-
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.
We can help her - but why have sex with her?
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
- Status
...mmm the Gospel. Followed maybe with some Biblical scriptures and principles.chris said:
I think perhaps telling a wife (and emotionally this is what the modern woman hears) you are sexually deficient, and this other woman has more, and perhaps better sex than you, won't go a long way toward getting her on board. Additionally honey, she will take time and resources from our relationship. Don't worry love God says it is just peachy.
Where was the Gospel in this presentation? Is the husband even saved? The wife? The prospect? Without such considerations it is certain who sits on the throne of their hearts. They do.
Look, that is not even a good paraphrase of scripture.chris said:
You are elevating the activity on the coattails of the elements without regard to the context. One could similarly say, God made man to eat, eating is good. Until it is not. Perhaps when you eat from the tree of knowledge...or when you eat stolen food, poison, or you manage to clog your veins with cholesterol. Eating is not always good, and neither is sex.
The Bible actually says, "lt is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." (1 Cor 7:1)
How then does sex become THE formative force within Christian polygyny? Why is it not more about loving service? Why not more about keeping widows in the faith and concern for the fatherless?
Not really at issue. Thanks for the review though.chris said:
chris said:
Christians are not gnostics. Flesh itself is not evil, as those heretics taught. Nevertheless how we fill the needs of our flesh can be, especially if it becomes THE central issue.
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the needs of the flesh.
...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. (Gal5:23)
You are still talking about sex. Woman was called good. Certainly not just for sex. Take a look women are real people with real emotion and real needs. To treat them any less is certain to create tragedy and drama.chris said:
chris said:
Christian Marriage must have a greater purpose than the acquiring of sex partners even as we acknowledge the benefit. If not how are we any better than the pagans? We need to ask ourselves what is God's propose in this and how is he glorified in it? Understanding this, perhaps we discover a draw card that a woman can get behind, rather than offer her a bubble bath like it was a comforting consolation prize.
Neo, thank you for the response. I believe that we are in general agreement then, that plural marriage shouldn't be about the sex. I felt like we were missing what you wanted to communicate and hence my question.
Yes, you nailed me on playing loosy goosey with God create sex and called it good.
Fair enough. God did indeed create eating and provided guidelines around what should and should not be eating, including overeating. Likewise he provided guidelines around sex and it's proper place as well. Anyway, as mentioned PM isn't about sex.
Now, I do have to give you a little bit of a hard time on 1 Cor 7:1, if we continue reading the context we see that husbands and wives are not to deprive each other of sex...
Regarding saved vs unsaved, I suspect that it was assumed due to the content of the site that both people are already believers. That said we should probably clarify by adding that. I know that I personally would look for someone who believes versus someone who does not and we have Scripture which backs that conclusion.
That said, we essentially agree. I wrote what I did in order to better understand what you were trying to say and to that end I find that I'm in agreement.
Yes, you nailed me on playing loosy goosey with God create sex and called it good.
Fair enough. God did indeed create eating and provided guidelines around what should and should not be eating, including overeating. Likewise he provided guidelines around sex and it's proper place as well. Anyway, as mentioned PM isn't about sex.Now, I do have to give you a little bit of a hard time on 1 Cor 7:1, if we continue reading the context we see that husbands and wives are not to deprive each other of sex...
Regarding saved vs unsaved, I suspect that it was assumed due to the content of the site that both people are already believers. That said we should probably clarify by adding that. I know that I personally would look for someone who believes versus someone who does not and we have Scripture which backs that conclusion.
That said, we essentially agree. I wrote what I did in order to better understand what you were trying to say and to that end I find that I'm in agreement.
Neither is it an improper conclusion. He looked at ALL of His creation, including sex, and called it good.NeoPatriarch said:
NeoPatriarch said:
No-one disputes this, Robert. The point of THIS particular thread of discussion, however, is that some try to EXCLUDE sex. See the title of the thread. Some, usually wives, try to spiritualize the whole thang and DENY the real emotions and real needs of the real people of the female persuasion who need a husband.
We are not here saying to go find another wife so as to get your freak on. From everything I can find, having more than one wife is a whole lot more about responsibility well executed than it is wild eyed sex swinging from chandeliers with hordes of horny nubile women. Good grief!
No, the point in this particular thread is simply a refusal to objectify women on the opposite ditch. What do I mean? We're all aware of the "middle of the road" concept, right? The idea that God's way is BALANCED, that it goes down the middle of a road, so to speak. And that the devil doesn't care whether he gets us off into a ditch on the right hand or on the left. He just wants us wrecked in the ditch, rather than making progress down the road. Fair enough?
Ok, in this analogy, a wholesome, healthy husband-wife relationship will constitute our definition of the middle of the road. And travel or progress down that road would include accepting the entirety of an additional relationship, if God so chooses, directs, and provides.
What, then, are the ditches? On one side we have objectifying women as primarily objects of sexual lust, thus denying their personhood beyond sexuality. But the ditch on the other side is equally a ditch. It again splits the woman up and denies her total personhood. How? By DENYing her God-given, Life-driven sexuality.
Is this not clear? Any attitude, any policy, which seeks to deny or cut out some valid portion of a person's life is NOT of God. God created us in our totality, and He created us balanced.
"Well, but we CAN help out widows and orphans without marrying them, and having sex with the widow." True. But in so doing, you are NOT addressing her widowhood, nor her children's state of orphans. You may be addressing their state of hunger, or nakedness, or need for a roof or warmth or light or transportation. Maybe even a certain degree of their need for companionship and social interaction. But you have NOT addressed their need to BELONG. You have NOT addressed the core issues addressed in James 1:27. Those are only adequately addressed by MARRIAGE and ADOPTION, with ALL that those actions imply.
NO slicing and dicing of men OR women, their personalities, emotions, needs, etc. Jesus came to save us, to restore us to holy WHOLENESS, in all three dimensions -- spirit, soul AND body!
Chris,
I am glad to hear it. There cannot be enough scripture in a "Biblical Families" document if you ask me, but certainly none is too little. If this liberty is from God, we must start there.
Oh, this was worst of all. What a poor assumption? What a disaster when we are wrong. Further the Gospel is intricately tied to the image of marriage. Husband and fathers need to carry that banner everyday. My reasons may be different than yours, in terms of doctrine, but no Christian can deny the benefits of frequent reflection on God's Gospel of Grace.
God Bless,
Robert
I am glad to hear it. There cannot be enough scripture in a "Biblical Families" document if you ask me, but certainly none is too little. If this liberty is from God, we must start there.
That is true, still it illustrates a tension that exists in scripture and in life.chris said:
chris said:
Oh, this was worst of all. What a poor assumption? What a disaster when we are wrong. Further the Gospel is intricately tied to the image of marriage. Husband and fathers need to carry that banner everyday. My reasons may be different than yours, in terms of doctrine, but no Christian can deny the benefits of frequent reflection on God's Gospel of Grace.
God Bless,
Robert
Cecil
creation was good. Man sins, is expelled from the garden, then, and only then in scripture is there the first occurence of sex. So there is a separation of time, space, and condition between the declaration and the act. So at best it is a disingenuous presentation. At worse it attempts to falsely gain an advantage where none exists, causing one ultimately to lose ground, and calls into question the veracity of better arguments one might have had.
Okay, so lets look at the thread title. "We can help her -but why have sex with her?" Have we turned marriage into a work-fare program? I don't know anyone who marries to "help", though some have married for sex. There is something malformed in the question. It is worth pondering.
If your wife is saying this it is quite probable that she does not acknowledge your liberty to take another. Isn't that really the root of the problem?
Actually, I was being nice. As chris already admitted he was being "loosey goosey". The statement misrepresents scripture in a specific and prejudiced way. Yes, God designed the sexes, male and female, and He declares thatCecilW said:
creation was good. Man sins, is expelled from the garden, then, and only then in scripture is there the first occurence of sex. So there is a separation of time, space, and condition between the declaration and the act. So at best it is a disingenuous presentation. At worse it attempts to falsely gain an advantage where none exists, causing one ultimately to lose ground, and calls into question the veracity of better arguments one might have had.
As threads do, they grow beyond their initial intent, and so had this one. By wrongly elevating the activity of sex, even recruiting God to do it, Chris' position became sexually driven, without regard for other important things.CecilW said:
Okay, so lets look at the thread title. "We can help her -but why have sex with her?" Have we turned marriage into a work-fare program? I don't know anyone who marries to "help", though some have married for sex. There is something malformed in the question. It is worth pondering.
If your wife is saying this it is quite probable that she does not acknowledge your liberty to take another. Isn't that really the root of the problem?
Dear Neo,
I decided to go back to the verses to see just how fast and loose I was with it... Here's what I found :
Gen 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." Would we agree that Be fruitful and increase had to happen somehow, and I posit that it means to have sex in order to accomplish that. Therefore, I believe we do see sex mentioned before the fall.
Gen 1:31 (before the fall) "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." I'm proposing due to the positioning of these verses that sex is indeed good and is part of one of the first commands God gave to humans and certainly came before 1 Cor, if we suggest that Scripture doesn't conflict, how to we reconcile 1 Cor with the very first command issued to humans from God's mouth. If one is suggesting that sex is bad or sinful, how does one develop that conclusion on the entirety of scripture? I ask from a desire to understand how we can come to that conclusion.
My understanding is that the original intent of this thread was around reasons men and women would be in polygyny. Frankly, I don't see any of the Bibles polygynists even having these discussions. They just lived it. Do we know for a fact that sex wasn't part of the equation. I look at the Song of Solomon which is quite explicit from a human sexuality standpoint and find myself wondering about that.
I certainly agree that we as men should have a higher standard for why we want participate in polygyny but also don't believe we should deny that there are many components of what makes that up. As stated before, making it all about sex which is one side of the ditch as Cecil pointed out, neither should we fall into the other ditch in which we avoid sex at all costs.
At this point we may just have to disagree, though I believe we have more in agreement than not.
Blessings,
Chris
I decided to go back to the verses to see just how fast and loose I was with it... Here's what I found :
Gen 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." Would we agree that Be fruitful and increase had to happen somehow, and I posit that it means to have sex in order to accomplish that. Therefore, I believe we do see sex mentioned before the fall.
Gen 1:31 (before the fall) "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." I'm proposing due to the positioning of these verses that sex is indeed good and is part of one of the first commands God gave to humans and certainly came before 1 Cor, if we suggest that Scripture doesn't conflict, how to we reconcile 1 Cor with the very first command issued to humans from God's mouth. If one is suggesting that sex is bad or sinful, how does one develop that conclusion on the entirety of scripture? I ask from a desire to understand how we can come to that conclusion.
My understanding is that the original intent of this thread was around reasons men and women would be in polygyny. Frankly, I don't see any of the Bibles polygynists even having these discussions. They just lived it. Do we know for a fact that sex wasn't part of the equation. I look at the Song of Solomon which is quite explicit from a human sexuality standpoint and find myself wondering about that.
I certainly agree that we as men should have a higher standard for why we want participate in polygyny but also don't believe we should deny that there are many components of what makes that up. As stated before, making it all about sex which is one side of the ditch as Cecil pointed out, neither should we fall into the other ditch in which we avoid sex at all costs.
At this point we may just have to disagree, though I believe we have more in agreement than not.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I am uncertain of what it is we disagree. My objection was only toward the specific misrepresentation that God had identified and praised the act of sex. No such event occurred.
I am all for keeping this car in the road and out of ditches, neither depraved nor deprived.
Here is the truth sex changes within a marriage over time. Relationships established on this passion suffer when such changes occur. I have known couples in which one is injured, sex is over. Is the marriage over?
If one is quibbling about sex, the wife has not squared with the facts. She does not acknowledge the husband's liberty in the matter, and most likely will not be reasoned or guilted from such a position once she has dug in. Sex is just one strong hold in her resistance.
I am uncertain of what it is we disagree. My objection was only toward the specific misrepresentation that God had identified and praised the act of sex. No such event occurred.
I am all for keeping this car in the road and out of ditches, neither depraved nor deprived.
Here is the truth sex changes within a marriage over time. Relationships established on this passion suffer when such changes occur. I have known couples in which one is injured, sex is over. Is the marriage over?
If one is quibbling about sex, the wife has not squared with the facts. She does not acknowledge the husband's liberty in the matter, and most likely will not be reasoned or guilted from such a position once she has dug in. Sex is just one strong hold in her resistance.
Neo:
The argument that because sex wasn't specifically mentioned prior to the fall means it didn't exist seems far more presumptive than to draw from the verses Chris mentioned that it did, that God had created it (before or after the fall, who else was the Creator?), and that He included it in His pronouncement of "very Good".
The idea that sex is an effect of the fall, nasty, dirty, sinful, lesser, to be tolerated but not defended, was originally taught among Christians by the same folks who then used it as a reason to promote celibacy as best. It is where you end up if you follow the argument out to its logical conclusion.
So I am afraid that we will just have to agree to disagree. However, I doubt that you'll find much success teaching that point of view on this site without being challenged every time. It isn't simply a valid alternative, as some others are. It strikes directly at the heart of things.
You know, God could have made a companion for Adam pretty much just like himself. From the companionship point of view, might even have been better, as they woulda been more similar. Instead, He made a woman, totally opposite and endlessly fascinating/frustrating/bewildering/exciting/attractive (to a man) in so many ways. He then told them to be fruitful and multiply.
Now, I do suppose that it is POSSIBLE, vaguely, that they understood that to mean, that first Friday evening, that they should spend the evening creating multiplication tables by counting fingers, toes, pebbles, mangoes or the like. Or, that if they understood it to mean that they should cause themselves to be repetitively duplicated, they went looking for a turkey baster so as to perform artificial insemination, or perhaps a lab with test tubes. But just how high would you guess either of those options rate?
Isn't it a bit more likely that they looked at each other, being naked after all, and said, "HEY! That's different than me! Why? What do you DO with it. Looks interesting. May I? ..." :lol:
For me, at least, it will remain far more logical to conclude that He CREATED us as full-spectrum balanced humans, with everything in place but appropriate, and then pronounced it all Good.
The argument that because sex wasn't specifically mentioned prior to the fall means it didn't exist seems far more presumptive than to draw from the verses Chris mentioned that it did, that God had created it (before or after the fall, who else was the Creator?), and that He included it in His pronouncement of "very Good".
The idea that sex is an effect of the fall, nasty, dirty, sinful, lesser, to be tolerated but not defended, was originally taught among Christians by the same folks who then used it as a reason to promote celibacy as best. It is where you end up if you follow the argument out to its logical conclusion.
So I am afraid that we will just have to agree to disagree. However, I doubt that you'll find much success teaching that point of view on this site without being challenged every time. It isn't simply a valid alternative, as some others are. It strikes directly at the heart of things.
You know, God could have made a companion for Adam pretty much just like himself. From the companionship point of view, might even have been better, as they woulda been more similar. Instead, He made a woman, totally opposite and endlessly fascinating/frustrating/bewildering/exciting/attractive (to a man) in so many ways. He then told them to be fruitful and multiply.
Now, I do suppose that it is POSSIBLE, vaguely, that they understood that to mean, that first Friday evening, that they should spend the evening creating multiplication tables by counting fingers, toes, pebbles, mangoes or the like. Or, that if they understood it to mean that they should cause themselves to be repetitively duplicated, they went looking for a turkey baster so as to perform artificial insemination, or perhaps a lab with test tubes. But just how high would you guess either of those options rate?
Isn't it a bit more likely that they looked at each other, being naked after all, and said, "HEY! That's different than me! Why? What do you DO with it. Looks interesting. May I? ..." :lol:
For me, at least, it will remain far more logical to conclude that He CREATED us as full-spectrum balanced humans, with everything in place but appropriate, and then pronounced it all Good.
Btw,
Are walnuts "very good"?
How about mangoes? Pineapples, bananas, coconuts, Sequoia trees, maple trees, goldfinches, hummingbirds, parrots, panda bears, kangaroos?
Those things not only were not specifically mentioned in the Genesis 1 creation story, I don't think any of them are actually mentioned in Scripture at all!
Would you therefore exclude them from the original pronouncement, or defend the idea that they were included within it?
I'm for the latter.
I agree, Robert, that a wife who makes this thread's argument is trying to find any little excuse on which to hang her basic refusal to accept that her husband has a right and perhaps responsibility over which she has no control or veto. I guess I do see your point as well, that until her refusal is resolved, she won't be changed by reasoning. However, that doesn't mean that the reasoning isn't simply faulty and worthy of correction.
Guess that's probably why this has been a mostly guy discussion. The normal male response is probably to focus on correcting the faulty reasoning. Is simply cutting to the core issue likely to be more effective? Perhaps. seems difficult, however, to NOT respond to the erroneous premises in the title statement.
Are walnuts "very good"?
How about mangoes? Pineapples, bananas, coconuts, Sequoia trees, maple trees, goldfinches, hummingbirds, parrots, panda bears, kangaroos?
Those things not only were not specifically mentioned in the Genesis 1 creation story, I don't think any of them are actually mentioned in Scripture at all!
Would you therefore exclude them from the original pronouncement, or defend the idea that they were included within it?
I'm for the latter.
I agree, Robert, that a wife who makes this thread's argument is trying to find any little excuse on which to hang her basic refusal to accept that her husband has a right and perhaps responsibility over which she has no control or veto. I guess I do see your point as well, that until her refusal is resolved, she won't be changed by reasoning. However, that doesn't mean that the reasoning isn't simply faulty and worthy of correction.
Guess that's probably why this has been a mostly guy discussion. The normal male response is probably to focus on correcting the faulty reasoning. Is simply cutting to the core issue likely to be more effective? Perhaps. seems difficult, however, to NOT respond to the erroneous premises in the title statement.
Cecil,
Not sure how you arrived at your conclusions. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I certainly did not use the words "dirty" or "unclean". It was elevation through a false presentation, to which I objected.
In other words, I was trying to stay out of the other ditch.
Not sure how you arrived at your conclusions. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I certainly did not use the words "dirty" or "unclean". It was elevation through a false presentation, to which I objected.
In other words, I was trying to stay out of the other ditch.
NeoPatriarch said:
You objected to it as being characterized as part of God's pronouncement as "very good", and pointed out that it was specifically mentioned only after the entrance of sin.
I refer to my last posts in defense of the idea that including it IS a logical inference, and does not constitute an elevation. MERELY AN INCLUSION AND REFUSAL TO EXCLUDE, which this thread's title statement seeks to do.
NeoPatriarch, Chris, Cecil: I think this is one of those situations where we'd all figure out what each other meant and probably end up agreeing within 2 minutes if we were discussing it in person - but in writing we could go on for weeks 
. God made man, told them to have sex, and said everything he'd made was good (including but certainly not limited to that). Just have to ensure what we say about it is balanced, thanks to all three of you for excellent points to help with this from both sides.
Thankyou everyone for your very valuable input, it's always helpful to submit this sort of thing to a peer review process! I think there's enough here to let me tidy it up and post an FAQ that is balanced and has a suitable level of scriptural content, unfortunately my brain's not in the right space to do a quality job of that this weekend. I'll tidy it up at a suitable time and post it then.
. God made man, told them to have sex, and said everything he'd made was good (including but certainly not limited to that). Just have to ensure what we say about it is balanced, thanks to all three of you for excellent points to help with this from both sides.Thankyou everyone for your very valuable input, it's always helpful to submit this sort of thing to a peer review process! I think there's enough here to let me tidy it up and post an FAQ that is balanced and has a suitable level of scriptural content, unfortunately my brain's not in the right space to do a quality job of that this weekend. I'll tidy it up at a suitable time and post it then.
I am sure that I have much to learn, and as I have never walked that road I cannot speak to what will happen if/when the Lord takes me that direction. You may well be quite right. I am quite sorry if I assumed a ranking order in your remarks. Thank you for explaining it more clearly, my brother.FollowingHim said:
- Status