Jump to content

asexuality and the bible?


Recommended Posts

now jesus was never married, and paul had "the gift of singleness" which many consider asexual. also, virgins have a very special place in heaven and the bible says it is good for a man to "keep his virgin and not touch her" rather then marry her. however, in the bible it also goes against asexual marriages. but, the bible does encourage asexual relationships that are permanent. so basically no loss of anything in the relationship except the title of marriage.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Comrade F&F

Aah, I'd say be careful with Bible interpretations, because it can be translated in a myriad of different ways. Saying that one definition is correct over another is in hindsight.

 

Asexuality and virginity aren't the same. You can be a virgin and sexual, and you can be non-virgin and asexual. Virginity means you abstain from sex, and not every asexual will do so. Asexuality means you're just not gonna get desires, but it doesn't translate to getting a free pass on sin. In truth, there are certain Bible interpretations that see asexuality as a sin, and others that see it as a gift.

 

 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
straightouttamordor

I'm curious as to how many Christians view this topic too. I don't have any answers but I'm reading and listening to find out. The topic is rarely discussed in pulpits. And your right about Paul and Jesus and the gift of singleness. Plus the veneration of virgins. There are liberal Christians, Conservative ones, Catholic and a gazzilion denominations of Protestants. So answers may vary as much as the many interpretations ?

Maybe in coming years, when Asexuality moves more to the forefront of the media instead of the back pages we'll get some feedback on this.

I really am interested in this post and topic. Thanks for posting it !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very curious myself.Never read in the bible nothing that condemns but when I was searching for asexual information in my language I came across one blog and in the comments a guy was saying that asexuals are eunuch (don't remember the explanation tho)

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Feys&Florets said:

Aah, I'd say be careful with Bible interpretations, because it can be translated in a myriad of different ways. Saying that one definition is correct over another is in hindsight.

 

Asexuality and virginity aren't the same. You can be a virgin and sexual, and you can be non-virgin and asexual. Virginity means you abstain from sex, and not every asexual will do so. Asexuality means you're just not gonna get desires, but it doesn't translate to getting a free pass on sin. In truth, there are certain Bible interpretations that see asexuality as a sin, and others that see it as a gift.

 

 

first off, while someparts of the bible can have different meanings, the bible directly states what I said and the bible is very upfront and clear about it. sometimes unfortunately, people will twist the bibles direct words to make it say what they want it to say, or twist some parts. (not you, just some people) also, I never said asexuality and virginity where the same, and while not every asexual will abstain from....you know, it is much easier for an asexual to remain a virgin then a sexual, which is why if you want to be a virgin, asexuality is a good thing. also, I never said it translates to a free pass from sin. also, the bible only states asexuality as a sin in marriage. and please be careful with how you interpret what I say, aka, do not say I said things I didn't say, like that asexuality is a free pass from sin. I have no idea where you got that from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, prib23 said:

I'm curious as to how many Christians view this topic too. I don't have any answers but I'm reading and listening to find out. The topic is rarely discussed in pulpits. And your right about Paul and Jesus and the gift of singleness. Plus the veneration of virgins. There are liberal Christians, Conservative ones, Catholic and a gazzilion denominations of Protestants. So answers may vary as much as the many interpretations ?

Maybe in coming years, when Asexuality moves more to the forefront of the media instead of the back pages we'll get some feedback on this.

I really am interested in this post and topic. Thanks for posting it !

thank you! :) you have a very good point, a lot of churches seem to encourage asexuality, and also celibacy, despite that they don't know that's what they are doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ArtChoke said:

I'm very curious myself.Never read in the bible nothing that condemns but when I was searching for asexual information in my language I came across one blog and in the comments a guy was saying that asexuals are eunuch (don't remember the explanation tho)

yes some people do consider asexuality to be a form of eunuchs, I wonder this myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
straightouttamordor

Some Christians may say the first commandment was, " Be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis. The order was for Adam and Eve not necessarily for every human on the planet today. Or some may say that we are denying our partner of marital duty ? You never know how some may take things literally. If both partners are okay with not being sexual, then I don't see how any spiritual or emotional harm is done. 

It will be interesting if and when the church delves into this topic in earnest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, apatefausea said:

yes some people do consider asexuality to be a form of eunuchs, I wonder this myself.

Aren't eunuchs only people who have had their genetils cut off in some way, that they didn't want usually? I'm not quite sure how asexuals would be eunuchs, unless im wildly wrong about my definition.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Evren said:

Aren't eunuchs only people who have had their genetils cut off in some way, that they didn't want usually? I'm not quite sure how asexuals would be eunuchs, unless im wildly wrong about my definition.

that is one form of eunichs

Link to post
Share on other sites

a man who has been castrated, especially (in the past) one employed to guard the women's living areas at an oriental court.

That's what Dictionary.com says is the only definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Evren said:

a man who has been castrated, especially (in the past) one employed to guard the women's living areas at an oriental court.

That's what Dictionary.com says is the only definition.

 

Matthew 19:12 - 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].

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, prib23 said:

Some Christians may say the first commandment was, " Be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis. The order was for Adam and Eve not necessarily for every human on the planet today. Or some may say that we are denying our partner of marital duty ? You never know how some may take things literally. If both partners are okay with not being sexual, then I don't see how any spiritual or emotional harm is done. 

It will be interesting if and when the church delves into this topic in earnest.

jesus never sinned, and he never had children, and jesus was to be an example of what we should be today. so, we don't need to have kids. also, yes you are denying your partner martial duty, that is why I said asexuality is a sin only in marriage.  also, the way harm can be done is one partner may later realize they are not asexual, which sometimes happens, and then cheat on their partner out of desperation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, apatefausea said:

 

Matthew 19:12 - 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].

Oh that's odd, I wonder if they got the wrong word there and meant celebate. Unless they literally mean men who were born with deformed or missing genetils, in which case im going to find this a really interesting verse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Evren said:

Oh that's odd, I wonder if they got the wrong word there and meant celebate. Unless they literally mean men who were born with deformed or missing genetils, in which case im going to find this a really interesting verse.

this is why I'm unsure. but yes, very good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, apatefausea said:

however, in the bible it also goes against asexual marriages.

Are you referring to the verses that say married couples should not deprive each other (1 Corinthians 7:4-5)?   The way I read it, it's not saying asexual marriage is wrong.  In other words, if two asexual people are married and mutually agree to no sex, then I don't see that as depriving each other of anything.  Maybe an asexual couple's way of sharing each other's bodies is by something other than sex (kissing, cuddling, etc.). 

 

As for Paul, I think it's quite possible he was asexual.  In that same chapter, he says it's better to get married than to "burn with passion," and he talks about it as relating to other people's experiences, rather than his own.  I rediscovered this part fairly recently and wish I had "got it" sooner - I find it really encouraging. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Euna said:

Are you referring to the verses that say married couples should not deprive each other (1 Corinthians 7:4-5)?   The way I read it, it's not saying asexual marriage is wrong.  In other words, if two asexual people are married and mutually agree to no sex, then I don't see that as depriving each other of anything.  Maybe an asexual couple's way of sharing each other's bodies is by something other than sex (kissing, cuddling, etc.). 

 

As for Paul, I think it's quite possible he was asexual.  In that same chapter, he says it's better to get married than to "burn with passion," and he talks about it as relating to other people's experiences, rather than his own.  I rediscovered this part fairly recently and wish I had "got it" sooner - I find it really encouraging. 

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ...  (it says for a limited time if by agreement)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond Ace of Hearts
4 hours ago, apatefausea said:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ...  (it says for a limited time if by agreement)

It also says come back together so Satan won't tempt you. If both partners are asexual, Satan won't be doing any tempting, will he?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

God loves you no matter what. That's all that matters.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Diamond Ace of Hearts said:

It also says come back together so Satan won't tempt you. If both partners are asexual, Satan won't be doing any tempting, will he?

yes but you never know if your partner is really an asexual, only god and that person knows, they may just think they are an ace an the later find out they are not, which I have seen happen many times. if this happens and are stuck with an asexual partner, they may cheat on their partner, or make their partner do something they don't want to do. now, really the only thing you gain in marriage that you wouldn't in a relationship is to be biblically aloud to......you know. so why not just not risk it and stay in a lifelong bf-gf relationship together? the bible constantly talks about how it would be better for a man to keep his virgin and not touch her, and how it is better to not marry.  now, if the person personally in their heart truly thinks an asexual marriage is not wrong and then gets married, then that's ok, because something isn't wrong if you don't know any better, god wouldn't count that as breaking the rules.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, doggalogga said:

God loves you no matter what. That's all that matters.

yeah, and also if your a Christian your life is much better if we try to follow the guidelines he has for us, as our creator and the creator of the world knows more about whats best for us then we do, since he made us and every human being that ever existed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
andreas1033

If the bible helps you understand yourself, whats wrong with that. What you understand from it, will mainly be your own understanding, so others may not get what your pointing at.

There has always been asexuals, and there would of always been pressures on people from when society to be in partnerships.

So such stuff would of been known about long ago, and was probably the main reason why people made monasteries, so that males whom were asexual, or lacked any drive for sex, or having a partner, could just go, and be away from the pressures of a normal community, to be with another.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond Ace of Hearts
2 hours ago, apatefausea said:

yes but you never know if your partner is really an asexual, only god and that person knows, they may just think they are an ace an the later find out they are not, which I have seen happen many times.

Yes, only that person knows, but in a loving relationship people are honest with each other. If a partner of mine said she was asexual, I would take her word for it, if that changed/she realised it wasn't the case, I would trust her to tell me so and I would expect myself to have created a relationship where she knew she could tell me so.

 

2 hours ago, apatefausea said:

If this happens and are stuck with an asexual partner, they may cheat on their partner, or make their partner do something they don't want to do.

So if two asexuals are married it would be better for both of them to do something they definitely don't want to do, rather than not do it, just in case one or both of them turns out to not be ace and eventually one of them ends up maybe wanting to do what the other doesn't want to do?

 

2 hours ago, apatefausea said:

Now, really the only thing you gain in marriage that you wouldn't in a relationship is to be biblically aloud to......you know.

Nope. You get legal and financial benefits, you get to be married. It's a big thing to lots of people to be married.

 

2 hours ago, apatefausea said:

so why not just not risk it and stay in a lifelong bf-gf relationship together?

 

That has exactly the same dangers you highlight and you could just as easily argue that sexuals shouldn't marry, just in case one of them cheats on the other.

 

2 hours ago, apatefausea said:

The bible constantly talks about how it would be better for a man to keep his virgin and not touch her, and how it is better to not marry. Now, if the person personally in their heart truly thinks an asexual marriage is not wrong and then gets married, then that's ok, because something isn't wrong if you don't know any better, god wouldn't count that as breaking the rules.

The Bible says a lot of things. At the end of the day it can not be the exact word of God and must be interpreted by the individual in combination with prayer and meditation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

56 minutes ago, Diamond Ace of Hearts said:

Yes, only that person knows, but in a loving relationship people are honest with each other. If a partner of mine said she was asexual, I would take her word for it, if that changed/she realised it wasn't the case, I would trust her to tell me so and I would expect myself to have created a relationship where she knew she could tell me so.

 

So if two asexuals are married it would be better for both of them to do something they definitely don't want to do, rather than not do it, just in case one or both of them turns out to not be ace and eventually one of them ends up maybe wanting to do what the other doesn't want to do?

 

Nope. You get legal and financial benefits, you get to be married. It's a big thing to lots of people to be married.

 

 

That has exactly the same dangers you highlight and you could just as easily argue that sexuals shouldn't marry, just in case one of them cheats on the other.

 

The Bible says a lot of things. At the end of the day it can not be the exact word of God and must be interpreted by the individual in combination with prayer and meditation.

1. yes its true, in a loving relationship people are honest, BUT a marriage in this case is NOT creating a relationship where she could tell you without consequence, because if shes not an ace, guess what, because your married to he or she, you have to do what they want you to now, so that sucks for you.   2. sadly yes, exactly, this is why asexuals shouldn't marry. also, they would have to because the bible says so, I don't know why the bible says that, I have theorys, but I trust god knows whats best.  3. that is a good point, I stand corrected, altho god did not make marriage that way, the law did (not saying you said that, just pointing it out.) 4. in a way, but asexuals are more LIKELY to cheat on eachother if one thinks they are asexual but are not, which can be the case.  the bible is the exact word of god, jesus litteraly calls himself the word. the bible isn't just the word of god, it is a part of god, and yes, it is good to understand the bible through prayer. ( I think an asexual can marry if they are willing to........you know......

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my thoughts:

  • Jesus talks about eunuchs who were born eunuchs (Mt. 19:12), which can be loosely interpreted as asexuality, but it removes cultural understandings of what makes someone a eunuch. In the Talmud, eunuchs could either be born eunuchs or made eunuchs (castrated), and the Hebrew term for this is saris. This classification also included men who were otherwise infertile. A woman who was infertile or who was not sexually mature by age 20 was called an aylonit. Of course, these Talmudic terms were couched in a larger discussion of sexual maturity and marriage, so…not really related to asexuality, but can be very loosely interpreted, maybe, if you try, haha.
  • The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized and welcomed into the Church (Acts 8:26-40).
  • Paul in particular elevates and glorifies virginity. He was single, as was Jesus…it's the preferred option in the Pauline tradition. In Roman Catholicism, singleness and marriage are held up as pretty much equal. The same isn't true in Protestantism, tragically. With married clergy post-Reformation, Protestants started thinking that pastors need to be married and have children in order to properly minister to families--or that being married and having children helps, at least. This is especially true in evangelical Christianity, and many churches flat out will not hire a single pastor. This sucks for me, a single seminarian who will soon be ordained and looking for a job and doesn't really desire to be married.
  • A comment on purity culture and evangelical Christianity, specifically: Celibacy is the norm that churches attempt to enforce and police, as a precursor to marriage. You stay pure until you're married, and then it's assumed that a switch will magically flip and you'll be a sex god/goddess who fulfills your spouse's every need. Indefinite singleness isn't ideal, and the implication is that something's wrong with you. Unless you're gay, in which case, indefinite singleness is the best you can hope for. Sigh. Purity culture/anti-LGBT theology makes me sad.
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond Ace of Hearts
6 hours ago, apatefausea said:

1. yes its true, in a loving relationship people are honest, BUT a marriage in this case is NOT creating a relationship where she could tell you without consequence, because if shes not an ace, guess what, because your married to he or she, you have to do what they want you to now, so that sucks for you.

Ummm... nope. Just because I'm married to someone does not mean I lose my agency, nor they theirs. And you shouldn't assume that my hypothetical marriage would be one where such a declaration would ruin it AND you're arguing from a point of view that assumes that one of a pair of asexuals will at some point become - or realise they always have been - sexual which is your view, backed up by nothing. I never said there would be no consequences, I said a married couple ought to have a strong enough relationship that they could work through it and find a solution of some kind. If the relationship was not strong enough for that to be the case, why on Earth would they have gotten married?

 

Let me break it down.

Firstly, a couple marry, let's call them David and Karen. They both identify as ace and their marriage is planned to be largely if not completely sexless. In many cases, I believe the marriage would continue on this path forever and they would both be happy (I've offered as much evidence for my point of view as you have yours, i.e. zero, so let's call that even, shall we?). But, let's imagine things take a different course, just to explore your scenarios. Let's say that for a couple of years everything's bliss but eventually Karen realises she's missing something. and after some soul searching, she concludes that it's sex. In any normal, healthy relationship her first action would be to talk to David about this. Now, David has a decision to make, sure, but it doesn't mean that Karen wouldn't talk to him about it. At this point a married couple would discuss their feelings and try to compromise, to reach a place where neither feels like they're losing out but neither feels violated either. Or they have the marriage annulled. Due to being aces, they never consummated the marriage and can simply choose to end it - even under the strictest Church doctrine. Failing to do either of those things is not an ace problem, heterosexuals could make the same failure. (A hetero couple, let's say Andy and Hayley, run up against a sexual dilemma, maybe Hayley likes BDSM and Andy's really not into it, and they fail to compromise, otherwise deal with the situation, or maybe even talk about it; the result is the same as for David and Karen, so the sexual orientation of the main actors has no bearing.)

 

But let's take another step into your worldview and assume that Karen is a terrible person and somehow forces David to have sex with her. I would contest that this is not due solely to Karen's change of heart over being ace, but due to the marriage having other fatal flaws (i.e. Karen doesn't love or respect David enough to respect his identity and free will). I think that's a reasonable thing to say. The tension between asexuality and sexuality did not cause this evil, Karen's (and maybe David's) inability to find a better solution did. For you to portray this scenario as likely is to say that any ace who becomes/realises they are sexual (and/or their still-ace partner) would have that inability. I trust you see how this is the case? To say that this is a problem with ace relationships is to attempt to deny that rape happens in sexual marriages, which is patently ridiculous. (Andy wants sex one day, Hayley does not want it at that time, Andy forces himself on Hayley; no different to what Karen did to David, ergo the sexual orientation of the agents involved makes no difference.)

 

But I'm not done, let's go back one step further, let's say that instead of letting David know about it, Karen looks elsewhere for satisfaction. This is obviously bad. But did asexual marriage cause this evil? Or did Karen's inability to respect the marriage cause it? I'd argue it's the latter. (Hayley falls for a guy at work and they end up in bed; is that any different to what Karen did? No, so the sexual orientation of either of these two women did not cause this situation.)

 

I hope you'll agree that the troubles you've identified in an ace marriage are not limited to ace marriages, so to say that aces should not marry due to these potential struggles is wrong, because straight (and gay etc.) couples have the same potential struggles so why single out one group? I could just as easily say that straight couples should not wed, because they are twice as likely to cheat, since there are twice as many people in the relationship who might want sex with someone else. (That would be a ridiculous thing to say, but not much moreso than your assertion.)

 

Quote

2. sadly yes, exactly, this is why asexuals shouldn't marry. also, they would have to because the bible says so, I don't know why the bible says that, I have theories, but I trust god knows whats best.

No, it doesn't. Nowhere in the Bible will you find a verse that says "If neither of you wants sex, you ought to have it anyway, just in case one of you changes your mind and it causes trouble later on"

 

Quote

3. that is a good point, I stand corrected, altho god did not make marriage that way, the law did (not saying you said that, just pointing it out.)


If we accept God as unmoved first mover, ultimate cause for everything then yes, yes He did.

 

Quote

4. in a way, but asexuals are more LIKELY to cheat on eachother if one thinks they are asexual but are not, which can be the case.


I find this very offensive, have you any evidence to back up your ridiculous claim?

 

Quote

the bible is the exact word of god, jesus litteraly calls himself the word. the bible isn't just the word of god, it is a part of god, and yes, it is good to understand the bible through prayer.

Jesus says He is the word ... according to the Bible. Your argument is that the Bible is the exact word of God, because the Bible says it is. I hope you'll come back with something more reasonable.

 

The Bible was written by men. Even if it was inspired by God, can we trust, 1700 years later, that they didn't make bits up, or make mistakes, or slant it to their own agenda? Only God is perfect, and He did not physically write the Bible himself. And even if we do trust them, do we trust every transcriber? Every translator? Can we trust that the Church included the correct books when they canonised the Bible?

 

Quote

I think an asexual can marry if they are willing to........you know......

 

how generous of you. [/sarcasm

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so curious about asexuality and my religion since I remember one passage. It said Jesus once said There are some who will aspire to marriage and sex and some that don't. So I'm curious on asexuality in the Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone *waves to room*. 

 

I have been 'stalking' here for a few months, and I must say that THIS is the thread that actually caused me to finally join!  I hope you can all bear with me, as I'm still trying to maneuver through this forum. 

 

First of all, I am a Christian, and, I do NOT believe asexuality to be a 'sin'.   The bible verse that most people seem to point to 'prove' that married couples are not supposed to "deny" the sex act to one another is found in 1 Corinthians 7:

 

Quote

"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."  1 Corinthians 7:1-5

People often use this passage to 'prove' that married couples aren't supposed to "deprive" each other sexually.  But read on...

 

Quote

"I say this as a concession, not as a command".  1 Corinthians 7:6 (emphasis added)

In other words, married couples are not being instructed BY GOD to do what Paul is 'suggesting'.  It's pretty much his own opinion, NOT divinely inspired.  And in the same passage, Paul DOES differentiate between what IS divinely inspired and what is not. 

 

In all honesty, I believe that God created sex for a purpose and that purpose has become so "adulterated" that we don't even recognize what the purpose is anymore.  I don't believe that it's meant for us to have as many orgasms as we can through sex or that sex is meant to be outside of marriage.  And no...we're not supposed to "lust" after our spouse!

 

*whew*

 

Howz THAT for my first post?! 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2017 at 2:33 AM, prib23 said:

I'm curious as to how many Christians view this topic too. I don't have any answers but I'm reading and listening to find out. The topic is rarely discussed in pulpits. And your right about Paul and Jesus and the gift of singleness. Plus the veneration of virgins. There are liberal Christians, Conservative ones, Catholic and a gazzilion denominations of Protestants. So answers may vary as much as the many interpretations ?

Maybe in coming years, when Asexuality moves more to the forefront of the media instead of the back pages we'll get some feedback on this.

I really am interested in this post and topic. Thanks for posting it !

 

I am a catholic christian. In catholicism being celibate is something positive, also to establish relationships that don't involve sex. Having said that, as soon as marriage is involved there have to be sex, because of procreation and to prevent adultery, if there is no sex ever in the marriage the marriage is not even considered valid, if the sex stops one of the partners can null it. Basically the Bible recognize and states the importance of having kids and making society survive and also families stay together and there is fidelity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, vega57 said:

 

 

In other words, married couples are not being instructed BY GOD to do what Paul is 'suggesting'.  It's pretty much his own opinion, NOT divinely inspired.  And in the same passage, Paul DOES differentiate between what IS divinely inspired and what is not. 

 

In all honesty, I believe that God created sex for a purpose and that purpose has become so "adulterated" that we don't even recognize what the purpose is anymore.  I don't believe that it's meant for us to have as many orgasms as we can through sex or that sex is meant to be outside of marriage.  And no...we're not supposed to "lust" after our spouse!

 

*whew*

 

Howz THAT for my first post?! 

 

There are many quotes about sex and marriage in the Bible, I think is clear that sex is not allowed outside the marriage and that marriages have to involve sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...