What is sexually immoral in marriage?

[CommodoreTeach]

Absolutely!

I have access to I think most all journals, I had a very particular research article from 1960/70 somewhere in there referenced and when I went back to find it for a family member whose background is biology it was gone.

It was not the only research article I am sure.

Probably those researchers/doctors were also shown the door as well, that happens too.

Yes there are real conspiracies, there are very powerful lobby groups.

I have read similar things about psychologists who were curing homosexuality (maybe during the 70s and 80s era?) Although a sin problem, these were treating it as a mental disorder and having success. But these were eventually forced out of practice, and the books (at least in the West) changed, and now it is illegal to try to "treat" someone with such a disorder. Little wonder we now find ourselves so far gone that children think they can change gender, and people suffering all manner of perversions end up committing suicide when they eventually despair.

 

[HeIsHere]

I have read similar things about psychologists who were curing homosexuality (maybe during the 70s and 80s era?) Although a sin problem, these were treating it as a mental disorder and having success. But these were eventually forced out of practice, and the books (at least in the West) changed, and now it is illegal to try to "treat" someone with such a disorder. Little wonder we now find ourselves so far gone that children think they can change gender, and people suffering all manner of perversions end up committing suicide when they eventually despair.

Yes a lot of that particular research was scrubbed from the journals as well.
Probably would be considered hate speech where I live.

All of this has been very well planned and orchestrated, preaching to choir...

 

[HeIsHere]

I have read similar things about psychologists who were curing homosexuality (maybe during the 70s and 80s era?) Although a sin problem, these were treating it as a mental disorder and having success. But these were eventually forced out of practice, and the books (at least in the West) changed, and now it is illegal to try to "treat" someone with such a disorder. Little wonder we now find ourselves so far gone that children think they can change gender, and people suffering all manner of perversions end up committing suicide when they eventually despair.

People who work in the various "people industries" have been conditioned (aka brainwashed) to think this is the compassionate, supportive response that is problem, when in reality it is not.

 

[LeeLoving]

Well... to comment on the topic of the thread it seems Hebrews 13:4 (KJV) defines the marriage bed as "undefiled"... it seems to me like a lot is permissible in the marriage bed since this is the language that is used, that the marriage bed is undefiled. I'm a virgin though and unmarried and don't know if this is for certain though.

 

[Lynx]

Well... to comment on the topic of the thread it seems Hebrews 13:4 (KJV) defines the marriage bed as "undefiled"... it seems to me like a lot is permissible in the marriage bed since this is the language that is used, that the marriage bed is undefiled. I'm a virgin though and unmarried and don't know if this is for certain though.

No no no! We have already moved on to the conspiracy part of this thread. There's no point in trying to stay on the original topic now.

 

[HeIsHere]

Well... to comment on the topic of the thread it seems Hebrews 13:4 (KJV) defines the marriage bed as "undefiled"... it seems to me like a lot is permissible in the marriage bed since this is the language that is used, that the marriage bed is undefiled. I'm a virgin though and unmarried and don't know if this is for certain though.

That would be using a 21st century lens to understand scripture and I can assure that is not what is in view when Paul penned those words.

 

[LeeLoving]

That would be using a 21st century lens to understand scripture and I can assure that is not what is in view when Paul penned those words.

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

It seems to me that this weighs toward saying that things are permissible in the marriage bed... I don't know how far that goes though if it's the truth.

 

[HeIsHere]

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

It seems to me that this weighs toward saying that things are permissible in the marriage bed... I don't know how far that goes though if it's the truth.

sigh

 

[seoulsearch]

Well... to comment on the topic of the thread it seems Hebrews 13:4 (KJV) defines the marriage bed as "undefiled"... it seems to me like a lot is permissible in the marriage bed since this is the language that is used, that the marriage bed is undefiled. I'm a virgin though and unmarried and don't know if this is for certain though.

That would be using a 21st century lens to understand scripture and I can assure that is not what is in view when Paul penned those words.

@HeIsHere makes an excellent point.

I'm sure there's nothing new under the sun, but in past times, the things that are seen as mainstream now were considered deviant in the past.

For example, explorations of pain and humiliation (such as "mock" rape and restraints) used to be seen as wrong -- these days, "counselors" "encourage" couples to "explore" their feelings while using a "safe word", at which the activity is supposed to stop if someone feels uncomfortable.

Again, I can only speak for myself. But to me, anything that either partner finds shameful, humiliating, or causing pain (whether spiritually, emotionally, or physical) is just plain wrong, and not something I would agree to.

Unfortunately, many people don't find out about their spouse's "underground" desires until after they're married, and in many Christian circles, it's too late, and not seen as a Biblical reason for divorce.

 

[LeeLoving]

sigh

I get what you mean with the sigh, but with the way it reads I think it might mean that you're allowed to be intimate with your wife or husband... I don't know if it reads the other way, like the marriage bed is undefiled, ie. you can be intimate. If someone knows the language of the KJV REALLY WELL I would like to know your opinion, because I wouldn't want to be wrong about something like sexually immoral issues in marriage. As of right now I'm unclear about what it means.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Well... to comment on the topic of the thread it seems Hebrews 13:4 (KJV) defines the marriage bed as "undefiled"... it seems to me like a lot is permissible in the marriage bed since this is the language that is used, that the marriage bed is undefiled. I'm a virgin though and unmarried and don't know if this is for certain though.

You would really need to go throughout scripture and see how "the marriage bed" is described in order to understand what the writer's intent was here. In other words, the writer certainly was not seeking to call certain acts "undefiled" which are described as being defiling elsewhere in scripture.

Do you understand what I am saying?

For example, seeing how sodomy is condemned in scripture (which is what another poster was alluding to), would it suddenly become "undefiled" in "the marriage bed?"

You can definitely find support in scripture for procreation between a man and his wife, and, obviously, that would include the use of their reproductive organs.

Would that be limited to what you called "the missionary position?"

I honestly cannot answer that question for you.

You can also find support in scripture for a man being satisfied by his wife's breasts.

Pro 5:19
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Some would claim, while citing from the Song of Solomon, that there is also scriptural justification for oral sex. Normally, a passage like the following one is cited in defense of the same.

Sng 4:16
Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.

A verse like that is open to interpretation, and the proper interpretation may have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, but it is a verse that is normally used to justify that particular sex act.

 

[Karlon]

I'm just going to be blunt. Is everything outside of intercourse sexually immoral in a marriage bed? Please use only Biblical based reasoning (with verses provided) to prove your response. Please no personal opinions.

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV) seems to indicate that the marriage bed is undefiled, meaning anything goes (I assume within reason). Is this the correct interpretation?[/QUOTE
1st Corinthians 7:3-5 speaks of rendering due benevolence to each other, not to defraud one another except on mutual consent. if you are trying to find out more in detail, what a husband & wife can partake of in bed, it can not be anymore obvious, it's so natural. it can be said this way, "if she wants that, give it to her, if he wants that, give it to him". concerning issues in life, sometimes you can not hold back what to say because of embarrassment. being unhappy in romance is 1 of the worst things to put up with in life. yes, there are people who just don't know & want to remain undefiled. the biggest details can only be told by a pastor & a professional woman. that's the best way i can relate this to anyone.

 

[Kainos]

Well, like everything outside of err basic missionary intercourse, and by anything goes I mean anything sexual in a marriage bed.

Some of you might want to cover your eyes, and I do apologise for the graphic nature of what I'm about to say.

Lee, you don't want an opinion, but you didn't rule out an observation:

Wisdom calls on a woman to keep her mouth free from perversity, touching on her speech. There is no variation where holiness is the standard, so I don't see how any man could want the lips of his wife, which have been put into service by the Spirit, to then consent to sucking his you know what with said lips. If holiness is our frame of reference, I can't harmonize the two, which tells me one is done in error.

As an unbeliever who walked out on the world to step into the faith, my mind has been where yours is. The more intimate you are with the holiness of Jesus, the better placed you will be to determine what is right and proper concerning intimacy between yourself and your future wife.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

There is no variation where holiness is the standard, so I don't see how any man could want the lips of his wife, which have been put into service by the Spirit, to then consent to sucking his you know what with said lips. If holiness is our frame of reference, I can't harmonize the two, which tells me one is done in error.

This is a difficult topic to address without using graphic language, but you basically stated what I believe.

When it comes to what is and is not permissible in "the marriage bed," the Bible does not always explicitly state the same. Instead, sometimes (often), we need to use deductive reasoning.

For example, when it comes to the topic of marriage, God said:

Mal 2:15
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.

One reason why God ordained marriage, or one reason why God made the two one, is because he desires godly seed or godly offspring. Of course, in order for godly seed, as in godly children, to exist, another type of "seed," or a man's sperm, must be involved in the procreation process. I will try to say this as delicately as possible, but, as we all know, throughout the world, a heterosexual, married man's "seed" will normally wind up inside one of three orifices in his wife. In only one of those orifices can his "seed" truly take root, or in only one of those three orifices can it potentially contribute to the procreation process. In the other two orifices, it never can.

Using deductive reasoning, this makes me believe that this one orifice is the orifice that God designed to be in contact with the man's "seed," and it also causes me to seriously consider that the use of the other two orifices are perversions of God's original intent.

Whew!

Can I at least get a "like" for my semi-non-descriptive use of terms?

Talk about walking on eggshells!!!

 

[MsMediator]

Well, like everything outside of err basic missionary intercourse, and by anything goes I mean anything sexual in a marriage bed, though I suppose some things are not allowed since I believe Paul might have written about women exchanging the natural use for unnatural use (their bodies)... sorry for bringing that up if anyone finds that rude. So I suppose when you weigh those two things together it might mean that the marriage bed is undefiled in the sense of normal sexual activity. I think it might be talking about homosexuality though.

Sex between a married couple could of course be perverted and deviant (i.e. not what God intended). If you feel something is wrong (which may be the Holy Spirit whispering to you), it probably is. I would withhold from sex, and actually would have no shame with talking to the church leadership, or anyone for that matter, about this.

 

[seoulsearch]

Some of you might want to cover your eyes, and I do apologise for the graphic nature of what I'm about to say.

Lee, you don't want an opinion, but you didn't rule out an observation:

Wisdom calls on a woman to keep her mouth free from perversity, touching on her speech. There is no variation where holiness is the standard, so I don't see how any man could want the lips of his wife, which have been put into service by the Spirit, to then consent to sucking his you know what with said lips. If holiness is our frame of reference, I can't harmonize the two, which tells me one is done in error.

As an unbeliever who walked out on the world to step into the faith, my mind has been where yours is. The more intimate you are with the holiness of Jesus, the better placed you will be to determine what is right and proper concerning intimacy between yourself and your future wife.

This is a difficult topic to address without using graphic language, but you basically stated what I believe.

When it comes to what is and is not permissible in "the marriage bed," the Bible does not always explicitly state the same. Instead, sometimes (often), we need to use deductive reasoning.

For example, when it comes to the topic of marriage, God said:

Mal 2:15
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.

One reason why God ordained marriage, or one reason why God made the two one, is because he desires godly seed or godly offspring. Of course, in order for godly seed, as in godly children, to exist, another type of "seed," or a man's sperm, must be involved in the procreation process. I will try to say this as delicately as possible, but, as we all know, throughout the world, a heterosexual, married man's "seed" will normally wind up inside one of three orifices in his wife. In only one of those orifices can his "seed" truly take root, or in only one of those three orifices can it potentially contribute to the procreation process. In the other two orifices, it never can.

Using deductive reasoning, this makes me believe that this one orifice is the orifice that God designed to be in contact with the man's "seed," and it also causes me to seriously consider that the use of the other two orifices are perversions of God's original intent.

Whew!

Can I at least get a "like" for my semi-non-descriptive use of terms?

Talk about walking on eggshells!!!

May I just state how refreshing it is to read statements from Christian men who believe this way?

I have known Christian wives who were regularly forced into "alternatives" by their husband when having their normal monthly cycles, or during/after pregnancy, etc., because their husbands said, "I have needs, and as my wife, your body belongs to me, and you are to fulfill my desires."

My heart breaks in sorrow for anyone having to endure this, and worse yet, being told that this is the will of God.

Now, if couples are both in agreement to it and are willing? I honestly don't know. I have my own thoughts, which tend to lean more on the conservative side, but I encourage any couple to talk this out in counseling and a lot of prayer.

And I certainly don't want to sound at all like I am somehow blaming or accusing men. Not at all. Stories like this just make me thank God all the more for the GOOD men we have out there, and I'm sure there are equally horrifying stories of wives abusing their husbands as well.

It's just that I'm a woman, and while I have had men tell me about some things in their lives too, most often, it's been other women who have shared their stories, so I can only go with what I've heard or read.

Thank you to our Christian men who are upholding dignity and respect for both men AND women!

 

[Kainos]

Whew!

Can I at least get a "like" for my semi-non-descriptive use of terms?

Talk about walking on eggshells!!!

Precisely navigating eight bends to keep things on the straight and narrow merits more than a like

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Thank you to our Christian men who are upholding dignity and respect for both men AND women!

Dignity and respect truly are the key elements here.

I admittedly watched pornography earlier on in life, and women were totally debased in most of what I saw. I say "most" because there were also videos where women "dominated" men and the like. In my opinion, much of what transpires in bedrooms around the world better matches porno films than it does the word of God.

 

[GaryA]

Hebrews 13:

4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

The Strongs definition [5093] for 'honourable':

timios; from 5092; valuable, i.e. (objective) costly, or (subjective) honored, esteemed, or (figurative) beloved:--dear, honourable, (more, most) precious, had in reputation.

The Strongs definition [283] for 'undefiled':

amiantos; from 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of 3392; unsoiled, i.e. (figurative) pure:--undefiled.

The Strongs definition [4205] for 'whoremongers':

pornos; from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of 4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by analogy) a debauchee (libertine): --fornicator, whoremonger.

The Strongs definition [3432] for 'adulterers':

moichos; perhaps a primary word; a (male) paramour; figurative apostate:--adulterer.

As I see it, this verse does not really address what-is-and-is-not "acceptable" in a marriage in terms of sexual activity; rather, it is pointing out the "dire sinfulness" of activity that is "sexually loose" in nature - mainly, a man without self-control doing whatever he wishes with whomever he wishes (sexually) without discretion or restraint - corrupting himself.

The marriage bed is a [general] relative reference. It might be well said that the verse is saying that "sexual activity within marriage is acceptable" but [that] licentiousness is sin.

To answer the question concerning what sexual activity is acceptable in a marriage more specifically - other scripture must be consulted.

 

[GaryA]

I have also talked to Christian women whose Christian husbands prefer (I will try to put this delicately,) a form of sex practiced between homosexual men. One woman who confided this to me was in absolute tears, sobbing that this was all her husband wanted and he would force her into doing so. And because he was doing this to a woman (his wife, after all,) and not a man, he still saw himself as 100% heterosexual and 100% in the right.

This is "sick and twisted"...

(And, 'depraved' might be a good word to throw in there somewhere, too.)