"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." - 1 Corinthians 11:10
"it is a shame for women to speak in the church." - 1 Corinthians 14:35b
A few things to start out with.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
What do you wish you could post on FB about poly
- Thread starter Jessie
- Start date
"it is a shame for women to speak in the church." - 1 Corinthians 14:35b
A few things to start out with.
Yes, but how would you address I Cor 7:34, because I think that is what this woman was referring to:
34. and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
So sorry, I thought I had posted my response but I hadn't!
Yes, that is the passage I mentioned which was "for this present distress" (1 Corinthians 7:26), whereas Paul's rule for people in general and for young women in particular was this:
"And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." - 1 Timothy 5
It doesn't say what distress it was that he refers to in I Cor. 7, and the passage starts out with "Concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me" showing that he was responding about a particular subject, whatever that may have been. Since his counsel here is different from the rule he says should be followed, it indicates that what was best for that distress is an exception to the rule. That is, when not in distress, it is then best to be married, though some (like Paul) may set it aside to devote themselves wholly to the work of the ministry.
Yes, that is the passage I mentioned which was "for this present distress" (1 Corinthians 7:26), whereas Paul's rule for people in general and for young women in particular was this:
"And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." - 1 Timothy 5
It doesn't say what distress it was that he refers to in I Cor. 7, and the passage starts out with "Concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me" showing that he was responding about a particular subject, whatever that may have been. Since his counsel here is different from the rule he says should be followed, it indicates that what was best for that distress is an exception to the rule. That is, when not in distress, it is then best to be married, though some (like Paul) may set it aside to devote themselves wholly to the work of the ministry.
I would add:
Matthew 19:12 (KJV)
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].
Women have no way to convert their bodies to being a eunuch. That is something that Yah reserves for males.
Matthew 19:12 (KJV)
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].
Women have no way to convert their bodies to being a eunuch. That is something that Yah reserves for males.
Excellent point!
I guess that they could become trans so that they could cut it off?Seems like some women these days really try hard at it!
A bit of a stretch, but I do mention polygyny parenthetically in this rant about the condemnation of self-stimulation, so I thought I might plop it in here. *impish* It's a response to a post claiming that "masturbation" is a sin.
"He gives examples of opinions people claim are supported by Scripture, and then says “but what does the Bible say about masturbation?” and proceeds to give his own opinion which he claims is supported by Scripture (based on a principle which is also his opinion).
He claims that that 1 Corinthians 7 says “come together again, that Satan tempt you not” because anything not done together is sin. This is an unnatural, non-sequitur statement. The plain reading is, as Paul begins the subject, that a man should have his own wife to avoid the temptation of women who are not his own. Using the simplistic logic of his argument, sexual pleasure becomes a sin as soon as one person isn’t participating: it would then be a sin to be attracted to your wife from across a room. It would be a sin to reminisce about intimacy one has had with one’s spouse, or to even think about intimacy with your spouse, unless while actually being intimate. The “logic” is off the wall, non-existent, grasping at straws. It would be sin to want to marry someone (except perhaps for money) because it would be lust.
It is true that God does not give an exhaustive list of possible sins; equally if not more faulty is the idea that God gives a list of good things, forbidding by default anything else. Rather, God gives principles, listing basic sins to illustrate. To illustrate:
“Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.” - 1 Corinthians 9
So we follow principles.
What principles apply to the question? Here is the thing: in order to claim that to imagine nakedness is wrong, it must be wrong to ever see nakedness in any circumstance, including marriage. Unless this is true, then imaginary nakedness based on the abstract concept of nakedness is no more wrong than seeing the nakedness of one’s wife. The only thing that would be wrong would be to try to remember nakedness you have seen and should not have seen. So indeed those who stimulate themselves with a “blank mind” are inconsistent: if imaginary sex is wrong, then any sex is wrong, period. This principle applies to physically stimulating oneself: it is pretend, fiction, imaginary sex - one must either make a blanket condemnation of sex or of imagination to condemn it.
Here is where the Bible actually does speak of self-stimulation:
“And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.” - Leviticus 15
Exactly the same as intercourse:
“The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.”
Someone can grasp at straws and add to Scripture to say that this only refers to nocturnal emission; they would have to explain why God considers the detail of nocturnal emission to be important enough to speak of, but specifying that self-stimulation is sinful was considered unnecessary. If God told the holy people it is fine so long as they wash up afterwards, those who teach for doctrines the commandments of men (specifically the commandments of pagan ascetics) should shut their mouths.
Here's another point when the subject is brought up by Scripture:
"the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman. Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies. Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins." - Song of Songs
Solomon just described his wife's nakedness to all who would read this. How many of you succeeded in not thinking of a woman's naked thighs, hips, belly, and breasts while reading this beautiful passage of Scripture?
The purpose of Solomon erotically describing his intimacy with his wife (and wives, I might add) was for men to be aroused by it, to imagine beautiful, godly, pure sexual intercourse.
"He shall lie all night betwixt my breasts."
Tl;dr
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil” - Isaiah 5"
"He gives examples of opinions people claim are supported by Scripture, and then says “but what does the Bible say about masturbation?” and proceeds to give his own opinion which he claims is supported by Scripture (based on a principle which is also his opinion).
He claims that that 1 Corinthians 7 says “come together again, that Satan tempt you not” because anything not done together is sin. This is an unnatural, non-sequitur statement. The plain reading is, as Paul begins the subject, that a man should have his own wife to avoid the temptation of women who are not his own. Using the simplistic logic of his argument, sexual pleasure becomes a sin as soon as one person isn’t participating: it would then be a sin to be attracted to your wife from across a room. It would be a sin to reminisce about intimacy one has had with one’s spouse, or to even think about intimacy with your spouse, unless while actually being intimate. The “logic” is off the wall, non-existent, grasping at straws. It would be sin to want to marry someone (except perhaps for money) because it would be lust.
It is true that God does not give an exhaustive list of possible sins; equally if not more faulty is the idea that God gives a list of good things, forbidding by default anything else. Rather, God gives principles, listing basic sins to illustrate. To illustrate:
“Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.” - 1 Corinthians 9
So we follow principles.
What principles apply to the question? Here is the thing: in order to claim that to imagine nakedness is wrong, it must be wrong to ever see nakedness in any circumstance, including marriage. Unless this is true, then imaginary nakedness based on the abstract concept of nakedness is no more wrong than seeing the nakedness of one’s wife. The only thing that would be wrong would be to try to remember nakedness you have seen and should not have seen. So indeed those who stimulate themselves with a “blank mind” are inconsistent: if imaginary sex is wrong, then any sex is wrong, period. This principle applies to physically stimulating oneself: it is pretend, fiction, imaginary sex - one must either make a blanket condemnation of sex or of imagination to condemn it.
Here is where the Bible actually does speak of self-stimulation:
“And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.” - Leviticus 15
Exactly the same as intercourse:
“The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.”
Someone can grasp at straws and add to Scripture to say that this only refers to nocturnal emission; they would have to explain why God considers the detail of nocturnal emission to be important enough to speak of, but specifying that self-stimulation is sinful was considered unnecessary. If God told the holy people it is fine so long as they wash up afterwards, those who teach for doctrines the commandments of men (specifically the commandments of pagan ascetics) should shut their mouths.
Here's another point when the subject is brought up by Scripture:
"the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman. Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies. Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins." - Song of Songs
Solomon just described his wife's nakedness to all who would read this. How many of you succeeded in not thinking of a woman's naked thighs, hips, belly, and breasts while reading this beautiful passage of Scripture?
The purpose of Solomon erotically describing his intimacy with his wife (and wives, I might add) was for men to be aroused by it, to imagine beautiful, godly, pure sexual intercourse.
"He shall lie all night betwixt my breasts."
Tl;dr
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil” - Isaiah 5"