The sin of refusing sex

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,721
721
113
Whereas most serious and respectful students of the scripture know that the culture of the time when the scriptures were written and refer have everything to do with Hermeneutics . This is something presidente is unaware of and is why he appears unable to get past what he refuses to acknowledge as a deficit in his argument.
I moderate a forum elsewhere on a niche discussion of a specific topic in theology. I had someone else lecture me on various aspects of hermeneutics, as if I had never heard of the points he is making.

I am aware that understanding the cultural and historical context is important for exegesis. I was dismissing your approach to the topic. You seemed to be dismissing the importance of certain scriptures on the topic because the culture was different back then. That's using culture as an excuse to disregard scripture. For example, pointing out that Greek culture was patriarchal in the first century and that some of Paul's writings bear some vague resemblance to household codes of the times does not prove that the instructions Paul give are irrelevant or not binding. The understanding of some people is that God shares the same values and morals with moderns and he was only giving laws to nudge them slowly toward modern, liberal, democratic values. I reject this agenda. There are some people who appeal to a cultural-historical approach without even realizing their underlying bias to causes them to think God shares all their liberal values. There are also those who hold to process theology who think God eventually learned over time that modern liberal values were right. (I realize that's an oversimplification of process theology.)

I've got a PhD that involved some seminar work in cross-cultural psychology, so I do appreciate the study of culture. I also realize it is important to view and interpret scripture with knowledge of the cultural background. But being in academia, I also realize that academics can have hobbyhorses and academics, or especially Internet posters who read some book carved out of a master's thesis or PhD dissertation in ANE or first century Grecco-Roman or NT studies can try to interpret passages to be about their little niche topic when that isn't the case. For example, there are those who interpret comments in I Timothy 2 to have something to do with Diana worship. That seems far-fetched. There is a website that tries to argue that the divorce passage in Matthew 19 is agunah problem of men abandoning women without certificates. In this case, the website is written by someone who is admittedly not a language scholar. The passage is clearly talking about divorce with a certificate, and for a cultural background, it makes more sense to consider the debates between the Shammai and Hillel houses on the subject.

What I am saying is that there is widespread misuse of appeals to culture and history to promote a loosey goosey liberal approach to scripture, and there is also plenty of faux cultural-historal scholarship that tries to interpret certain passages through the lens of historical information that is not relevant to the passage.

Therein he twists my words so as to make me appear to be the at fault one. Baby Christian or troll. One is able to learn. The other is a disabled tragedy.
What words did I twist. if I misrepresented you, show me clearly and I will apologize. I do not try to misrepresent people. Saying the culture was different in the first century does not exempt married believers from rendering 'due benevolence'. I don't care for your posturing here-- trying to paint me as someone who doesn't appreciate exegesis or the role of the study of history and culture therein for pointing that out.

For those who are sincere:
7 Reasons to Study Bible Culture
1. Understand the audience
Grasping the original audience’s perspective helps us understand the setting to which the inspired authors communicated their message.
You can consider it an assumption to think that apostolic instructions given to churches given to churches usually apply unless there is a reason to think otherwise. Something extremely specific, like specific instructions to receive a specific brother may not apply directly, but the principle of receiving brethren may. This is a very ancient and historical approach to scripture. For example, Christians have historically taken teachings on marriage, murder, theft, sexual moraity, etc. to apply to themselves and not just to the Christians living in a particular time in a particular city.

Is there any aspect of 'audience' here that would lead you to believe that married Christians no longer need to render 'due benevolence'? Is there any point in your other list of points for exegesis that you think would render the instruction not valid for us today?
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
1,908
1,057
113
I agree with you here; too many people claim that their partner is "refusing sex" when in fact, the partner is simply turned off by the person's behaviour.


Does Scripture identify everything humans could do that is sinful? Clearly, no. Even so, 1 Corinthians 7:5 makes it clear that depriving your spouse is wrong and dangerous. What more would you need it to say?
Does it really say that?
Remember too that Paul wanted nothing to do with sex or marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
15,120
8,191
113
Does it really say that?
Remember too that Paul wanted nothing to do with sex or marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. :)
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
1,908
1,057
113
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. :)
I don't know why there would be an issue. "Mutual consent", is pretty clear. There's no mention of it being dangerous.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,721
721
113
I don't know why there would be an issue. "Mutual consent", is pretty clear. There's no mention of it being dangerous.
Mutual consent is required to refrain from sex which should be done during a time of fasting and prayer
.
 
Sep 15, 2019
37
18
8
Gender is not color-coded anymore but the sex of a member can be ascertained by clicking on the profile unless they opted not to have their profile available for viewing. It's been like that since the format change. Wither it may be sinful or not would depend on the circumstances of the one that is refusing sex. This would be serious grounds for divorce. No one should have to stay in such a love-less marriage.
Wow! This thread has degenerated quickly in a relatively short time. Initially , it was a guide
 
Sep 15, 2019
37
18
8
Wow! This thread has degenerated quickly in a relatively short time. Initially , it was a guide
A guide as to what to do in a specific set of circumstances. Husbands and wives are in NO way to restrict access to their bodies for their spouse. “EXCEPT“ during this brief time of prayer. This last reference talks about “ a loveless marriage”. How dat?
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,958
1,520
113
seems an odd post, when the answer is in scripture. Getting this a lot in many different forums I attend online, not just christian ones either. Sex seems to be the theme every time, even when its a car forum!

I would agree. Its the sin of refusing intimacy, virtue . It could lead to sex or suppers on the table .I got the car washed .
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,721
721
113
I would agree. Its the sin of refusing intimacy, virtue . It could lead to sex or suppers on the table .I got the car washed .
I have no idea which side of the issue you are supporting. Are you saying refusing intimacy is a sin or a virtue? Are you for or against sex on the table? What does this have to do with washing the car? Are you using a car instead of a table?
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
15,300
3,221
113
I have no idea which side of the issue you are supporting. Are you saying refusing intimacy is a sin or a virtue? Are you for or against sex on the table? What does this have to do with washing the car? Are you using a car instead of a table?
Not sure you want the answer to any of those questions. But this should be interesting...
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
8,668
320
83
Sounds like a convenient excuse for a man to abuse his wife
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
15,300
3,221
113
Sounds like a convenient excuse for a man to abuse his wife
If a man has the tendency to be abusive he'll twist a lot of Scripture to prove he is right, not just this one. But we're talking about a normal healthy couple I believe.