Your the one using the language 'lust... with unbridled passion.' The Greek word translated 'lust' is along lines of 'covet' in the 10 commandments. Compare with wording with the LXX of the ten commandments to see what I mean. Paul also wrote, as the KJV translates it, "I had not known lust if the law had not said Thou shalt not covet."
Coveting is something that can be done over other people's stuff. The Ten Commandment warns against coveting your neighbor's house, wife, donkey, etc. You don't covet your own wife, donkey, house, etc. because they are yours already.
And the same exact underlying Greek word was used by Paul to describe the type of "lust" that I rightfully referred to earlier on in this same exact epistle to the Romans that you're citing from:
"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:" (Romans 1:24)
Paul also used it in precisely the manner in which I did in his first epistle to the Thessalonians:
"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the
lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:" (I Thessalonians 4:3-5)
Just as an FYI, I've read most of Paul's epistles 100 times or more, so I'm quite familiar with what Paul did and did not say.
How do you know that marriage is supposed to be the union of Christ and the church? Paul... who wrote I Corinthians 7... wrote about this. He even writes in Ephesians 5 that two shall be one flesh speaks about the mystery of Christ and the church. Paul writes about the concept of two becoming one in I Corinthians 6 in arguing against having sex with a prostitute, so two becoming one flesh has a sexual meaning to it.
So you might want to reconsider your opposition to the idea of Christ passionately desiring the church. I'm sanitizing it from the terminology you used with the word 'lust' which has some negative connotations.
I never said or even implied that the concept of "two becoming one" didn't have "a sexual meaning to it", so I'm not sure why you're even bothering to mention this.
Instead, I've said that there's A LOT MORE than just a sexual meaning to it, and, ironically, if you read the portion of scripture that you just alluded to, then you would see that clearly for yourself.
Here it is:
I Corinthians chapter 6
[
15] Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
[
16] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
[
17]
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
Did you catch that part about "he that is joined unto the Lord is ONE SPIRIT"?
I did.
Like I said earlier, I've read most of Paul's epistles 100 times or more, and I'm quite familiar with what Paul did and did not say.
Regarding our relationship with the Lord, Paul also said the following:
"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Thessalonians 5:23)
Our relationship with the Lord involves our "WHOLE SPIRIT AND SOUL AND BODY".
Don't miss the order...because it's the same order that ought to exist in the relationship between a man and his wife that was designed by God to mirror Christ's relationship with the church.
Having a desire to have a sexual relationship might rightly be a deciding factor when considering to choose a life of celibacy or marriage. But more consideration should be given about ___who__ to marry than just finding a sex partner.
Better still, this should be the primary area of consideration before one decides to get married:
"And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit.
And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. " (Malachi 2:15)
While we're on the topic of the "two becoming one" and sexual relations, does anybody here give a hoot about what God desires in all of this?
In other words, "a godly seed"?
I do...and it's a terrifying responsibility for those who aren't just focused upon themselves and their own carnal desires.
Paul wrote that it is better to marry than to burn. Some translations throw 'with passion' to that. The Greek word is used elsewhere when Paul asks who sins and he does not burn. It has to do with emotion. The word is apparently not specifically a word for burning with sexual passion. That's how some translators take it in that passage.
In context, that certainly seems to be Paul's intended usage of the word.
There may be some emotional aspects to us that could make us susceptible to fornication. Some girls may fall into sexual sin through a desire for romantic attention from a man, even if it isn't all about sexual fantasies or what have you. I think we should consider that someone might 'burn' with a desire to have children and a family, and the the idea of life-long celibacy may be difficult for that reason also.
There very well may be, but, again, in context, this particular aspect doesn't seem to be what Paul was addressing.
From what I've read, the area where these people to whom Paul was writing abode was basically a stomping ground for all sorts of sexual activity, so this is more than likely what Paul was actually addressing here.
So do you think this means married Christians should ration sex to their partners? 'Lust' is often used to refer to _inappropriate_ desires in scripture rather than appropriate ones. There may be some exceptions.
Again, I've never said nor implied a single word about anybody "rationing sex to their partner", so I don't know why you're even asking this question. Instead, I've repeatedly simply sought to rightfully include LOVE or BENEVOLENCE in the equation whereas others here seem to be fixated upon just the sexual act itself.
Do you think the word 'temperance' there has to do with rationing the husband or wife down to once a month or something like that?
No, I do not.
I mentioned "temperance" because men seemed to be being described as dogs in heat. You know, just after their "conjugal rights" without necessarily showing any love towards their wives. The same principle applies to women as well.
Is it really that hard for you and others here to grasp what I've repeatedly and simply stated?
That LOVE is a much-needed variable in all of this?
That a man or woman should care for their spouse's SPIRIT AND SOUL, and NOT just lust after their body?
Btw, I don't think anyone is endorsing marriage to one's father's wife in here.
I never said nor insinuated that they were.
Instead, I simply mentioned that the Corinthians to whom Paul was writing were hardly the blueprint for Christianity. They had plenty of problems. So much so that Paul had to tell them to examine themselves to see if they were even in the faith.
Regarding food, I don't recall Paul mentioning gluttony at the Lord's table. He said one man is hungry and another is drunken. He told them to wait for one another. Maybe those with food ate it up before the poor slaves who had no food were able to get away and arrive late. Anyway, Paul said if any man is hungry, let him eat at home. If you eat two or three times a day except for an occasional fast, is that a 'temperate' lifestyle?
In hindsight, I shouldn't have used the word "gluttony".
My point was, and still is, that these Corinthians were hardly the blueprint for Christianity.
My wife and I were virgins when we got married, but I really did want a wife and various benefits that came with that.
Good for you, sincerely, that you were virgins.
Accepting what Paul teaches in I Corinthians does not mean one does not see people as people. I see my wife as a person.
Accepting ALL of what Paul taught in I Corinthians is a must...including the BENEVOLENCE part.
Without that, men or women are basically subjugated to becoming living sex toys for their spouses at their whim and fancy.
I was picky as a single man, not just about looks, but about values, beliefs, and character.
I'm glad to hear it.
1
1
