The sin of refusing sex

[presidente]

I've resolved if I am physically able, and my wife asks or express interests, I'll do what I can. I don't do periods or that similar period after childbirth, or if we have committed to fast during that time. I also let her know about my availability.

 

[kaylagrl]

Just gonna mark my spot here so I know where to jump back to, because 4 pages of lengthy post (I scrolled on ahead) is much more than I have time for right now, and I know Kala's quote was the place I seriously read to.

Seriously, who knew a dead thread would blow up so much in one day?!

 

[Live4Him3]

Considering I Corinthians 7, if you can live without 'burning' then you can be celibate for life. Some people think 'burning' has to do with wanting to have sex. That makes sense in the passage.

It does make sense in the passage, but it was hardly the blueprint for a godly marriage.

I Corinthians chapter 7

[1] Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
[3] Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
[4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
[5] Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
[6] But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
[7] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

For starters, Paul was apparently answering a question that the Corinthians had written to him.

His initial response to that question was that it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

He then gave a stipulation for those who could not contain in that they apparently burned with sexual passion so that they might avoid fornication or avoid sexual relations outside of the confines of marriage.

That stipulation was that it is better to marry than to possibly fall into fornication due to their seemingly unbridled passions.

Does anyone reading this honestly believe that this was Paul's/Christ's ultimate desire for Christians and the ordinance of marriage?

Again, marriage is supposed to be a natural reflection of the spiritual union between Christ and his church.

Does Christ lust after the church with unbridled passion?

If you (collectively or individually) think that he does, then you're (ditto) greatly deceived.

Isn't one of the fruits of the Spirit temperance or self-control?

Shouldn't those who belong to Christ crucify their flesh with the affections and lusts thereof?

Galatians chapter 5

[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

I mean, come on.

Let's not forget that Paul addressed these same Christians as being "carnal" while rebuking them for such things as allowing a man to have his father's wife and for behaving like gluttons and drunkards at the communion table. In other words, they were hardly the blueprint for Christianity themselves.

Again, some of the stipulations that Paul gave to these Corinthians was hardly God's best or true desire for his people, so let's not take a stipulation and make it the rule, okay?

Anyhow, before I got married, I was celibate for approximately 15 years, and I've been celibate now for a few years since my divorce.

It might surprise you to hear that I don't walk around with my tongue hanging out of my mouth while lusting after every woman that walks by.

Seriously, are there any Christians who have the fruit of temperance actively working in their lives?

Are there any Christians who see PEOPLE as PEOPLE, and NOT just as objects of selfish sexual pleasures?

Maybe I'm from another planet or something, but I actually look for godly qualities in a woman, and that's what truly "turns me on".

Anyhow, I should be sleeping right now, so good night.

 

[kaylagrl]

I wonder what it is like to be so intolerant that you cannot see that you have completely misunderstood and do not give two shakes of a rat's tail about it either.

Several posts back I asked if we were in agreement. So, for the rat's tail's sake, lets start again. From here, what have I misunderstood?

I am not really asking. I think you are best left to your own musings. God has said plenty in the Bible concerning marriage and that has been my point worded in different ways throughout my posts. Marriage has many components to it and you are welcome to consider but one.

But we're not discussing all aspects of marriage. We were discussing the thread title. There's reams of things that can be discussed on marriage, but that's not what the thread is talking about.

You are not welcome to expect everyone else to take your word for it when I suspect most of us have a Bible and can read it.

Umm, I posted the Bible verses.

I still cannot understand why you think you must address anyone else as some sort of person who does not believe scripture because they actually have a broader view of what scripture states and do not believe Paul expressed a doctrine to be conflated with salvation or any doctrine at all really. I am wondering if you take to heart that he also appears to have said women should be silent.

I think the verses are direct and clear. What broader view do you feel I am missing?

Or do you find exceptions there that are more to your liking? Personally I do not think women should just be silent but that is not what this thread is about. Whatever the answers to my questions might be, I don't believe I shall find understanding on where you have decided I have been derelict concerning scripture.

I don't know what you think is being missed in those verses. Again, share what you think I missed.

 

[presidente]

For starters, Paul was apparently answering a question that the Corinthians had written to him.

His initial response to that question was that it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

He then gave a stipulation for those who could not contain in that they apparently burned with sexual passion so that they might avoid fornication or avoid sexual relations outside of the confines of marriage.

That stipulation was that it is better to marry than to possibly fall into fornication due to their seemingly unbridled passions.

Does anyone reading this honestly believe that this was Paul's/Christ's ultimate desire for Christians and the ordinance of marriage?

Again, marriage is supposed to be a natural reflection of the spiritual union between Christ and his church.

Does Christ lust after the church with unbridled passion?

If you (collectively or individually) think that he does, then you're (ditto) greatly deceived.

Isn't one of the fruits of the Spirit temperance or self-control?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Shouldn't those who belong to Christ crucify their flesh with the affections and lusts thereof?

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.

Galatians chapter 5

[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

I mean, come on.

Let's not forget that Paul addressed these same Christians as being "carnal" while rebuking them for such things as allowing a man to have his father's wife and for behaving like gluttons and drunkards at the communion table.

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?

Btw, I don't think anyone is endorsing marriage to one's father's wife in here. 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?

Anyhow, before I got married, I was celibate for approximately 15 years, and I've been celibate now for a few years since my divorce.

It might surprise you to hear that I don't walk around with my tongue hanging out of my mouth while lusting after every woman that walks by.

Seriously, are there any Christians who have the fruit of temperance actively working in their lives?

My wife and I were virgins when we got married, but I really did want a wife and various benefits that came with that.

Are there any Christians who see PEOPLE as PEOPLE, and NOT just as objects of selfish sexual pleasures?

Accepting what Paul teaches in I Corinthians does not mean one does not see people as people. I see my wife as a person.

Maybe I'm from another planet or something, but I actually look for godly qualities in a woman, and that's what truly "turns me on".

I was picky as a single man, not just about looks, but about values, beliefs, and character.

 

[presidente]

Sorry to be so graphic, but some people here seem to have dehumanized sexual relations while basically depicting men as dogs in heat and women as pin cushions.

This mixed metaphor sounds rather cruel to the dog.

 

[kaylagrl]

For whatever it's worth, personally, I agree with what you said here.

In other words, there's a lot more to the two becoming one than just a physical union during sexual relations.

I mean, if there isn't a spiritual and soulish connection FIRST, then a man might as well just go look for a hole in a tree.

Sorry to be so graphic, but some people here seem to have dehumanized sexual relations while basically depicting men as dogs in heat and women as pin cushions.[/QUOTE]

Who are the "some people" you're talking about? I have said the exact opposite. And I don't understand how people are blowing out the doors of such simple Bible verses. In a marriage, people meet each others need, in all kinds of ways, but the subject of this thread is what we are discussion. Part of meeting each others needs is sex. The Bible says you body is not your own. Why? Because the two become one. That is the goal of a marriage, to become one. The Bible says, don't deprive each other, unless you are in agreement for a time. This should be marriage 101. All the old timers in here should already have this settled in their marriages. This is for new, young couples. Early posts, and various posts here have made it look like it is wrong to expect a marriage woman to have sex. How dare you expect such a thing?! I'm astonished at the responses here. I've never seen so much deflection on a subject. I really don't understand it considering many people here I believe have been married for decades, not just years.

 

[kaylagrl]

As I said in my initial response, I haven't read much of what has been written on this thread, so I've only commented on the little bit that I've actually read.

That said, I have seen some unusually disturbing...what can I call them?..."attacks" on here that seem to be directed towards those who are simply sharing their own sentiments/understanding of scripture.

(He checks to see if he's in the BDF...)

No one has attacked anyone's understanding of Scripture. The verses were posted, and are clear. If we all just have our own sentiment of the Word or understanding then pray tell, how do we have unity? Now here are the verses again. You tell me how they are unclear or how there can be a different understanding.

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Where can this be misunderstood or taken another way? What am I missing?

 

[kaylagrl]

In other words, there's a lot more to the two becoming one than just a physical union during sexual relations.
.

But that is not the subject of the thread.

 

[Aerials1978]

Seriously, who knew a dead thread would blow up so much in one day?!

I’m assuming because people saw the word “Sex”. That has a tendency to get people jaw jacking.

 

[Ilive4Jesus]

Seriously, who knew a dead thread would blow up so much in one day?!

Just gonna mark my spot here so I know where to jump back to, because 4 pages of lengthy post (I scrolled on ahead) is much more than I have time for right now, and I know Kala's quote was the place I seriously read to.

On second thought, I think trying to read through all this (100+ posts since I left off) will be a fruitless waste of time. Somehow I get the feeling that attempting to comment on almost anything here is just going to leave me running in circles like a dog chasing its own tail.

Once upon a time I married an amazing godly man, we had sex ( did she just say that!!!??? ), and the result was a housefull of youngsters that keep my days blessed, long, and busy.

Trying to read through all these, and who said what, and what did they really mean, etc. etc. is somehow MORE tiring than my kids have ever made me feel.

Good luck Kala.

 

[Magenta]

Dolly Parton. He posted lyrics from one of her songs.

I was very far off then LOL. Thank you for clearing that up for me I must have missed
the post with lyrics Or maybe I saw them but did not realize it was a Dolly song

 

[Live4Him3]

No one has attacked anyone's understanding of Scripture. The verses were posted, and are clear. If we all just have our own sentiment of the Word or understanding then pray tell, how do we have unity? Now here are the verses again. You tell me how they are unclear or how there can be a different understanding.

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Where can this be misunderstood or taken another way? What am I missing?

Well, since you asked, you're seemingly missing the part about the husband rendering unto the wife due BENEVOLENCE and likewise also the wife rendering the same unto the husband in verse 3 which precedes what Paul said about their bodies in verse 4.

The underlying Greek word which is here translated as "benevolence" is "eunoia"...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2133/kjv/tr/0-1/

...and it only appears here and one other place in the entire New Testament.

The other place is in Ephesians 6:7 where it is translated as "good will":

"With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:" (Eph. 6:7)

Here is how I Corinthians 7:3 reads in some other Bible translations:

"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband." - NKJV

"The husband must fulfill his [marital] duty to his wife [with good will and kindness], and likewise the wife to her husband." - Amplified Bible

"Let a man bestow to his wife the love that is owed; in this way also, the woman to her husband." - Aramaic Bible in Plain English

"Let the husband render to his wife the affection owed her, and likewise also the wife to her husband." - World English Bible

Seeing how Paul plainly addressed this DUE BENEVOLENCE FIRST, why such an outrage here towards those like Polar and myself who basically are asking "Where is the love?"

To listen to some of you, and you in particular, you make it sound as if a woman just needs to roll over because "Hubby's home, and it's time for him to plow the field".

Anyhow, that's the impression that I've gotten from reading some of your comments here.

I have to get ready for work now.

I'll address the other posts/comments which were addressed towards me later today.

 

[Polar]

I'm now believing, because of your insistence,
That you use sex as a manipulation tool on your spouse....

You likely ARE the MOST guilty of this sin that scriptures discuss.


So you are exposed.

You manipulate those you claim you love....that's pathetic.

Lovely vindictive post there

But then you are really just a cartoon of a little man

 

[JohnDB]

Lovely vindictive post there

But then you are really just a cartoon of a little man

Said like a well practiced manipulator.

 

[Polar]

Considering I Corinthians 7, if you can live without 'burning' then you can be celibate for life. Some people think 'burning' has to do with wanting to have sex. That makes sense in the passage. Paul uses the term elsewhere to express his emotional concern over sin in the church, so it isn't specifically about sex. Maybe some people burn wanting romance, intimacy, etc., too, which is somewhat related to having a sexual partner in some ways.

Btw, the idea that you should fall in love and get married isn't exactly in the Bible. There are a lot of people you can fall in love with that you shouldn't marry, and for those in in an arranged marriages, then the husband still needs to love his wife, etc.

About the robot thing, I don't get it. When I think 'robot', I think of some moving thing made out of steel. Why would being a robot have sex at night? I'm thinking of that 'AI' movie, which I thought was kind of dumb, but still, I think of moving metal when I heard 'robot.'

Well we don't really do planned marriages here and they did in Israel so that is not a comparison really, but yes the husband should still love his wife. I think in India they still do that but they do not consult the Bible. Sex is glamorized here and porn is a giant problem as well.

I am not sure of your reference to 'robot', Did I mention that somewhere? I don't remember at this point.

 

[kaylagrl]

Well, since you asked, you're seemingly missing the part about the husband rendering unto the wife due BENEVOLENCE and likewise also the wife rendering the same unto the husband in verse 3 which precedes what Paul said about their bodies in verse 4.

But I didn't miss that part. I posted the entire verses. I believe more than once. This is a long thread and I have responded since the beginning. So you would have to go back and read all I have said on the subject. But it hasn't been that many posts back that I gave the entire verses.

Seeing how Paul plainly addressed this DUE BENEVOLENCE FIRST, why such an outrage here towards those like Polar and myself who basically are asking "Where is the love?"

Again, the subject was made clear before either of you came to the thread, and I repeated, that we had said we were talking about a healthy Christian marriage. People from the first of the thread brought up health issues, or past trauma, but we weren't discussing that, and that was made clear.

To listen to some of you, and you in particular, you make it sound as if a woman just needs to roll over because "Hubby's home, and it's time for him to plow the field".

Well, to be fair, maybe it's because you stopped listening to what I was saying and decided Polar was correct in all they were saying. I specifically spoke about "meeting each others needs" I specifically spoke about my sisters issue in her abusive marriage. And since you don't know me, or have read many of my posts you have made assumptions because you decided to take sides. I have spoken at length about abusive marriages in threads that I or others have started. I'm not trying to be mean, but you really haven't been here long enough to make the judgement call you are making.

Second point, why do you and Polar seem to think that it's about the woman rolling over to "perform" for sex. You both do understand that there are men with no sex drive? There are wives that live in sexless marriages. And you both said there is a broader POV yet both of you never brought that point up. Again, you're both making assumptions and drawing conclusions that are hardly fair. You're new here, so I can give you the benefit of not reading my posts on these subjects. Polar has never spoken to me before this that I know of, so maybe she also hasn't read my posts on this. But if you had, neither of you would be making the judgement call you are. That's sad.

Anyhow, that's the impression that I've gotten from reading some of your comments here.

Yes, some, and do you think you've made a fair assessment based on a handful of comments to one person? Because you seem like a fair minded and balanced person to me. Now that you have read this post, where do you stand?

 

[JohnDB]

But I didn't miss that part. I posted the entire verses. I believe more than once. This is a long thread and I have responded since the beginning. So you would have to go back and read all I have said on the subject. But it hasn't been that many posts back that I gave the entire verses.



Again, the subject was made clear before either of you came to the thread, and I repeated, that we had said we were talking about a healthy Christian marriage. People from the first of the thread brought up health issues, or past trauma, but we weren't discussing that, and that was made clear.





Well, to be fair, maybe it's because you stopped listening to what I was saying and decided Polar was correct in all they were saying. I specifically spoke about "meeting each others needs" I specifically spoke about my sisters issue in her abusive marriage. And since you don't know me, or have read many of my posts you have made assumptions because you decided to take sides. I have spoken at length about abusive marriages in threads that I or others have started. I'm not trying to be mean, but you really haven't been here long enough to make the judgement call you are making.

Second point, why do you and Polar seem to think that it's about the woman rolling over to "perform" for sex. You both do understand that there are men with no sex drive? There are wives that live in sexless marriages. And you both said there is a broader POV yet both of you never brought that point up. Again, you're both making assumptions and drawing conclusions that are hardly fair. You're new here, so I can give you the benefit of not reading my posts on these subjects. Polar has never spoken to me before this that I know of, so maybe she also hasn't read my posts on this. But if you had, neither of you would be making the judgement call you are. That's sad.




Yes, some, and do you think you've made a fair assessment based on a handful of comments to one person? Because you seem like a fair minded and balanced person to me. Now that you have read this post, where do you stand?

I don't think that everyone understands what a healthy, happy, and whole life and marriage is.

They are accustomed to being sick, manipulative, and deceitful their whole lives....they can't live any other way and yet believe that they are well. That's the real issue. They don't want to be well. They are extremely comfortable living the narcissistic lifestyle and know of nothing else.

Jesus asked the crippled man in John 5 that very strange question, "Do you want to be well? ".
For some people the truthful answer is "NO".

 

[Polar]

Several posts back I asked if we were in agreement. So, for the rat's tail's sake, lets start again. From here, what have I misunderstood?



But we're not discussing all aspects of marriage. We were discussing the thread title. There's reams of things that can be discussed on marriage, but that's not what the thread is talking about.




Umm, I posted the Bible verses.


I think the verses are direct and clear. What broader view do you feel I am missing?




I don't know what you think is being missed in those verses. Again, share what you think I missed.

You surly are tenacious. I'll give you that.

Tell you what, Live4Him3 is doing a much better job of explaining it than I did and you seem to not address him with telling him but but this thread is just about refusing sex is a sin. (actually insisting and insisting might be considered one too. Some husbands, yes so called Christian husbands, force themselves on their wife. That is not kind or loving.)

I did bring up the fact that marriage is compared to Christ's relationship with us yesterday and he did too. I have also said quite a few times that marriage is far more than rendering sex.

But we're not discussing all aspects of marriage. We were discussing the thread title. There's reams of things that can be discussed on marriage, but that's not what the thread is talking about.

Seriously? Show me one thread in this forum or any other, that does not, sooner or later, veer off and sometimes even turn into another thread. Frankly I don't think it makes much sense to discuss sex. Yes yes I know. Christian marriage and all that which actually should not leave out the spiritual aspect since sex is not just a physical act.

1 Corinthians 6:16-19 New American Standard Bible - NASB 1995 (NASB1995)
Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

Why does it seem to bother you so much to address the bigger equation? I quite honestly think it somewhat ridiculous to look at the one verse or 2 and say 'we cannot look at anything else'. Even the op is looking at other scripture so if that is how you really feel, that is that we should only discuss not rendering sex is a sin, then kindly move on. I had enough yesterday to last to the end of the month and I don't need more of it.

 

[Polar]

I should add that in reference to I Corinthians above, it illustrates the fact that even if you are not married, you become one with the person you have sex with. That, is serious stuff. Sex is more than just a physical act.