How long have you been single?
- Thread starter Rainstorm
- Start date
-
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.
AI Overview
The Bible actively celebrates sex as a beautiful, holy, and pleasurable gift meant to foster deep intimacy. Far from being
a taboo subject, scripture frames physical intimacy as a divine blessing that unifies a couple and reflects God's goodness.
Key Biblical Themes About Sex
- A Celebration of Passion: The Song of Solomon is a collection of passionate love poetry that explicitly celebrates the beauty of physical desire, romance, and the joy of sex.
- Ultimate Intimacy: Genesis describes sex as becoming "one flesh". This implies a profound union that transcends the physical, binding two people together emotionally and spiritually.
- Designed for Pleasure: In Proverbs, couples are encouraged to be "intoxicated always" by their partner's love and to let their physical desires continually satisfy them.
We were talking about fornication in the "free love" period, weren't we. And this is the reasoning - if sex were such a "beautiful, holy, and pleasurable gift meant to foster deep intimacy," why must it be restricted within wedlock? Why do you need a certificate from the government as a permission to do it, why can't you do it to just enjoy it and foster a relationship, since it binds two people together emotionally and spiritually? That was the whole reasoning behind the "sexual liberation", right?
I'll tell why. What AI conveniently left out is the real purpose of sex, the consummation of marriage. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Not girlfriend, soul mate, hooker, random flower kid, not even fiancee, but WIFE, assuming you're already married first at this point, then you become one flesh with your spouse.
In most teachings, Gen. 2:24 is subtly changed into "man shall be joined to his other half and they shall get married", but the bible is clear on this with absolute certainty that "become one flesh" could only mean sex, for Gen. 2:24 is quoted in Paul's teaching on sexual morality - "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” Not being married to a harlot, but having sex with her makes the two of you one body.
Very interesting. According to you, because of human anatomy, women are incapable of enjoying sexual pleasure. And, apparently, sexual activity and sexual pleasure are a result of the fall of mankind. They, apparently, weren't invented by God when he designed the human body.
Wow. I learn new things on this thread every day!
"And btw, "pleasurable sex" and "loving married couple" were talking points verbatim used to justify homosexuality, pedophalia and other perversions."
Huh? Because people use sex and sexual things to justify those things, that means that sex is always bad. Very interesting! People also use the enjoyment of good food to justify gluttony and poor health. I guess that means people enjoying good food is thus always a bad thing, too.
The 50's and 60s weren't any more ideal than the 80's and 90's. Have you never seen Grease? Have you never talked to anybody who lived at that time? Materialism was rampant and women had to post up as sex objects a lot just to get anywhere in life.
Google the term sweater girl. That will vastly disillusion you about the past before the '80s.
Women are absolutely capable of enjoying sexual pleasure, just not through vaginal intercourse, but more through what is traditionally called "foreplay". Their nerve endings concentrated in that little bud. And yes, God did design the human body in that way, so the dilation in childbirth, though extremely painful, wouldn't be so painful to the extent of crucifixion, had the same amount of nerve endings were distributed inside the vaginal walls. Very interesting with your strawman tactics, indeed.
Tell that to Lord Jesus who was blasted as a glutton by the Pharisees. Are you gonna criticize the Lord for using enjoyment of sex? Oh wait, He'd never had any!
Also very interesting, it was the Pharisees who did enjoy sex, so much so that they divorced and remarried frequently, so that they could technically avoid adultery charge.
Don't take my word for it, go inquire the "plasure gap" yourself. And I'm pointing this out as a straight man.
Maybe at this point of time, we should rather treasure this portion of the history and our cultural heritage than cursing it, ideal or not, before we're all displaced by automation, don't you think?
Oh, so women can enjoy sex. OK. I thought you said that " 'pleasurable sex' and 'loving married couple' were just"talking points verbatim used to justify homosexuality, pedophalia and other perversions."
You categorically say that women "can't" enjoy vaginal sex. Um, yes, they can. I've seen no research that they can't. I guess the human population exploded over the millennia because even all the menfolk in happy marriages coerced and manipulated their wives into doing something they didn't want to do. Is that how that happened? All the Christian couples that start families also involve those dynamics then?
You also say that " 'pleasurable sex' and 'loving married couple' were talking points verbatim used to justify homosexuality, pedophalia and other perversions." Um, OK? What does that have to with anything?
People also use the enjoyment of wine to justify drunkenness. They also use the enjoyment of sweets to justify gluttony.
So I guess eating sweets and drinking wine in any amount is also up there with the evils of a married couple having sex?
And my point with that other question is: Why did God invent sex if it's so bad? Or is it all just a weird coincidence that the human body is designed the way it is, complete with sex organs, orgasms, dopamine, oxytocin, the reproductive process and all the stuff related to that?
Also, why would Jesus ever have had sex in the first place? His earthly mission had nothing to do with that. But I guess that, because the human Jesus never had sex, sex must be a bad thing? Jesus also never apparently never wrote a book or owned a home. Does that mean book-writing and homeownership are bad things?
But, hey, if you never want to personally have sex, more power to you. You're free to choose that path. If you want to warn all of Christendom about the evils of marriage and sex, you're free to do that, too. But don't be surprised if people reject that advice. At least, I wouldn't be surprised.
Makes you suspicious when you keep repeating their talking points, associating you with those people. You should ask yourself why you're so keen on your baseless assumptions of "pleasurable sex" and "loving couple". True everlasting pleasure is found in Lord Jesus, everlasting love is His love for us. He will never lead me into temptation like you do.
False equivalence. Lord Jesus drank wine, he turned cisterns of water into wine, did he ever have sex? Will he in heaven?
If it were so good, why must it be restricted within wedlock? And why did God torture Eve with excruciating pain in childbirth, Gen. 3:16, as the natural consequence of it? All animals have reproductive organs, but they don't have such troubles in childbirth, and they usually have a regular mating season, unlike human, lustful all year around.
And don't be surprised at being slapped in the face by whomsoever they wanna have sex with either.
Why is it so bad? Go browse the headlines, I assure you, at least one will say who and who's getting busted for allegation of sexual assault or harrassment, that's why.
"I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." But if you can't get married, having nobody to marry, what then? Burn in passion like those perps? Or how about developing self control, as a fruit of the Holy Spirit?
You seem to focus very intensely on all the negative aspects of sex. Like the assault and harassment allegations you allude to. That seems to color your whole perception of the entire idea of sex, even loving marital sex.
If you, for whatever reason, believe it's impossible for people (or women) to enjoy sex, well, OK. Clearly you won't be moved on that point. Somehow, that's not stopping married couples from having sex, though. I guess the only way for a wife to have sex then is through the manipulation of her sex-crazed husband?
I don't mean to lead you into temptation at all. I'm saying people can enjoy sex. Something we seem to disagree on. OK, fine. So be it.
Jesus never ate chocolate, either. Is it bad to enjoy chocolate?
"If [sex] were so good, why must it be restricted within wedlock?" That's a good question, actually. I don't think that particular inquiry has come up yet in this thread. But let's look at it. There's good reasons.
In 1 Corinthians 7:2 we're told that “But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.” In Hebrews 13:4 we're told that "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” Here, we have both adultery and fornication contrasted with what happens in the marriage bed. Marriage (and sex within marriage) is called honorable. All other types of sexual activity are condemned as immoral, and as something God will judge.
In Genesis and in the Gospels, we’re told that when people marry, they become “one flesh" (Gen. 2:24) Jesus also mentions this in Matt. 19:5 and Mark 10:7) Of course, in the Bible marriage was basically synonymous with having sex. We see that all the time when the Bible talks about people consummating their marriage. And, in the modern age, we know that, when people do have sex, our brains get chemical spikes (dopamine and oxytocin) that make us feel “in love” and “attached.” This is dangerous in the dating stage, because it makes us form attachments to people who may not be good for us and people who, apart from a shared sexual experience, we may have little in common with. There’s not really such a thing as “casual” sex. In physical terms, sex is the most intimate way that you'll ever physically connect with someone else.
Before marriage, a couple has no binding union, and they’ve entered no sacred covenant. Without marriage, and without the marriage vows, they have no right to exploit the culmination of such vows.
And, of course, if people had less premarital sex, there would be less STDs, unwanted pregnancies, unwed mothers, abortions, or children growing up in broken families.
"Why did God torture Eve with excruciating pain in childbirth, Gen. 3:16, as the natural consequence of it?" That verse tells us that a woman’s pain in childbirth is part of the suffering brought into the world through sin. It also seems that, even before the Fall, there was already pain in childbirth. When the text notes God saying, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth” it uses a Hebrew word meaning “to increase.” The pain of childbirth would be more than before.
Of course, we don't fully understand all the reasons as to why Eve was judged with a level increased pain in childbirth. But we do know that this judgment impacted the rest of Eve’s life and serves as an ongoing reminder of the far-reaching consequences of sin.
You seem to think that everyone's decision to date, marry and have sex will inevitably result in failure and disaster. Well, if you think that....good news! You don't have to get married if you don't want to. It's your choice.
You also mention "allegations of sexual assault or harassment." Again, there's good and godly ways for Christians to enjoy sex. There's bad, harmful, and sinful ways for people to experience sex.
You also mention self-control. A Christian exercising self-control over their sexual desires does not mean they will completely eliminate their sexual desires. Again, sexual desires are not bad in and of themselves. It's not wrong to have sexual desires. But we can choose to fulfill these in either godly or sinful ways.
And if you're a Christian, and you can't get married, then you'll have to stay abstinent. If there's a Christian out there dealing with truly prolonged, unwanted singleness, and perhaps never get to marry in their lifetime, then yes, they'll have to make sacrifices, and painful sacrifices at that. But Jesus did, after all, say that true discipleship would be like that.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but maybe try to show some compassion for people who do have to deal with those situations, instead of "reminding" them that "Hey, romance and sex isn't all that great anyway." If you're genuinely content with your own singleness, great. If you personally don't have strong sexual desires, great. But both Jesus and Paul said that not everyone is like that. And that's fine.
Eh, my reply actually did have that aspect of becoming one flesh. You seem to be all over the place, because on the one hand you say sex is animalistic, then you idealize the 70s free love culture and make plain you are speaking of fornication, which overthrew the institution of marriage, which you admit you know is the relationship within which sex is granted as being good.I still do not know if you lived through the 70s. If not, it just looks like your fantasy abstraction of it being a great time for relationships. I assure you, it was not.
Hi @RodColeman , your tenacity is impressive! lol
Kinda seems a shame to waste these talking points on Lovette though, I assure you he is not actually considering them or giving them any Weight.
We have reached the tipping point where he just gives each post a cursory scan for something he can misquote or mischaracterize because he is running out of gas. I think his game plan is to just get so bizarre and absurd in his answers that everyone stops answering, then he feels victorious (like the pigeon pooping on the chessboard that somebody mentioned).
Anyways, welcome to the site, and if you want to have a mature discussion about some of these topics you can start your own thread and go from there. Your arguments are solid but unfortunately they will be wasted on your opponent. I truly wish he was open to help but a large part of his moral identity is tied to self deprivation. It can be overcome but I don't think he's emotionally capable right now.
Best! And no judgement if you carry on, I understand the pull myself!
Kinda seems a shame to waste these talking points on Lovette though, I assure you he is not actually considering them or giving them any Weight.
We have reached the tipping point where he just gives each post a cursory scan for something he can misquote or mischaracterize because he is running out of gas. I think his game plan is to just get so bizarre and absurd in his answers that everyone stops answering, then he feels victorious (like the pigeon pooping on the chessboard that somebody mentioned).
Anyways, welcome to the site, and if you want to have a mature discussion about some of these topics you can start your own thread and go from there. Your arguments are solid but unfortunately they will be wasted on your opponent. I truly wish he was open to help but a large part of his moral identity is tied to self deprivation. It can be overcome but I don't think he's emotionally capable right now.
Best! And no judgement if you carry on, I understand the pull myself!
Hi @RodColeman , your tenacity is impressive! lol
Kinda seems a shame to waste these talking points on Lovette though, I assure you he is not actually considering them or giving them any Weight.
We have reached the tipping point where he just gives each post a cursory scan for something he can misquote or mischaracterize because he is running out of gas. I think his game plan is to just get so bizarre and absurd in his answers that everyone stops answering, then he feels victorious (like the pigeon pooping on the chessboard that somebody mentioned).
Anyways, welcome to the site, and if you want to have a mature discussion about some of these topics you can start your own thread and go from there. Your arguments are solid but unfortunately they will be wasted on your opponent. I truly wish he was open to help but a large part of his moral identity is tied to self deprivation. It can be overcome but I don't think he's emotionally capable right now.
Best! And no judgement if you carry on, I understand the pull myself!
This sums it up perfectly, haha.
The temptation is powerful, I admit that. To be honest, it's more so that I'm simply curious about how he came to these particular viewpoints and how he thinks about them. They're just so unusual to me that it makes we want to learn more. But, yes, I too, very much doubt that I will change his mind, haha.
That's the logical reaction to the pornified culture we're living in. Why wouldn't I be so negative on it, when everything about it is negative, including and especially church teachings? And lots of otherwise respectable and honorable church leaders themselves are busted by such allegations, even the devil himself couldn't do a better job to discredit the church's moral authority?
And I do agree that people can enjoy sex, but the only kind of "people" who enjoy and brag about it not role models to follow. Married couples usually keep it to themselves as a private matter, whether they enjoy it or not.
And as I pointed out, this magical flip that turns what gets you burned in hell to what lifts you up to high heaven overnight is just an illusion, pure idolatry. I think we can agree that sex is designed as the consummation of an existing and matured relationship, like the signing of a big deal over a long time of negatiation. If a couple weren't already "in love" and "attached", they still had doubts on committing the rest of their lives to each other, they probably shouldn't get married in the first place, no amount of dopamine and oxytocin could suddenly get them "in love" and "attached", especially for those who'd already had ample sexual experience with other people before, a hallmark of the "modern age".
Then there's the other extreme, the wretched souls who were victims of bad, violent sex, growing up in this pornified culture saturated with sexual imageries, exposed only to the negative aspects of sex, you yourself named quite a few "STDs, unwanted pregnancies, unwed mothers, abortions," you're selling marriage to them as the solution and expecting them to get "in love" and "attached" overnight?
I actually understand your sentiment. Yes, originally sex was good, just like everything else God created, God didn't make junk, it's the devil who ruined it, we live in a sinful and broken world with cheapened, commercialized, distorted sex, but "from the beginning it was not so," as Lord Jesus remarked. He taught them the orginal design of marriage, yet he made no attempt to restore it, he didn't tell his disciples to get married in the right, ideal way, because the present age was passing away, earthly marriage and sex, either good or bad, was a distraction, he wanted his disciples to set their mind on eternality, same point was reiterated by Paul in 1 Cor. 7.
Sir, once again to remind you, we're all born single, that's our default status. Dating someone you barely know is a choice, committing your life to marraige is a choice, conceiving a kid is a chocie, recognizing them as a gamble is not a choice.
I'm not the one who's "reminding" them that, "purity culture" and "consent culture" are. The former worships romance and sex as idols, the latter trashes them as patriarchal oppression. The most reasonable reaction would be the same as the Corianthian church, "better not to touch a woman at all", lest you get yourself into trouble.
Then let the past buried in the past, stop rattling it.
And no, I ain't old enough to have lived through it. But at least, judging by the materials from that decade, it must be spiritually vibrant and vivacious, a carefree time to travel around and explore the meaning of life, the polar opposite of today's decadence, materialism and cynicism. Demographically speaking, the boomers were in their 20s back then, now in their 70s, so it makes perfect sense to me.
Stop rattling the past LOL. Isn't that what you are doing? You speak as if people are not free to fornicate still.
The level of sin looks to have increased in the world, and sexual activity and deviancy grew right along with that.
You are idealizing a decade you did not live through. I was there.
Anyone who's really mature would not be bothered by marital status. With discernment, they'd at least recognize the current time as a time of distress (1 Cor. 7:26) and lay their faith in Lord Jesus. A mature discussion would be about how faith in Lord Jesus, by his all sufficient grace and atonement for our sins, gets us through the hard times of distress and loneliness, not a string of justification for sexual desires and delights.Hi @RodColeman , your tenacity is impressive! lol
Kinda seems a shame to waste these talking points on Lovette though, I assure you he is not actually considering them or giving them any Weight.
We have reached the tipping point where he just gives each post a cursory scan for something he can misquote or mischaracterize because he is running out of gas. I think his game plan is to just get so bizarre and absurd in his answers that everyone stops answering, then he feels victorious (like the pigeon pooping on the chessboard that somebody mentioned).
Anyways, welcome to the site, and if you want to have a mature discussion about some of these topics you can start your own thread and go from there. Your arguments are solid but unfortunately they will be wasted on your opponent. I truly wish he was open to help but a large part of his moral identity is tied to self deprivation. It can be overcome but I don't think he's emotionally capable right now.
Best! And no judgement if you carry on, I understand the pull myself!