. It's a principle on how Christians are to act with one another should we disagree on how to approach various matters that the Bible doesn't explicitly address. It basically says let those who are ok with eating meat eat it and those that don't should abstain. Each sees things differently, yet neither is wrong in the matter. It also instructs us not to be judgmental about our brothers and sisters because the final judging is left to God, is it not? :confused

Stonewall
Apr 19th 2007, 11:21 PM
Paul was dealing with the old law, not s#xual corruption, there is no bigger picture here.

Sure, the bible cannot deal with every sin, no one could carry it. But it is clear enough on s#xual immorality. I have no problem with women and men chosing what they want in the marital bed..if it stays within bounds of scripture. In some areas, we may choose, this is not one of them.

However, many couples start seeking out all these areas of pleasure and it
leads to corruption. Why would I want to walk into a s#x store and buy toys or order them off the net. Would you testify to this in church? This industry is one of corruption and abuse to women...and men too. If a toy helps, then why would not porn be OK, love dolls, ect..if both were to agree. The husband cannot match a toy. If anything, it becomes another partner in the bedroom...often leading to fantasy of another person,,,because it is another object other than the man...what would you call this. I have no doubts this would also cause the wife to MB and have thoughts of other men...leading us to cause our wives to sin.

Faith44
Apr 19th 2007, 11:27 PM
Reading some of this, if sin is sin, it is sin for all. Paul was talking about leftovers from the law, such as eating, ect...not s#xual immorality. We can't say that something is sin for one may not be for the other. That doesn't even make sense. Sin is sin.

When we bring other things into the bedroom such as toys, we really are
commiting adultery. Our focus is not on our partner, but on worldly items, all sold to promote the s#x industry. So when you buy that stuff, realize
the culture where your investing your money and the type of people that benefit from it...the porn industry.

Why we are free to have relations with our spouse, we should not do anything that would arouse worldly desire. When you open yourself up
to toys, S&M, porn, kinky things, you are promoting the world in your bedroom. I can't believe what I'm reading in here. I'm new, but this is amazing all the sexu#l sin christians accept.

I see what you are saying about bringing worldly things into the bedroom and how they can promote things like the porn/sex industry. I am curious, what are your thoughts on oral and manual stimulation in the bedroom? Check out my post on it earlier in the discussion and give me your thoughts based on that if you could.

Warrior4God
Apr 19th 2007, 11:35 PM
Paul was dealing with the old law, not s#xual corruption, there is no bigger picture here.

Sure, the bible cannot deal with every sin, no one could carry it. But it is clear enough on s#xual immorality. I have no problem with women and men chosing what they want in the marital bed..if it stays within bounds of scripture. In some areas, we may choose, this is not one of them.

However, many couples start seeking out all these areas of pleasure and it
leads to corruption. Why would I want to walk into a s#x store and buy toys or order them off the net. Would you testify to this in church? This industry is one of corruption and abuse to women...and men too. If a toy helps, then why would not porn be OK, love dolls, ect..if both were to agree. The husband cannot match a toy. If anything, it becomes another partner in the bedroom...often leading to fantasy of another person,,,because it is another object other than the man...what would you call this. I have no doubts this would also cause the wife to MB and have thoughts of other men...leading us to cause our wives to sin.

Hmm. I disagree with you about the bigger picture. With God, there is ALWAYS a bigger picture to look at. The problem with what you state here is that you approach the situation as if the Bible explicitly deals with all aspects of sexual sin. It does not. There are many modern sex acts the Bible doesn't even hint at. When the Bible doesn't address these things, what do you suggest one does to determine if something is sin or not? You readily acknowledge scriptures don't list every way there is to sin, and this would also have to include things in the area of sex, would it not? The Bible doesn't talk about porno movies, but it talks about committing adultery in one's heart, which is what one does when they get aroused watching porn. Thus, you can see how viewing porn is sin. So, you see, you can look at various principles to help figure things out when the Bible doesn't address a specific situation you may be wondering about. However, the problem is that sometimes Christians can look at various principles and still disagree about the interpretations and applications of scriptures. In that case, the best thing to do is leave the final judging to God.

Warrior4God
Apr 20th 2007, 01:24 AM
I see what you are saying about bringing worldly things into the bedroom and how they can promote things like the porn/sex industry. I am curious, what are your thoughts on oral and manual stimulation in the bedroom? Check out my post on it earlier in the discussion and give me your thoughts based on that if you could.

I can tell you right now if oral and/or manual stimulation is "sin" and we are to cease and desist doing those things, there will be very few women who will be sexually satisfied. Most women do not reach orgasmic climax, which God designed them to do, by participating in the "missionary" position of man on top with him using just his male anatomy. It just doesn't provide enough stimulation of the woman's clitoris, which is crucial for her to reach orgasm. Sorry, folks. It's not an opinion. It's a biological fact that many women will attest to. :D

Toolman
Apr 20th 2007, 01:50 AM
[QUOTE=Stonewall;1234551]Reading some of this, if sin is sin, it is sin for all. Paul was talking about leftovers from the law, such as eating, ect...not s#xual immorality. We can't say that something is sin for one may not be for the other. That doesn't even make sense. Sin is sin.[/quote

SW,

If I personally believe that having sex in a certain position is sinful is it a sin for me to perform sex in that position?

Stonewall
Apr 20th 2007, 03:46 PM
[quote=Stonewall;1234551]Reading some of this, if sin is sin, it is sin for all. Paul was talking about leftovers from the law, such as eating, ect...not s#xual immorality. We can't say that something is sin for one may not be for the other. That doesn't even make sense. Sin is sin.[/quote

SW,

If I personally believe that having sex in a certain position is sinful is it a sin for me to perform sex in that position?

I se the setup coming, but will deal with that. Any position is allowed in
marriage agreed upon by the partners, as long as it is done in love. Many married people use s#x as a means of selfish pleasure, not love. What I am speaking of is acts that may cause one to sin. Mainly speaking of toys. To me this is a replacement to what is intended. This object replaces the man. You can't tell me that a women using this will not be tempted to have thoughts of another lover...is that OK? Is it OK to use money to support the smut industry?

I hear men who need quickies, something we got into at a study. Overall, this is selfish behavior.

Let's say a couple decides toys, bondage, ect are OK, does it make it right.,,NO. It's replacing love for kincky pleasure. Many christian couples talk dirty talk...this is sinful and degrading. These behaviors almost always get out of control. The further you go, the more wild behavior you
will need to get the desired effect. Like drugs..you start with a little, but after awhile, it doesn't get the job done, then more, then a cycle leading to addiction. I can't believe for a minute that couples that engage in this behavior will not eventually start having fantasy about others.

We should keep the marriage bed pure as intended.

Stonewall
Apr 20th 2007, 03:48 PM
I can tell you right now if oral and/or manual stimulation is "sin" and we are to cease and desist doing those things, there will be very few women who will be sexually satisfied. Most women do not reach orgasmic climax, which God designed them to do, by participating in the "missionary" position of man on top with him using just his male anatomy. It just doesn't provide enough stimulation of the woman's clitoris, which is crucial for her to reach orgasm. Sorry, folks. It's not an opinion. It's a biological fact that many women will attest to. :D


I agree with all you said...

Toolman
Apr 20th 2007, 03:53 PM
[quote=Toolman;1234773]

I se the setup coming, but will deal with that. Any position is allowed in
marriage agreed upon by the partners, as long as it is done in love.

SW,

I did not ask if any position is allowed in marriage as long as both partners agree.

What I asked is "If I personally believe that having sex in a certain position is sinful is it a sin for me to perform sex in that position?"

It is really a "yes" or "no" answer. This is in regards to your statement where you stated "Reading some of this, if sin is sin, it is sin for all."

I believe your statement to be unbiblical and the answer you give to my question will reveal that.

So, for now, lets stick to that question and answer it and then we can explore the other areas you comment on.

But for now please answer that direct question with a simple yes or no and provide any scriptural support you may want to include.

Thanks.

NHL Fever
Apr 20th 2007, 04:26 PM
I don't think it's true that all sins are sins for everyone. For example the Holy Spirit may direct me to 'walk down that street', and if I didn't do it, I would be in disobedience and sinning. If you however, not being called to the same, didn't walk down the street, that would just be your choice. Another example could be the alcoholic for whom it's a sin to even take a drink because of the high temptation to go back, God may have put this on the person's heart. For others this wouldn't be a sin. I think the same could be said for sexual situations, with the level of intimacy changing depending on the people, their comfort level and the level of their relationship. Even for the married, some sexual experiences can drive people apart, and some can bring them together. Therefore its not just any sex act that's fine for any married couple. In fact, figuring out where this level is and where the difference between enhancing the relationship and serving yourself lies, is probably the most important part of sex, and it's not a physical part at all.

I believe a good way to know if you're really a seeking Godly, marital enhancing sexual relationship rather than just sexual adventurism, is to identify any idols. If a certain sexual act or experience is something that you feel you could not go without, or that you would be angry if your partner refused, or would still want at the expense of your partner's comfort/enjoyment, then it's probably an idol. What will you do if your partner becomes disabled and can't easily have sex? If this would leave you frustrated and angry much of the time, it probably means you view sex in a totally wrong way.

Stonewall
Apr 22nd 2007, 03:17 AM
[quote=Stonewall;1235301]

SW,

I did not ask if any position is allowed in marriage as long as both partners agree.

What I asked is "If I personally believe that having sex in a certain position is sinful is it a sin for me to perform sex in that position?"

It is really a "yes" or "no" answer. This is in regards to your statement where you stated "Reading some of this, if sin is sin, it is sin for all."

I believe your statement to be unbiblical and the answer you give to my question will reveal that.

So, for now, lets stick to that question and answer it and then we can explore the other areas you comment on.

But for now please answer that direct question with a simple yes or no and provide any scriptural support you may want to include.

Thanks.

I'm sorry, I misread the question. If you feel something is sin, then I would say yes it is, even though it may not really be. Certainly, there are areas that this would apply. One would be drinking or eating...as Paul is talking about.

I'll stop there, until you answer.

Toolman
Apr 22nd 2007, 05:29 AM
[quote=Toolman;1235316]

I'm sorry, I misread the question. If you feel something is sin, then I would say yes it is, even though it may not really be. Certainly, there are areas that this would apply. One would be drinking or eating...as Paul is talking about.

I'll stop there, until you answer.

That is the point I was making regarding your statement which said:


Reading some of this, if sin is sin, it is sin for all. Paul was talking about leftovers from the law, such as eating, ect...not s#xual immorality. We can't say that something is sin for one may not be for the other. That doesn't even make sense. Sin is sin.

So, having sex in a position I deem as sinful WOULD be a sin for me whereas it may not be a sin for you or someone else. So Paul was dealing with more than just "leftovers from the law", he was dealing with areas of conscience.

So, do you agree that your statement, as put, was incorrect biblically? We most certainly can say that something is sin for one and not another. In fact Romans 14 says that exact thing.

Warrior4God
Apr 22nd 2007, 03:57 PM
[quote=Stonewall;1236771]

That is the point I was making regarding your statement which said:



So, having sex in a position I deem as sinful WOULD be a sin for me whereas it may not be a sin for you or someone else. So Paul was dealing with more than just "leftovers from the law", he was dealing with areas of conscience.

So, do you agree that your statement, as put, was incorrect biblically? We most certainly can say that something is sin for one and not another. In fact Romans 14 says that exact thing.

I just had to say, Toolman...you rock. :cool: I haven't always agreed with everything you have ever posted, though quite a bit I have. Here, I'm right behind ya.

Athanasius
Mar 15th 2008, 04:21 AM
This is a fair question. Where does Paul specifically talk about or imply that oral sex is a sin? He does this in Romans 1:26 and 27 by differentiating between the "natural use" and that which is "against nature."

Romans 1:26 reveals that God makes a clear cut distinction between natural sexual union and that which is against nature. God places intimate coupling that is against nature in the category of vile affections. Male and female homosexuals reject the God-designed natural use of the woman and dishonor their own bodies between themselves.
Women who are physically intimate with other women change "the natural use of the woman" because they reject God-ordained male with female coupling:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Romans 1:26
In like manner, men who reject the natural use of the woman work that which is unseemly in the sight of God:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:27
Here again we see God's division between the "natural use" and that which is not natural (unseemly). Like the women who rejected the natural use, the men also left the natural use of the woman because they rejected God's natural order of things. In Romans 1:26 the women changed the natural use into that which is against nature and in this verse the men left the "natural use" of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another.

The Bible is clear that God has determined the sexual use of the woman. It is the natural use. (If follows that the use of the man would be natural as well.)


Adulterers and whoremongers often have relations confined to the natural use of the woman but that does not sanctify their actions in the sight of God:
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4
God ordained one place for the "natural use" of the woman: the marriage bed. The marriage bed in which "the natural use of the woman" is not changed or abandoned is undefiled. What about Christian married couples who engage in not only "natural use" coupling as God intended but also engage in the oral and/or anal practices inspired by those who reject the natural use of the woman? Does God condemn those of the same sex who go "against nature" while sanctioning the same oral and anal practices in the marriage bed? Did God ordain the marriage bed for both "natural use" and "against nature" sexual union? Is the marriage bed a license for sodomy?



Are you a. . . Woman?
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/9831/horatio460la0.jpg

Lisa Ruby
Mar 15th 2008, 04:22 AM
I just realized that this is a "guy thread" only (this is my first post here and I found this thread in a search engine!) but I hope the post will be helpful to someone...or it might irritate someone but that is not my intent.

Some things are unclean---that is why the Bible warns us to against uncleanness. God (not the world which lieth in wickedness) is the only one we can trust to show us what is clean (natural use) or unclean (that which is against nature.)

thethirdtuttle
Mar 26th 2008, 09:43 PM
I'm just curious, because I have some insights I'd like to share concerning this topic, but if everybody would be more comfortable with me starting a new thread, I'm okay with that, as well. I'd hate to think that being able to share/discuss/debate about issues important to us would be brought to a grinding halt because someone accidentally posted in the wrong area. Let me know one way or the other. Thanks!

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

Br. Barnabas
Mar 28th 2008, 04:46 AM
I'm just curious, because I have some insights I'd like to share concerning this topic, but if everybody would be more comfortable with me starting a new thread, I'm okay with that, as well. I'd hate to think that being able to share/discuss/debate about issues important to us would be brought to a grinding halt because someone accidentally posted in the wrong area. Let me know one way or the other. Thanks!

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

I would say go for it sir, someone will see it and people that invested the time in the first place will probably keep up with it. And if not maybe your insights can help someone else out.

thethirdtuttle
Apr 1st 2008, 10:52 PM
So, after reading through the posts on this thread, it seems to me that the consensus is (at least for the most part) that there is nothing in Scripture that specifically states that the vast majority of sexual acts that CAN be performed between a Christian husband and his wife (with the obvious exceptions that have been so ably pointed out by Toolman and others as being OUTSIDE the marriage bed) are not necessarily sinful per se. It is more a matter of the intent of the heart, as well as a function of the healthiness of the relationship between the husband and wife.

But, what is really going on here? Why are we talking about this at all? What is the real motivation for speakslowly's question? (Sorry if I misspelled your username. It's been a little while since I read your original post.) To paraphrase, he stated that the reason he asked what we thought was okay and not okay sexually in a Christian marriage was concern for young, unmarried Christian men's attitudes towards sexuality. He was hearing them state things about how they were looking forward to being married, because they could then (and I'm paraphrasing again, so please forgive me if I get it wrong) do whatever they wanted sexually with their future wives. I believe the reason for his concern was that those kinds of comments, at least to a certain extent, are an indication of an unhealthy and immature attitude about sexuality, where my sexual gratification is more important than anything else. What we have to understand, however, is that sex and the sex drive are glorious gifts from God, and are meant to be enjoyed, nurtured and appreciated as the wonderful expressions of intimacy that they are.

Which gets us down to the heart of the matter. In my opinion anyways, the reason God made the sex drive as strong as He did, as well as why He is so adamant that it only be satisfied within the confines of marriage, is because it is all about intimacy. I know that word scares a lot of guys, but all it really means is getting to know someone. There are several different levels and types, and they range, in our human relationships at least, all the way from acquaintances to marriage. Jesus had numerous followers and hangers-on, twelve disciples, and three close friends (Peter, James and John). God wants us to "follow the rules," so to speak, when it comes to intimacy, because when we don't, we only end up hurting ourselves, as well as the other people involved. So, the reason God wants us to only have sex within marriage is because He knows that it is the deepest form of intimacy, and if it is expressed outside of marriage, it will do more harm than good.

Let me put it this way: when you have sex with someone, your soul connects and becomes enmeshed (entangled, interwoven) with theirs, sort of like having multiple fishing lines connecting the two of you, with barbed hooks at each end of each line to make sure you stay connected, but in the psychological/spiritual realm rather than the physical realm. The fishing lines are called "soul ties," and can be created between people in other ways and at other levels, but the ones created through sex are the strongest. So, if you are married to that person, the soul ties created between you and your spouse through sexual intercourse are a good thing created for a good purpose: primarily to satisfy your God-given sex drives, but also as a form of intimacy, as well as to strengthen the bond between you and your spouse. On the other hand, if the person you are having sex with is not your spouse, then when that relationship comes to an end(and they usually do the vast majority of the time), those fishing hooks are ripped out of your respective souls, causing untold psychological and spiritual damage. Also, you now have psychological tendrils flopping around you, which can become attached (even without sex) to other people in your life, causing them harm, as well.

Another thing I wanted to mention in closing was that (and this may have been discussed ad nauseum and ad infinitum elsewhere, so please forgive me if it has) Satan, since he can't create anything original himself, can only present us with marred, twisted, broken, hollowed-out and shallow copies of every good aspect of God's good creation, and that includes sex. After all, all of the various sexual perversions that proliferate (and are increasingly viewed with acceptance) in society are merely Satan's attempts to try to get us to take shortcuts to true intimacy. For example, the homosexual who thinks he will finally be loved and appreciated and accepted for who he is by another man if he just has sex with him will be sorely disappointed. The only way to true intimacy, whether in marriage or in any other relationship, is to do the hard work of getting to know the other person in healthy and godly ways, and God will honor our efforts and obedience with friends and family who will stick by us, pray for us, and love us, no matter what. At least, that's the ideal. I know it doesn't always work out like that, but a guy can hope. Right?

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

Athanasius
Apr 1st 2008, 11:21 PM
I appreciate the metaphor, but I consistenly wonder where people find this idea of 'soul ties' in the Bible, if not within New Ageisms. . . But coming off that. What would you consider 'appropriate' within marriage? And verses to back it up?

thethirdtuttle
Apr 4th 2008, 12:49 AM
Xel'Naga:

Thanks for asking that. And, I apologize for the delay in coming up with an answer. I just wanted to make sure I had a chance to prayerfully consider how best to answer what you had to say. After all, I'm one of those kinds of people who is always looking for what the French call le mot juste - just the right word or words to precisely get my point across with the minimum amount of miscommunication and/or misunderstanding. Don't get me wrong; I know that we are fallen and as such, are prone to not "getting" each other. But, I do what I can, with God's help to minimize that possibility.

Anyways, on to my answer! You ask, "What would you consider 'appropriate' within marriage? And verses to back it up?" I think it varies a lot, based on individual tastes and preferences, since each married couple is unique, but I will try to put forth some general guidelines, based on my understanding of Scripture, that can be applied to not only to the marriage bed, but to every area of Christian life. First of all, everything must be done with an attitude of love: "And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us." (1 John 3:23) "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God." (1 John 4:7) Also 1 Corinthians chapter 13. Second, and closely related, is an attitude of respect. I don't have any Bible verses to back that up per se, but I know that when I am treating my wife, or anyone else for that matter, with respect, I am also loving them. Third, humility is extremely important: "For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith." (Romans 12:3) "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:4) If I put my needs before the needs of anyone else, whether it be my wife's in the bedroom, or in any other arena of life I may find myself, I am acting in direct contradiction to God's commandment to put others first. Fourth, wisdom and discernment are important in figuring out what my wife might be open to sexually, and what she will never be willing to try: "My son, if you will receive my sayings, and treasure my commandments within you, make your ear attentive to wisdom, incline your heart to understanding;...then you will discern righteousness and justice and equity and every good course." (Proverbs 2:1,9) Fifth and finally, mutual submission is key: "...and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ." (Ephesians 5:21) (The rest of the chapter spells out what that looks like.) "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18) (Again, the rest of Colossians 4 spells out what that mutual submission looks like for different people.) I could enumerate a number of other Biblical principles, but I will stop for now.

In short then, whenever I do anything that is loving, respectful, humble, wise, discerning, and in an attitude of mutual submission, than God will honor and respect that, whether it is in the bedroom with my wife, or in any other area of life. On the other hand, if I am unloving, disrespectful, proud, unwise, undiscerning (oblivious?), and unsubmissive, that is sinful and wrong in God's eyes, whether it is in the bedroom or elsewhere.

Another thought in closing: this whole issue really boils down to Christian liberty. I know that's a scary concept for some people, but it's something that I believe God has entrusted to each and every believer. It's just a matter of them trusting Him, and themselves, enough to exercise it. After all, Paul stated that, "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (Romans 8:20,21) and, "But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." (1 Corinthians 8:9) and again, "But it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage." (Galatians 2:4) and once more, "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." (Galatians 5:13) So, we have liberty (or freedom, if you will) to discern what God wants us to do and how God wants us to act in those cases where Scripture doesn't specifically address the situation we happen to find ourselves in and we have to instead apply more general biblical principles. This scares some people, because they would rather have rules/guidelines/regulations/etc., for everything. Thus, the enormous appeal of what was known as Pharisaism in Jesus' day, or what is more commonly known as legalism today. Yes, certain things are wrong no matter what. Those are what are known as the "non-negotiables". Above and beyond that, it is up to each individual person (or married couple in the case of this particular discussion) to figure out what God would have them do, based on the biblical principles I outlined above, as well as any others the Lord may call to mind as the situation merits.

I'm stepping down from my soapbox now, but I hope that helps!:D

Yours in Him,

Benjamin

Athanasius
Apr 4th 2008, 03:12 AM
Alright, so if I understand that correctly it's possible that a variety of things are acceptable, depending on the couple.

thethirdtuttle
Apr 8th 2008, 03:09 AM
Xel'Naga:


Alright, so if I understand that correctly it's possible that a variety of things are acceptable, depending on the couple.

Amen. Exactly.

Yours in Him,

Benjamin:D

harry
Apr 8th 2008, 02:40 PM
some of this sex-talk is a bit gamey.

when i get married i think i'll restrict intimacy with my spouse to a friendly shake-of-the-hands on arising and before slumber.;)
--------
on a more serious note, aren't there health and hygeine implications about the male sexual organ being inserted in an orifice which most of us regard as an exit not an entrance!!

thethirdtuttle
Apr 8th 2008, 08:12 PM
Harry:


some of this sex-talk is a bit gamey.

when i get married i think i'll restrict intimacy with my spouse to a friendly shake-of-the-hands on arising and before slumber.;)
LOL! Funny stuff.:rofl:
--------

on a more serious note, aren't there health and hygeine implications about the male sexual organ being inserted in an orifice which most of us regard as an exit not an entrance!!
If you are referring to @n@l sex, then, yes, there are some serious problems that can occur if you are not careful, i.e., use a condom and plenty of lubrication, wash thoroughly with soap and water both beforehand and afterwards, use a completely different condom afterwards, etc.

Yours in Him,

Benjamin

Athanasius
Apr 8th 2008, 09:23 PM
Yeah I think most people consider sodomy an absolute no no.

sheens43
Apr 17th 2008, 04:40 PM
I agree that sodomy is probably a no-no, even though I don't have a specific verse to back it up. It just seems kind of vile to me.

Regardless, I think God has allowed a lot Christian liberty in the way we live our lives, especially on subjects such as this one, where there is no clear cut answer in the Bible.

If it's not black and white, 'thou shalt not', in the Bible, then I think we're left to act how we want, provided we don't feel it's a 'sin'.

Paul talks a lot about Christian liberty, and I think that's the best explanation for this topic as well.

NavyFirefighter
Apr 23rd 2008, 08:33 AM
As far as I can find, sex (of any kind) within a marrage between a man born as a man and a woman born as a woman, is allowed. Each person may have differing oppenions on what they like in regards to oral, toys or particular positions and so on. If someone can show me where these things are wrong, I'll stop. Until then all options are open. If someone thinks that they will not like something without having tried it, TRY IT. If you don't like it, try it again a little differently. If you still don't like it, try something else new. Sex in the same position every time in the dark has got to be boring!

amazzin
Apr 24th 2008, 03:20 PM
Most Christians (including many on this forum), tend to think that as long as you are married to the person, there is no limitations in sex. As far as I know, The Bible doesn't go into specifics on this.

Yet, you all seem to think that anything goes. I think this is completley and definately sinful. We were intended to have sex a certain way, not pervert that way with other methods of our imaginations.

To me, oral, anal, toys, and other such things/positions are sinful. In MY opinion, I think God intended for us to have sex a certain way and not get creative.

But like many things, I am often mistaken...
Don't mean to offend anyone, but what do you guys think?

If anyone needs me to explain further, please let me know.

That's simple. If you are both enjoying then you keep doing it. God created you both for each others enjoyment

NavyFirefighter
Apr 28th 2008, 02:27 PM
That's simple. If you are both enjoying then you keep doing it. God created you both for each others enjoyment
A-MAN Brother!!!

Revinius
Apr 28th 2008, 02:55 PM
Nothing should go in the outy hole, thats basic anatomy :P

Forgiven Sinner
May 1st 2008, 05:31 PM
Romans 1, verses 26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

I am also open for new ideas but the above text makes me nervous. To what will "against nature" with a woman revers to? Do this refer to lesbianism only?

(It will cut down on a lot of excitement if one is only limited to the basic movements.)

Thank you.

Athanasius
May 1st 2008, 06:11 PM
Look at the verse in its full context.

LivingSacrafice
May 1st 2008, 07:29 PM
SpeakSlow,

I personally believe you are very wrong in your assumptions about sex within marriage. Your ideas are very legalistic in nature which are not Christian based.

The Bible says nothing about limiting the frequenty of sexual activity in marriage nor what types of sexual activities you can engauge in. As a matter of fact, the Bible encourages frequent sex in marriage and says those who withhiold sex from their husband/wife is wrong.


By the way this isnt just intended towards you its intended towards anyone who brings up then point you bring up.

So your saying that sex toys and things of that nature is of God when the fact is these things came out of the world,when your using sex toys your pleasuring yourself like masterbation,usually people who be getting all crazy with sex and trying all these different positions have been either watching porn or trying to figure looking at all these sexual position books,so as far as that goes would that be all your lustful desires if your grabbing things you saw off pornography and using all that in the bed room.I think if your getting all wild with sex and all this stuff your just trying to fulfill your lustful desires but your using your wife as an excuse to cover all that up.

Athanasius
May 1st 2008, 07:43 PM
By the way this isnt just intended towards you its intended towards anyone who brings up then point you bring up.

So your saying that sex toys and things of that nature is of God when the fact is these things came out of the world,when your using sex toys your pleasuring yourself like masterbation,usually people who be getting all crazy with sex and trying all these different positions have been either watching porn or trying to figure looking at all these sexual position books,so as far as that goes would that be all your lustful desires if your grabbing things you saw off pornography and using all that in the bed room.I think if your getting all wild with sex and all this stuff your just trying to fulfill your lustful desires but your using your wife as an excuse to cover all that up.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold up there. You just went from trying different positions to toys, to masturbation, to porn, to books on sexual positions, to lust. You don't find that just a little bit disconnected, assuming?

I'm not at all saying I agree with Metatron (he doesn't even post here anymore), but you just sort of ran off with the topic?

But don't mind me, I'm speaking only out of intellectual understanding.

HisLeast
May 1st 2008, 07:47 PM
By the way this isnt just intended towards you its intended towards anyone who brings up then point you bring up.

So your saying that sex toys and things of that nature is of God when the fact is these things came out of the world,when your using sex toys your pleasuring yourself like masterbation,usually people who be getting all crazy with sex and trying all these different positions have been either watching porn or trying to figure looking at all these sexual position books,so as far as that goes would that be all your lustful desires if your grabbing things you saw off pornography and using all that in the bed room.I think if your getting all wild with sex and all this stuff your just trying to fulfill your lustful desires but your using your wife as an excuse to cover all that up.

All those married and having sex raise their hands: :wave:

You make a lot of baseless assumptions. Since you don't appreciate God's gift of sex within marriage, you attribute its explorations to wickedness. Not only is that a non-sequitur (conclusion doesn't logically follow observation) its also unsupportable by scripture. If God had a certain postion in mind and we were to use that position ONLY, then don't you think he would have told us what that position was?

My wife and I use different positions (plugging my ears until the screams of HERESY die down). She has problems with her neck, so for very practical reasons, a few different positions are necessary. We do this so that we can BOTH find the gratification and joy within the act that we are both due. So that leaves only one place where you can put your "your just trying to fulfill your lustful desires but your using your wife as an excuse to cover all that up".

Stop trying to invent sin where none exists!!

Athanasius
May 1st 2008, 07:56 PM
Hang on guys. . .I'm going to find a wife real quick and get back to ya.

HisLeast
May 1st 2008, 08:23 PM
Hang on guys. . .I'm going to find a wife real quick and get back to ya.

We'll understand if you're uh.... otherwise occupied. :rofl:

Toolman
May 1st 2008, 08:27 PM
All those married and having sex raise their hands: :wave:

:wave:

Just celebrated our 19th wedding anniversary and we have never limited our sex life beyond what we feel the scripture teaches and what we have each enjoyed.

That has left ALOT of room for mutual enjoyment and discovery along the journey.

Athanasius
May 1st 2008, 09:16 PM
We'll understand if you're uh.... otherwise occupied. :rofl:

I'm glad someone picked up on it, lol!

Jerome1
May 1st 2008, 10:58 PM
I agree that sodomy is probably a no-no, even though I don't have a specific verse to back it up. It just seems kind of vile to me.



Am sure it's already been quoted, havn't read through the entire thread.

Corinthians6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers-none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Being a RC, i believe the church teaches that sodomy, mutual or self masterbation, contraception, and oral sex are all wrong.

Revinius
May 2nd 2008, 05:04 AM
Am sure it's already been quoted, havn't read through the entire thread.

Corinthians6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers-none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Being a RC, i believe the church teaches that sodomy, mutual or self masterbation, contraception, and oral sex are all wrong.

Base these beliefs in something please?

Toolman
May 2nd 2008, 01:55 PM
Am sure it's already been quoted, havn't read through the entire thread.

Corinthians6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers-none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

A study of the greek word used there (Arsenokoites (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=733&version=kjv)) will quickly reveal that the "sodomite" translation used here is referring to a homosexual. Many of the other english translations translate it exactly that way:

NIV - Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

NASB - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

KJV - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

ESV - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The verse in 1 Cor. is not speaking of a married man and woman but of homosexuals.


Being a RC, i believe the church teaches that sodomy, mutual or self masterbation, contraception, and oral sex are all wrong.

The RC has often taught things that are non-biblical. As people of the scriptures we must always trust the scriptures as the final authority on matters of faith. One of the defining points of the reformation.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 03:12 PM
Base these beliefs in something please?

They all don't allow for reproduction during the act of sex, and are therefore contrary to the natural law.

One example is O'nan spilling his semen on the ground and God punishing him by putting him to death.(Genesis38:9)



A study of the greek word used there (Arsenokoites (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=733&version=kjv)) will quickly reveal that the "sodomite" translation used here is referring to a homosexual. Many of the other english translations translate it exactly that way:


After doing a quick study on that words malakoi and arsenokites, they are translated to mean the following.

Oxford Annotated- Male prostitutes, Sodomites
New King James- Homosexuals nor Sodomites
King James- Effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind
Contemporary English- Behaves like a homosexual
Revised Standard- (Just one word) Homosexuals

There are various translations attributed to the Greek terms, in the NIV the word arsenokites is used to describe both homosexual offenders and perverts.

The general consensus it seems to me is that the words condemn those who act like homosexuals or abuse others for their own gratification. In that sense the word sodomite fits the translation well. That would include those who participate in the act with members of their own gender or members of the opposite gender.

HisLeast
May 2nd 2008, 03:15 PM
One example is O'nan spilling his semen on the ground and God punishing him by putting him to death.(Genesis38:9)


Onan was put to death for turning his sister-in-law into a sex toy, not because he practiced coitus interruptus.

Toolman
May 2nd 2008, 03:20 PM
They all don't allow for reproduction during the act of sex, and are therefore contrary to the natural law.

Where does scripture state that sex is restricted to reproduction?


After doing a quick study on that words malakoi and arsenokites, they are translated to mean the following.

Oxford Annotated- Male prostitutes, Sodomites
New King James- Homosexuals nor Sodomites
King James- Effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind
Contemporary English- Behaves like a homosexual
Revised Standard- (Just one word) Homosexuals

There are various translations attributed to the Greek terms, in the NIV the word arsenokites is used to describe both homosexual offenders and perverts.

The general consensus it seems to me is that the words condemn those who act like homosexuals or abuse others for their own gratification. In that sense the word sodomite fits the translation well. That would include those who participate in the act with members of their own gender or members of the opposite gender.

One cannot "act as a homosexual" with a member of the opposite sex. The verse does nothing to support a position regarding the marriage bed. It has nothing to do with that context.

Toolman
May 2nd 2008, 03:24 PM
One example is O'nan spilling his semen on the ground and God punishing him by putting him to death.(Genesis38:9)


Onan was punished for his selfishness at not producing offspring for his brother.

9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.

That doesn't apply to all situations nor was that the intent of the passage.

Revinius
May 2nd 2008, 03:59 PM
They all don't allow for reproduction during the act of sex, and are therefore contrary to the natural law.

One example is O'nan spilling his semen on the ground and God punishing him by putting him to death.(Genesis38:9)

I dont buy that sex is just a procreational thing. Its more than that.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 04:30 PM
Where does scripture state that sex is restricted to reproduction?

I'll give examples when i get more time.



One cannot "act as a homosexual" with a member of the opposite sex. The verse does nothing to support a position regarding the marriage bed. It has nothing to do with that context.


Sodomy is a homosexual act, to do it with a member of the opposite sex is also a grave sin. It degrades the person for self gratification. Are you asserting that sodomy is permissible for married couples?


I dont buy that sex is just a procreational thing. Its more than that.

Sex doesn't always have to be about procreation, but it must not be closed to the opportunity for reproduction.

Revinius
May 2nd 2008, 05:12 PM
Sex doesn't always have to be about procreation, but it must not be closed to the opportunity for reproduction.

Why? I am sure if God really wanted someone pregnant then it would happen. No condom in the world can stop God. Perhaps our responsibility to our kids extends to their conception?

Toolman
May 2nd 2008, 06:18 PM
I'll give examples when i get more time.

Ok.


Sodomy is a homosexual act,

According to whom? With that logic then kissing would also be a homosexual act. Homosexuals kiss, therefore (by this logic) then kissing would be a homosexual act. People of opposite sex cannot commit a homosexual act by the very definition of what HOMO sexual means.


to do it with a member of the opposite sex is also a grave sin.

Scripture or opinion?


It degrades the person for self gratification.

Scripture or opinion?


Are you asserting that sodomy is permissible for married couples?

If you can provide scripture that states that it is not permissible for a married couple we can speak.

If there is no scriptural injunction for married couples then it is simply an area of conscience and liberty and of no one's business (especially the Church's) except the married couple.


Sex doesn't always have to be about procreation, but it must not be closed to the opportunity for reproduction.

I'll wait for your scriptural support for this.

Brother Mark
May 2nd 2008, 07:54 PM
Why? I am sure if God really wanted someone pregnant then it would happen. No condom in the world can stop God. Perhaps our responsibility to our kids extends to their conception?

But is that the way God works? Does he want all men to be saved and then override their will?

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 08:44 PM
I'll wait for your scriptural support for this.


When Judah thought his Daughter in law Tamar was a prostitute he had sex with her and she conceived(Genesis38:18-19). Here Judah did not spill his semen on the floor as O'nan did. Why would Judah have been opened to the possibility of his intercourse with a prostitute resulting in conception if it was not a sin to let your semen spill on the floor?

When David sleeps with Bethsheba why would he risk to possibility of getting her pregnant when he knew that she was married? The story adds that Bethsheba was purifying herself after her period, which would have meant she could have conceived. Why then didn't David do what Onan did if it was not a sin?


According to whom? With that logic then kissing would also be a homosexual act. Homosexuals kiss, therefore (by this logic) then kissing would be a homosexual act. People of opposite sex cannot commit a homosexual act by the very definition of what HOMO sexual means.

A man kissing another man comes under homosexual behaviour. There are many references to lewd or perverse acts in the bible.

Leviticus18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Romans1:26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

We all know what sexual acts homosexuals engage in, Paul calls them unnatural and shameless acts.

1Corinthians6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers-none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Timothy1:9 This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, purjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

In the translations you gave the word malakoi is used to describe, "male prostitutes, the effeminate", or, "It emalgamates both terms malakoi and arsenokites to describe, "men who practice homosexuality".

I believe the reason effeminate is used to describe male prostitutes is because effeminate looking males were preferred by the people who used them. They were often discarded once their effeminate or youthful looks deserted them. Sexual relationships with both genders were common in the early Roman Empire.

Toolman
May 2nd 2008, 09:21 PM
When Judah thought his Daughter in law Tamar was a prostitute he had sex with her and she conceived(Genesis38:18-19). Here Judah did not spill his semen on the floor as O'nan did. Why would Judah have been opened to the possibility of his intercourse with a prostitute resulting in conception if it was not a sin to let your semen spill on the floor?

When David sleeps with Bethsheba why would he risk to possibility of getting her pregnant when he knew that she was married? The story adds that Bethsheba was purifying herself after her period, which would have meant she could have conceived. Why then didn't David do what Onan did if it was not a sin?

That is pretty shaky logic.

First of all, both men were already in the sin of adultery and fornication so I don't think avoiding sin was their objective at that moment.

It seems to me their objective, at that moment, was satisfying their lust and climaxing inside a woman is more satisfying than pulling out (for most men).

Not really that complex to understand.


A man kissing another man comes under homosexual behaviour.

I know. So according to your earlier logic a man and woman kissing would be considered a homosexual act.

Your logic stated that because a certain act was committed by homosexuals then it was a homosexual act.

That of course is ridiculous because a man and woman kissing is not a homosexual act. A man and woman engaging in anal sex isn't a homosexual act either. It doesn't even fit within the definition of the word. For an act to be homosexual it has to be performed by people of the SAME sex!


There are many references to lewd or perverse acts in the bible.

Leviticus18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Romans1:26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

We all know what sexual acts homosexuals engage in, Paul calls them unnatural and shameless acts.

1Corinthians6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers-none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Timothy1:9 This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, purjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

In the translations you gave the word malakoi is used to describe, "male prostitutes, the effeminate", or, "It emalgamates both terms malakoi and arsenokites to describe, "men who practice homosexuality".

I believe the reason effeminate is used to describe male prostitutes is because effeminate looking males were preferred by the people who used them. They were often discarded once their effeminate or youthful looks deserted them. Sexual relationships with both genders were common in the early Roman Empire.

Nevertheless, the references make no references to sexual acts between married people. The context simply does not support it.

It is specifically directed towards homosexuality... i.e. acts committed between 2 people of the SAME sex.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 10:18 PM
That is pretty shaky logic.

First of all, both men were already in the sin of adultery and fornication so I don't think avoiding sin was their objective at that moment.

It seems to me their objective, at that moment, was satisfying their lust and climaxing inside a woman is more satisfying than pulling out (for most men).

Not really that complex to understand.


Your objection was that it wasn't a sin to spill your semen on the floor, or withdraw on ejaculation.

I just gave you two examples were the people didn't withdraw on ejaculation and knew the risks involved had the woman conceived.

You can't find me one example in the bible were it shows that it is permissible for a man to withdraw during ejaculation.

Your argument is that if it isn't expressly condemned in the bible then it is permissible.

It is expressly condemned, and you have added an ambiguous interpretation to it to support your argument. Where in the bible does it allow for a man to withdraw when ejaculating?


I know. So according to your earlier logic a man and woman kissing would be considered a homosexual act.


Its clear how any form of sexual relations between same sexes is unnatural.



Nevertheless, the references make no references to sexual acts between married people. The context simply does not support it.

It is specifically directed towards homosexuality... i.e. acts committed between 2 people of the SAME sex.


According to who? The hand picked translations that you used to support your argument.

The facts are that several translation render the word as sodimites, and others emalgamate both words to describe homosexual practices.

Why would the first word malakoi be used to describe male prostitutes when it is obvious what they were engaged in? Why use the separate word, "arsenokites," which was used to describe the homosexual act of sodomy.

You didn't answer my question, in your opinion is sodomy allowed between married couples?

LivingSacrafice
May 2nd 2008, 10:33 PM
All those married and having sex raise their hands: :wave:

You make a lot of baseless assumptions. Since you don't appreciate God's gift of sex within marriage, you attribute its explorations to wickedness. Not only is that a non-sequitur (conclusion doesn't logically follow observation) its also unsupportable by scripture. If God had a certain postion in mind and we were to use that position ONLY, then don't you think he would have told us what that position was?

My wife and I use different positions (plugging my ears until the screams of HERESY die down). She has problems with her neck, so for very practical reasons, a few different positions are necessary. We do this so that we can BOTH find the gratification and joy within the act that we are both due. So that leaves only one place where you can put your "your just trying to fulfill your lustful desires but your using your wife as an excuse to cover all that up".

Stop trying to invent sin where none exists!!


And yous top putting words in my mouth,your flipping what I said,I was connecting things to things,Im not inventing sin,noone can invent sin,the truth of the matter is that most people heave learned all these sexual positions off of pornos,so if God said dont defile all this then wouldnt grabbing things off of pornos and trying them in your bed would be a sin.

I will say this I was connecting things to other things,as I did above this,your taking it the wrong way,and maybe your a little high pitched because you were doing some of these things,as you explained earlier.
Im not going to get into your personal life and I dont wantr to know what you and your wife are doing as far as details,but when it comes too you having to adjust because of body issues,thats different,but when your going all buck wild and doing all this crazy stuff because you saw something
on a porno or because one of your buddies told you something,or because you been looking at some book,then how can that be holy,how can that be kept with God when your grabbing things from sin and putting it into the Bedroom.

By the way I wasnt talking about everyone,but I was tlaking about those whoa re doing this.So for you to get all high pitched then maybe you need to evaluate what you are doing.

And I mention sex toys because if you had read the first post or so on,you would seen someone brought it up............:hmm:

Revinius
May 3rd 2008, 03:00 AM
But is that the way God works? Does he want all men to be saved and then override their will?

God breaks us everyday, if we trust him we are saying to God: "Please override my sin and make me knew" - If in your responsibility you decide that its not wise to have kids for another couple of years for whatever reason and God decides otherwise, your faith in Him counteracts your faith in the condom. You want what he wants so in actuality it isnt him subverting your Will but you agreeing with his actions.

Big T
May 3rd 2008, 05:29 AM
HEY!

You all need to take a deep breath. Let's be more polite to each other.

Toolman
May 3rd 2008, 05:40 AM
Your objection was that it wasn't a sin to spill your semen on the floor, or withdraw on ejaculation.

I just gave you two examples were the people didn't withdraw on ejaculation and knew the risks involved had the woman conceived.

2 men involved in sinful acts of sex with women who weren't their wives. Not exactly the examples of men who were attempting to resist sin. They obviously weren't concerned with not committing sin therefore their actions are not a basis on which to build a biblical mandate.


You can't find me one example in the bible were it shows that it is permissible for a man to withdraw during ejaculation.

Nor is there an injunction not too, therefore it is left to liberty and conscience, not opinion or roman church mandate.


Your argument is that if it isn't expressly condemned in the bible then it is permissible.

It is expressly condemned, and you have added an ambiguous interpretation to it to support your argument. Where in the bible does it allow for a man to withdraw when ejaculating?

In the law of liberty. If God doesn't condemn it then it is left to the married couple to decide.


Its clear how any form of sexual relations between same sexes is unnatural.

Of course. That is not what is being discussed. We are speaking of married couples not homosexuals.


According to who? The hand picked translations that you used to support your argument.

Pick any of the translations. The greek words are the same regardless of translation. And the greek words refer to homosexuals not married couples.


The facts are that several translation render the word as sodimites, and others emalgamate both words to describe homosexual practices.

Correct, HOMOsexual practices, which by definition are sexual acts performed between people of the same gender not married couples of opposite sex.


Why would the first word malakoi be used to describe male prostitutes when it is obvious what they were engaged in? Why use the separate word, "arsenokites," which was used to describe the homosexual act of sodomy.

Because they are 2 seperate things. Many homosexuals engage in homosexuality that is not prostitution.


You didn't answer my question, in your opinion is sodomy allowed between married couples?

I did answer it though you might not like the answer.

"If there is no scriptural injunction for married couples then it is simply an area of conscience and liberty and of no one's business (especially the Church's) except the married couple."

You may feel the need to govern married couples sex lives (as Rome often does) but the scripture is clear. It is for the married couple to decide before God and their conscience.

Athanasius
May 3rd 2008, 05:58 AM
And yous top putting words in my mouth,your flipping what I said,I was connecting things to things,Im not inventing sin,noone can invent sin,the truth of the matter is that most people heave learned all these sexual positions off of pornos,so if God said dont defile all this then wouldnt grabbing things off of pornos and trying them in your bed would be a sin.

That's an unfair assumption and may absolutely not be the case in many situations. Things can come. . . 'naturally'. Your premiss is based entirely off the assumption that 'porno's' are the root of all sexual 'experimentation'--they aren't.

LivingSacrafice
May 3rd 2008, 06:11 AM
That's an unfair assumption and may absolutely not be the case in many situations. Things can come. . . 'naturally'. Your premiss is based entirely off the assumption that 'porno's' are the root of all sexual 'experimentation'--they aren't.

I dont say this to argue with you but why did you cutt of the rest,or did you not realize that I also wrote that Im not saying this to everyone.And no thats not the root,that was an example,theres other things,no one was saved from birth,and everyone has sinned so Im sure before people came to God they did things out there.Theres other things out there that have people doing all these off the wall sex acts even when their married.And like I said it wasnt based towards you.

Revinius
May 3rd 2008, 02:47 PM
I think anything we say has some sort of application on us all, even if its just hypothetics in our minds. In short order, this is what we are all beating around the bush about and please correct me if you disagree. What is done in the LOVING context of a marriage is Holy and right in so much as it is done out of LOVE and in line with the WORD. Am i wrong in asserting this statement?

Jerome1
May 3rd 2008, 02:53 PM
2 men involved in sinful acts of sex with women who weren't their wives. Not exactly the examples of men who were attempting to resist sin. They obviously weren't concerned with not committing sin therefore their actions are not a basis on which to build a biblical mandate.


Others things to consider is that Rahab the prostitute when she asks the Israelites to deal kindly with her family makes no mention of any children of her own.(Joshua2:13)

A woman knows her own cycle and when she is least likely to conceive, it is possible that Judah thought that Tamar was not in her cycle to conceive.


Nor is there an injunction not too, therefore it is left to liberty and conscience, not opinion or roman church mandate.

Yes there is Genesis38:9.


Pick any of the translations. The greek words are the same regardless of translation. And the greek words refer to homosexuals not married couples.

I just gave you several translations that render the word as, "sodomites."



Correct, HOMOsexual practices, which by definition are sexual acts performed between people of the same gender not married couples of opposite sex.


It sounds to me like you are trying to justify your own sinful behaviour by using faulty logic. The act of sodomy is a grave sin, period.


I did answer it though you might not like the answer.

"If there is no scriptural injunction for married couples then it is simply an area of conscience and liberty and of no one's business (especially the Church's) except the married couple."

You may feel the need to govern married couples sex lives (as Rome often does) but the scripture is clear. It is for the married couple to decide before God and their conscience.

Your logic again is faulty the word, "malakoi," was translated as effeminate or as male prostitutes, does that mean it was fine to abuse female prostitutes?

Your argument is that the word, "arsenokotai," was only used to describe acts between homosexuals when it wasn't it was also translated as, sodomites, perverts, abusers of mankind given to unnatural vice, among others.

The word mankind can be used to describe the human race without reference to sex.

Athanasius
May 3rd 2008, 04:43 PM
I dont say this to argue with you but why did you cutt of the rest,or did you not realize that I also wrote that Im not saying this to everyone.And no thats not the root,that was an example,theres other things,no one was saved from birth,and everyone has sinned so Im sure before people came to God they did things out there.Theres other things out there that have people doing all these off the wall sex acts even when their married.And like I said it wasnt based towards you.

I cut the rest off because it was just more of the same stuff. All rooted in 'porno' explanations where perhaps, none existed.

GodlyDads
May 3rd 2008, 05:31 PM
And what Biblical proof do you have to support whatever position you feel is the way God intended you to do it? You say there's one way God intended, but, in 128 bible college credit hours I've yet to find God describe this magic position.

Just because they call it "Missionary" does not make it holy.



------------------------
GodlyDads.com - Godly Men Talking About Being Godly Fathers...And Other Random Guy Stuff

Forgiven Sinner
May 3rd 2008, 06:09 PM
Am sure it's already been quoted, havn't read through the entire thread.

Corinthians6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers-none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Being a RC, i believe the church teaches that sodomy, mutual or self masterbation, contraception, and oral sex are all wrong.


About the masturbation...
There is a verse in the Bible that states that you should rather spill your seed in the palm of your hand than in the womb of a whore. Can’t seem to find it and I am running out of Internet time but if someone questions it I will be able to find it. (English is just not my mother tong so it complicates my search because many Bible programs with search options are in English.)
I know this is not your ticket to masturbate but I know I will not go to hell for doing it because our God created us and He is not a machine.

Brother Mark
May 3rd 2008, 06:11 PM
About the masturbation...
There is a verse in the Bible that states that you should rather spill your seed in the palm of your hand than in the womb of a whore. Can’t seem to find it and I am running out of Internet time but if someone questions it I will be able to find it. (English is just not my mother tong so it complicates my search because many Bible programs with search options are in English.)
I know this is not your ticket to masturbate but I know I will not go to hell for doing it because our God created us and He is not a machine.

No such verse exist. You can't find it because it's not there. Masturbation is a sin that should not be practiced.

Forgiven Sinner
May 3rd 2008, 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome1 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1624550#post1624550)
It degrades the person for self gratification.


I do not want to go into this in depth but some (everyone is different) women do reach an orgasm during anal (sometimes more intense) oppose to using the vagina. So (if I understand the statement correctly) I cannot see how this could be “self-gratification” if both enjoy it.
(I am also here to learn and this is only my opinion and I also know that not everything I did/do was/is also correct according to the Bible.)

Forgiven Sinner
May 3rd 2008, 06:27 PM
No such verse exist. You can't find it because it's not there. Masturbation is a sin that should not be practiced.

LOL! Tempting. No I will have to find it. I love challenges...

Forgiven Sinner
May 3rd 2008, 06:46 PM
And yous top putting words in my mouth,your flipping what I said,I was connecting things to things,Im not inventing sin,noone can invent sin,the truth of the matter is that most people heave learned all these sexual positions off of pornos,so if God said dont defile all this then wouldnt grabbing things off of pornos and trying them in your bed would be a sin.

I will say this I was connecting things to other things,as I did above this,your taking it the wrong way,and maybe your a little high pitched because you were doing some of these things,as you explained earlier.
Im not going to get into your personal life and I dont wantr to know what you and your wife are doing as far as details,but when it comes too you having to adjust because of body issues,thats different,but when your going all buck wild and doing all this crazy stuff because you saw something
on a porno or because one of your buddies told you something,or because you been looking at some book,then how can that be holy,how can that be kept with God when your grabbing things from sin and putting it into the Bedroom.

By the way I wasnt talking about everyone,but I was tlaking about those whoa re doing this.So for you to get all high pitched then maybe you need to evaluate what you are doing.

And I mention sex toys because if you had read the first post or so on,you would seen someone brought it up............:hmm:

My opinion is that we want to complicate matters. We are so busy with things, which can’t show an example to the world (because it is in the bedroom) we loose focus on what really matters. If I belief in God, love God with all my heart, confess my sins, believe Jesus was crucified for our sins and overwhelm the death, and belief in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that I will go to hell if I masturbate or using toys or use my imagination in the bedroom? This is not the God I worship. My God sent his only Son to die for our sins. Paying that high price, will God really put so many obstacles in our way to limit the souls reaching His kingdom?
(I really get scared if I read this. It feels if I am lost and if I am not going to be one of the lucky ones.)

Brother Mark
May 3rd 2008, 06:52 PM
FS, just so I can understand... Are you saying those things are not sin. Or are you saying that Jesus died so I can keep sinning and that he will forgive me?

Athanasius
May 3rd 2008, 07:02 PM
LOL! Tempting. No I will have to find it. I love challenges...

You won't find it.


My opinion is that we want to complicate matters. We are so busy with things, which can’t show an example to the world (because it is in the bedroom) we loose focus on what really matters. If I belief in God, love God with all my heart, confess my sins, believe Jesus was crucified for our sins and overwhelm the death, and belief in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that I will go to hell if I masturbate or using toys or use my imagination in the bedroom? This is not the God I worship. My God sent his only Son to die for our sins. Paying that high price, will God really put so many obstacles in our way to limit the souls reaching His kingdom?
(I really get scared if I read this. It feels if I am lost and if I am not going to be one of the lucky ones.)

People worship many God's, many Jesus', but it's the Jesus (and God) of the Bible that you're going to one day have to face.

And yes, the road is narrow.

Jerome1
May 3rd 2008, 08:57 PM
No such verse exist. You can't find it because it's not there. Masturbation is a sin that should not be practiced.

Amen


I do not want to go into this in depth but some (everyone is different) women do reach an orgasm during anal (sometimes more intense) oppose to using the vagina. So (if I understand the statement correctly) I cannot see how this could be “self-gratification” if both enjoy it.
(I am also here to learn and this is only my opinion and I also know that not everything I did/do was/is also correct according to the Bible.)


Self gratification is just one of the reasons it is wrong, women and men find masterbation pleasurable that doesn't mean it is right.

Toolman
May 3rd 2008, 10:02 PM
Others things to consider is that Rahab the prostitute when she asks the Israelites to deal kindly with her family makes no mention of any children of her own.(Joshua2:13)

A woman knows her own cycle and when she is least likely to conceive, it is possible that Judah thought that Tamar was not in her cycle to conceive.


Yes there is Genesis38:9.

No, Genesis 38:9 is an example of an ancient custom of brothers giving their sister-in-laws children if their brother happened to die. It is not to be applied as a commandment.


I just gave you several translations that render the word as, "sodomites."

Of course, and as we discovered the word "sodomite" is defined as homosexual men who are engaged in anal sex. It IS NOT defined as 2 people of the opposite sex. That is NOT what the greek word means.

That is why I provided the other english translations so that could be clearly seen.


It sounds to me like you are trying to justify your own sinful behaviour by using faulty logic. The act of sodomy is a grave sin, period.

Ad Hominem. Its a worthless debate tactic.

As I said, the scripture is clear and I have no need to attack your person to prove that.


Your logic again is faulty the word, "malakoi," was translated as effeminate or as male prostitutes, does that mean it was fine to abuse female prostitutes?

That is covered in fornication. Scripture does not leave us guessing but is very consistent.


Your argument is that the word, "arsenokotai," was only used to describe acts between homosexuals when it wasn't it was also translated as, sodomites, perverts, abusers of mankind given to unnatural vice, among others.

Correct. Homosexual behaviour. That is what the word means.


The word mankind can be used to describe the human race without reference to sex.

Sure, you can twist up english translations (especially KJV) to fit just about anything but if one carefully looks at the greek it becomes clear what Paul was stating.

Warrior4God
May 3rd 2008, 10:12 PM
I know there has been a thread on this, but sex just seems wrong when not used in a traditional, and only for baby-making. Why would God allow for people to sexually use their bodies in ways they weren't meant to be used? Seems kinda dirty...I don't know....

You obviously have some sexual hang-ups. Sex does not have to be as physically pleasurable as it is if it were merely for procreation. God designed sex to be fun. God did NOT have to make an orgasm feel as good as it does in order for us to make children. He could have just as easily made the sex act as boring as when you go to the bathroom. He could have made our sex organs feel completely numb, with no pleasurable feelings of arousal occurring. Is that what He did? Nope! I am not saying every sex act imaginable is something Christians should be partaking in. Some are disgusting and physically painful and/or damaging. Christians have to use discernment and look at biblical principles to see which ones would be ok and which ones aren't. Prayer about it would be good, too.

Jerome1
May 4th 2008, 02:13 AM
No, Genesis 38:9 is an example of an ancient custom of brothers giving their sister-in-laws children if their brother happened to die. It is not to be applied as a commandment.



If God killed Onan because he wouldn't provide Tamar with offspring according to Jewish customs, why didn't God kill Judah for not giving his other son Shelah to raise up offspring for his dead brother?


Of course, and as we discovered the word "sodomite" is defined as homosexual men who are engaged in anal sex. It IS NOT defined as 2 people of the opposite sex. That is NOT what the greek word means.

That is why I provided the other english translations so that could be clearly seen.


According to who, give me a source, where is a sodomite/sodomy referred to as just homosexual activity?


Sure, you can twist up english translations (especially KJV) to fit just about anything but if one carefully looks at the greek it becomes clear what Paul was stating.

Look up any dictionary definition, mankind can mean the entire human race or men as apposed to women.

It becomes clear what Paul was stating?

How can it become clear what Paul meant when the term homosexual did not come into use until the late 18th century?

I also believe that the term arsenokoitai cannot be found in any literature prior to it's use in 1Corinthians6:9.

timmyb
May 4th 2008, 03:07 AM
the reality of this kind of discussion is that a dictionary really doesn't help... I want information like this straight from the Bible... the reality there is no Biblical set of sex... we are commanded to love our wives AS CHRIST LOVES THE CHURCH.... Does your intimate relations reflect Christ's love for the church? That's the kind of discussion that's best solved between the couple. The husband should never force or coerce his wife to do anything she may feel uncomfortable doing... Sex is not about your pleasure, sex between a man and his wife is about one giving the other all of themselves. That's the place where the two truly become one. The focus shouldn't be about you getting pleasure, it should be about the spouse.

we only have one requirement to our spouses... wives respect the husbands and husbands love the wives as Christ loves the church

Forgiven Sinner
May 4th 2008, 09:58 AM
FS, just so I can understand... Are you saying those things are not sin. Or are you saying that Jesus died so I can keep sinning and that he will forgive me?

Hmmm, well, if I was under the impression that I will have to have zero sins to be safed, I will call myself a fool because no one is without sins. All sins are equal, so to think your(not really you, just using it to explain myself) white sins is smaller than those of a murderer is a perception. Even a though may be sinful.

Heaven is not only a place for all the royal Christians but for all Christians. The keyword here is "Christian".

Forgiven Sinner
May 4th 2008, 10:03 AM
No such verse exist. You can't find it because it's not there. Masturbation is a sin that should not be practiced.

Well, after a terrible night of little sleep I could not find the verse. It is so strange. I can almost remember on which side of the page I read it(about three years ago).Maybe it was a dream, I do not know?

The point is I can't find it at this point and will start reading the Bible from the beginning. This will take my a year or so, but if I find it, I will post it, but lets say it is not there till I find it. I do not want to add things to the Bible which do not exist.

Sorry, my bad.

Forgiven Sinner
May 4th 2008, 10:05 AM
No such verse exist. You can't find it because it's not there. Masturbation is a sin that should not be practiced.


What if you get married and after five years you wife get cancer and she can’t have sex, or she got raped and she is in a state that only traumatise her if you have sex (remember you can’t force her only to satisfy your own needs) or she is in an accident and get paralysed or become mentally ill? Keep in mind that a man needs to relieve himself because the eager to relief yourself builds up and usually do not subside. Well, that is if your testosterone count is in the normal range, which is for most men. Yes, the desire is really that bad and God did this for a reason. Do you really want to tell me I should live for 30 years without relieving myself. Sorry, I do not buy into this. Do I need to get married just so that I may relief myself? Not buying this either.

Is Genesis 38 the only verse stating masturbation is wrong? If not, could someone please write it that I may learn from my mistakes.

Thank you.