Refraining from Sex - Advice please!

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm perfectly serious. Your idea of putting Jesus into life experience. Not abstracting some morals from dusty tomes and following them blindly is accurately translated as making up my own concept of Jesus and using it to suit my wants, rather than heeding what the historic Jesus said.

Why bother calling yourself a Christian if you won't do what He says?

*****************************************************************
Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”

You know I sometimes wonder myself:rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Marriage is the only alternative to celibacy:
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

If having sex with a steady partner was OK, marry would not be the only alternative to burning with passion.

*********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

Not to nit pick, but isn't that passage commonly interpreted as Paul's personal feelings on marriage, rather than divinely inspired doctrine? He seems to be saying it is better not to marry at all.

Seaneh

MrStuffins wrote: »

Some denominations feel every word of The Bible should be taken literally

No they don't...

It's impossible.

So, you believe that some Christians think Jesus was an vine with leaves?

MrStuffins

Seaneh wrote: »

No they don't...

It's impossible.

So, you believe that some Christians think Jesus was an vine with leaves?

Yes. In fact an old American friend of mine was part of a sect of Christianity who actually believed that The Bible should be taken literally. You think that is so hard to believe?

In fact, according to this article, 1/3 of Americans think The Bible should be taken literally word for word. Make of that what you will.

psychward

why do I feel that this thread topic could be kind of hypocritical ?

Peregrinus

MrStuffins wrote: »

In fact, according to this article, 1/3 of Americans think The Bible should be taken literally word for word. Make of that what you will.

Ah, but they don't literally mean that!

MrStuffins

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, but they don't literally mean that!

Of course they don't

philologos

MrStuffins: I think you missed Seaneh's point. Jesus' parables aren't intended to be taken literally. Jesus speaks of Himself as a vine, as a door, and as numerous other things in parable. It doesn't mean that I believe that He is a physical vine or a physical door.

What Christians do advocate is that the Bible is read as it was originally intended. We can use a number of devices to do this, looking at the grammar and structure of passages alone can tell you a whole lot of what the author is trying to communicate. Looking in context of the place of a passage in the whole of Scripture, looking into Biblical languages and history. If Jesus for example, tells us to go into the world, telling people of all nations about the Gospel. That's pretty clear that it says to evangelise.

I personally believe that all of the Bible is true, and I believe that it is infallible as God's word to man. I have a pretty strong view of it. It's obvious to anyone even the person who claims most ardently that they read Scripture literally, that they can't. In fact if you take some passages literally when they aren't you don't hear the truth at all. I think some people confuse taking the Biblical text seriously with reading everything literally.

jcf

Sexi Mama!**! wrote: »

Hi,

I'm 23 and have been with my boyfriend for the past 4 years.
We have slept together and we still are. We have a great relationship and have a very strong foundation We get on great together.

But I've been thinking, the past couple of months about refraining from sex until marriage. I have a good relationship with God and I feel it getting stronger. I feel this is the right thing to do. I really don't know how he will react to this.

When I say no sex, I would carry on with foreplay, including oral.

I still need to think about this some more and I need to talk to my boyfriend. I need my thoughts to be clear before I do that.

Has anyone ever felt like this or been in a similar situation?

Advice would be appreciated.

Sorry to be so blunt, but why would a being so powerful and omnipotent care if you enjoy yourself with a member of the opposite sex ???

MrStuffins

philologos wrote: »

MrStuffins: I think you missed Seaneh's point. Jesus' parables aren't intended to be taken literally. Jesus speaks of Himself as a vine, as a door, and as numerous other things in parable. It doesn't mean that I believe that He is a physical vine or a physical door.

What Christians do advocate is that the Bible is read as it was originally intended. We can use a number of devices to do this, looking at the grammar and structure of passages alone can tell you a whole lot of what the author is trying to communicate. Looking in context of the place of a passage in the whole of Scripture, looking into Biblical languages and history. If Jesus for example, tells us to go into the world, telling people of all nations about the Gospel. That's pretty clear that it says to evangelise.

I personally believe that all of the Bible is true, and I believe that it is infallible as God's word to man. I have a pretty strong view of it. It's obvious to anyone even the person who claims most ardently that they read Scripture literally, that they can't. In fact if you take some passages literally when they aren't you don't hear the truth at all. I think some people confuse taking the Biblical text seriously with reading everything literally.

Thanks for clearing that up Philologos. It seemed I HAD missed his point.

But now that you have pointed it out, it's a pretty facetious one. My original point was not to tell you what ins and outs of the Bible are this and that........ i was merely saying that there ARE denominations of Christianity who take The Bible literally. I then pointed out some results of some research done in regards to this.

It was Seaneh who said "No they don't". I just pointed out that they do that's all.

mascaput

Sexi Mama!**! wrote: »

Hi,

But I've been thinking, the past couple of months about refraining from sex until marriage. I have a good relationship with God and I feel it getting stronger. I feel this is the right thing to do. I really don't know how he will react to this.

Just wondering what line of thinking you are using to think that God would be bothered with the space between either your legs or your ears?

I mean, he might be more bothered about child sex abuse, AIDS, Iran's desire to make nukes, or drought in Africa, but to imagine that for no good reason, but for a reason that your boyfriend might not understand at all, you may well jepordise your relationship, which is doing fine, sounds weird to me.
Maybe the 'stronger feeling' is the need for more regular sex? If you are feeling particularly 'religious' about it, you could try a more missionary position on things?

PDN

jcf wrote: »

Sorry to be so blunt, but why would a being so powerful and omnipotent care if you enjoy yourself with a member of the opposite sex ???

Possibly because He loves you, and wants you to enjoy a sexual relationship that is less self-gratification and more truly fulfilling in the setting of marriage.

mascaput

philologos wrote: »

MrStuffins: I think you missed Seaneh's point. Jesus' parables aren't intended to be taken literally. Jesus speaks of Himself as a vine, as a door, and as numerous other things in parable. It doesn't mean that I believe that He is a physical vine or a physical door.

What Christians do advocate is that the Bible is read as it was originally intended. We can use a number of devices to do this, looking at the grammar and structure of passages alone can tell you a whole lot of what the author is trying to communicate. Looking in context of the place of a passage in the whole of Scripture, looking into Biblical languages and history. If Jesus for example, tells us to go into the world, telling people of all nations about the Gospel. That's pretty clear that it says to evangelise.

I personally believe that all of the Bible is true, and I believe that it is infallible as God's word to man. I have a pretty strong view of it. It's obvious to anyone even the person who claims most ardently that they read Scripture literally, that they can't. In fact if you take some passages literally when they aren't you don't hear the truth at all. I think some people confuse taking the Biblical text seriously with reading everything literally.

But if it's not literally true, then what sort of thinking did the writers possess? Something is true or not true, no?
Are there any Terms and Conditions or riders at the beginning of the texts, to say "Not to be taken literally? I don't think so, but in that case then it's up to anyone with a pocket bible to read into it what they might imagine it says, surely? It is a book of beliefs, so why not believe what you want it to say?

PDN

mascaput wrote: »

But if it's not literally true, then what sort of thinking did the writers possess? Something is true or not true, no?
Are there any Terms and Conditions or riders at the beginning of the texts, to say "Not to be taken literally? I don't think so, but in that case then it's up to anyone with a pocket bible to read into it what they might imagine it says, surely? It is a book of beliefs, so why not believe what you want it to say?

Nonsense. Almost all human communication uses non-literal language.

For example, the cardinal rule of boards.ie is 'Don't be a dick'. I think we all understand what it means, even though none of us take it literally.

mascaput

PDN wrote: »

Possibly because He loves you, and wants you to enjoy a sexual relationship that is less self-gratification and more truly fulfilling in the setting of marriage.

Just wondering, does that go for polygamous marriages too? Moses and Abraham had multiple wives, didn't they?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Possibly because He loves you, and wants you to enjoy a sexual relationship that is less self-gratification and more truly fulfilling in the setting of marriage.

Before the wolves descend to tear that apart you might want to clarify that you are not saying that only sex inside a heterosexual marriage is truly fulfilling and that anything else is more about self-gratification than true fulfillment.

You recognise for example that a homosexual couple in a committed loving relationship can have as fulfilling sexual experiences as a married heterosexual couple?

At least I hope you recognize that.

PDN

mascaput wrote: »

Just wondering, does that go for polygamous marriages too? Moses and Abraham had multiple wives, didn't they?

No, neither Moses nor Abraham had more than one wife at a time.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Before the wolves descend to tear that apart you might want to clarify that you are not saying that only sex inside a heterosexual marriage is truly fulfilling and that anything else is more about self-gratification than true fulfillment.

You recognise for example that a homosexual couple in a committed loving relationship can have as fulfilling sexual experiences as a married heterosexual couple?

At least I hope you recognize that.

Sorry, I'm not going to indulge the non-Christian posters' obsession with homosexuality in this thread. I was addressing the situation as described by the OP which, as far as I can tell, is a heterosexual relationship.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not going to indulge your obsession with homosexuality in this thread. I was addressing the situation as described by the OP which, as far as I can tell, is a heterosexual relationship.

Yes but you said that God wants you to have a fulfilling sexual relationship, which implies that only happens in the parameters he has defined (ie heterosexual marriage).

You could replace homosexuality relationship with non-married relationship if you like, homosexuality wasn't key to the point.

You have already stated in other threads that you believe homosexuals in committed loving relationships can have fulfilling loving sex, that it is not simply a question of lust or self gratification, so I'm not sure what the big deal is. You know what will happen if you leave your statement simply hanging there, why not cut the "trolling" as you would call it off at the pass, particularly when we both know how that post will be taken isn't your position.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes but you said that God wants you to have a fulfilling sexual relationship, which implies that only happens in the parameters he has defined (ie heterosexual marriage).

You could replace homosexuality relationship with non-married relationship if you like, homosexuality wasn't key to the point.

You have already stated in other threads that you believe homosexuals in committed loving relationships can have fulfilling loving sex, that it is not simply a question of lust or self gratification, so I'm not sure what the big deal is. You know what will happen if you leave your statement simply hanging there, why not cut the "trolling" as you would call it off at the pass, particularly when we both know how that post will be taken isn't your position.

If anyone wants to troll then the moderators will deal with it. But I suggest we avoid discussing trolling or moderation in thread.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

If anyone wants to troll then the moderators will deal with it. But I suggest we avoid discussing trolling or moderation in thread.

Fair enough, you were warned

mascaput

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense. Almost all human communication uses non-literal language.

For example, the cardinal rule of boards.ie is 'Don't be a dick'. I think we all understand what it means, even though none of us take it literally.

Sure they do, but you can only understand non-literal, metaphorical language if you know the context.

For eaxmple, the 'eye of a needle' was not a literal eye of a sewing needle in ancient times, but an oval shaped door beside the main gate of a walled city. You had to pass through it when the main gates were closed or when there was a time of danger to the city. Because of its shape you had to keep your head down and could not raise your arms till you came out inside the walls, so if you were an enemy the guard inside had the advantage. Made sense then, but 99.99999% of biblical readers probably would not know that and end up literally imagining a camel going through they hole in a sewing needle. It's not what people know that matters unless they know the context, but what they are left to imagine (believe) in the absence of context.
However, even using the above example does not expain the whole raft of contradictions about sex and marriage in the bible. I talks about not coveting your neighbour's wife, but no mention of coveting some woman's husband. That's hardly just, is it?

PDN

mascaput wrote: »

Sure they do, but you can only understand non-literal, metaphorical language if you know the context.

For eaxmple, the 'eye of a needle' was not a literal eye of a sewing needle in ancient times, but an oval shaped door beside the main gate of a walled city. You had to pass through it when the main gates were closed or when there was a time of danger to the city. Because of its shape you had to keep your head down and could not raise your arms till you came out inside the walls, so if you were an enemy the guard inside had the advantage. Made sense then, but 99.99999% of biblical readers probably would not know that and end up literally imagining a camel going through they hole in a sewing needle. It's not what people know that matters unless they know the context, but what they are left to imagine (believe) in the absence of context.

Actually the literary context would strongly suggest that to be incorrect. But I suspect that discussion may take us off-topic.

However, even using the above example does not expain the whole raft of contradictions about sex and marriage in the bible. I talks about not coveting your neighbour's wife, but no mention of coveting some woman's husband. That's hardly just, is it?

It's perfectly just. Anyone who is genuinely seeking God's will, rather than looking for absurd legalistic loopholes, can see that the principle would apply to both sexes.

Personally I like it that God treats us as people who can think such things through rather than treating us as idiots that need everything spelt out for us.

mascaput

PDN wrote: »

No, neither Moses nor Abraham had more than one wife at a time.

Really? Then are you saying that the literal meaning of Genesis 16:3 "And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife", means that Abraham did not have two wives at the same time? After all, the word 'wife' means a woman who is maried, and Sarah was obviously not dead at the time. What other meaning does wife possibly have here in Genesis 16:3?

tommy2bad

PDN ;
Anyone who is genuinely seeking God's will, rather than looking for absurd legalistic loopholes, can see that the principle would apply to both sexes.

But they didn't, they applied as written. Women were property and men were their owners.
Ownership may have come with responsibility but the balance was in the owners favor.

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

Not to nit pick, but isn't that passage commonly interpreted as Paul's personal feelings on marriage, rather than divinely inspired doctrine? He seems to be saying it is better not to marry at all.

No doubt some like to think it is merely Paul's personal feelings, but it is plainly divinely inspired doctrine. It is better not to marry, if one has the gift of abstention. One can be directly devoted to God's work, rather than having to limit one's involvement in order to care for one's spouse. But as Paul points out, the ability is not given to all, nor is it a commandment in any case. It is a choice.

*********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

PDN

mascaput wrote: »

Really? Then are you saying that the literal meaning of Genesis 16:3 "And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife", means that Abraham did not have two wives at the same time? After all, the word 'wife' means a woman who is maried, and Sarah was obviously not dead at the time. What other meaning does wife possibly have here in Genesis 16:3?

The literal meaning of the Hebrew word ishsha is woman. So that passage's literal meaning is: "And Sarai Abram's woman took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife"

Elsewhere in the Old Testament it is translated as 'concubine', 'woman' or 'wife' according to context. The relationship of Hagar to Abraham, as a bondwoman rather than a free woman, appears to be much more of a concubinage arrangement than a marriage.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No doubt some like to think it is merely Paul's personal feelings, but it is plainly divinely inspired doctrine. It is better not to marry, if one has the gift of abstention. One can be directly devoted to God's work, rather than having to limit one's involvement in order to care for one's spouse. But as Paul points out, the ability is not given to all, nor is it a commandment in any case. It is a choice.

*********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

Can you explain a bit more about the "gift of abstention" as you put it?

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you explain a bit more about the "gift of abstention" as you put it?

Yes, the ability to fully control one's sexual desires. To be able to live without being unduly troubled with sexual temptation.

I'm not sure if it means one's level of desire is naturally less, or one's God-given will-power is greater, or a combination of both.

******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the ability to fully control one's sexual desires. To be able to live without being unduly troubled with sexual temptation.

I'm not sure if it means one's level of desire is naturally less, or one's God-given will-power is greater, or a combination of both.

******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Interesting, this is a Biblical concept (genuine question, first time encountering the idea as an ability or gift)?

How does it work in relation to love?