| Author | Post |
|---|
dennis1soil
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 12:03 pm |
|
Lilly wrote: The thing that came across to me so strongly when reading your thread, is that its about honour.
Honouring your wife includes having her only as your sexual partner, same as for women.
Dishonouring her will make her feel she isnt good enough or feel disrespected.
Marrying someone, is an act that says that person is the one you want to share your life with, the only human you want to be intimate with on a deep level not only sexually, but spiritually, emotionally and mentally. By seeking an outside source, this dishonours that statement.
In semetic culture, honour is a verry important thing in all relationships, from personal to social to authorative, and its still the same today.
On the issue of salvation, there is an inate knowing that your life has been renewed by the Lord. The personal relationship with the Lord is unlike any human relationship, and none can come close.
The meaning of intimacy is closeness, essential, innermost, a close friend or confidant. having a tangible experience of salvation will provide such a knowing.
You say you have invited Him in many times, this may not necessarily be an issue of salvation, but of sin clouding your heart. If you are unsure, it doesnt do any harm to ask again....but asking from the depth of who you are makes the difference. God knows you anyway, He is the only one who we can really lay ourselves bare open and still be accepted.
Even in marriage, the relationship we have with God is more intimate, and enriches our personal relationships.
The difference having a relationship with the Lord makes, is Huge! It is completly different than belief. Because in relationships we learn about each other. It adds a whole new and empowering dimension to our walk with God
Adam walked with God daily, conversing with each other...this is how the Lord created us to be, now we need christ to cover us in grace, thats the only difference. God still wants that intimacy with us.
Abraham was a friend of God, God told him His plans for soddom and gammorah, Lot was a believer....but had no idea of what God was planning. Abraham was even able to change Gods mind about the city.....because Abraham was in a relationship with the Lord, a friendship.
He is the God of all generations and all people.
Jesus is alive, and He has forgiven others who have done much worse than what you can imagine, and not just one thing...multitudes....and He loves you the same and desires to know you.
I guess only revelation can show you that aspect, i do honestly hope that truth reaches you in purity and strength.
May the spirit of truth touch your heart profoundly, just as He has for others
Lilly,
I like what you have said about relationship with Jesus, something sort of resonates truth within me when I read your words about that. I don't find what you say to necessarily be what I would consider "tangibly verifiable", for instance It's still hard for me to know if I am involved in such a relationship with Jesus. When I think relationship, I normally think "He/She talks back to me" - I hear you saying you can say anything to Jesus, but I don't hear you saying you hear Jesus sharing his innermost feelings with you (at least not in a way like human language, where what He is saying would be more "tangibly verifiable", or clearly understandable).
I guess I usually think good relationships are likely to be among equals -- that is, where both parties possess at least fairly similar amounts of honor and dignity. But for me to say I have a relationship with Jesus (when considering this aspect of my understanding of relationships), I guess, to put it mildly, that would be very presumptuous of me, considering the magnitude of His purity and my shame.
(For instance I don't hear anyone saying my dog and I have a "relationship" - that would just wouldn't fit - and I have a difficult time understanding how I can make the same word "fit" when considering how I relate to Jesus.)
......
OK - now I'll try to comment some about one of the subjects you spoke of earlier in your very good post.
Honouring your wife includes having her only as your sexual partner,
I agree, that assumption very prevalent in most of today's western cultures. But one of the things I have mentioned in this thread is that I don't think that was the assumption in either the days of either the Old Testament or New Testament, or even today for maybe half of the world's population or so. I don't know today's women who live in other cultures feel about this.
I understand that most women in the United States seem to agree wholeheartedly with what you have said.
I have said something like this before in this thread -- if God put this understanding in women's hearts, why didn't he say more about it in either in the Old Testament or the New Testament.
Paulos mentioned about the two times in the New Testament where Paul and Timothy say that an overseer in the Church needs to be the husband of only one wife. (I don't see anything specific about this requirement for every Christian layman however - though I believe each man should aspire to the same level as is requiremed for leadership).
Now I want to clear something up here - which may not be clear in every reader's mind - I am not trying to build a case in this thread for polygamy. I agree with Paulos, a bunch of problems almost always seem to accompany it. And if I were to apply the thing about "the Bible doesn't say anything specific about it ...." - then once again I agree with Paulos when he said something to the effect that God never said it was a good thing and that it should be done. One thing does come to my mind though, if one of the wives didn't have an especially strong sexual drive - she may not have been as mad at her husband as much (i.e. for bugging her to have sex even when she didn't feel like it) - and I doubt he would have had as much struggle in the area of staying away from "looking on a maid" (i.e. one who was unmarried to him) - [to quote a Job passage which Paulos reminded me of].
I'm just saying there are many other ways a man can honor his wife - and some may be much more significant - rather than only by trying to tough it out and completely abstain from even the pleasure of looking at a photograph showing the female form -- when he wants to enjoy a sexual feeling and she doesn't want to (or perhaps can't for whatever reason) help him out in that way.
Honouring your wife includes having her only as your sexual partner, same as for women. Dishonouring her will make her feel she isnt good enough or feel disrespected.
"good enough" for what?
There are things much, much, much more important, in my estimation than being able to keep a husband from masturbating while looking at a photograph of certain types of curves on a airbrushed (and probably implanted) body associated with a person who he would most likely never be able to impress in any way in a real life situation.
I think maybe our culture's crazy, totally out of kilter, amount of relative importance placed on the sexual buzz - has become way too much associated with the honor and/or dignity of either a wife or a husband.
....
I need to stop here now -- my heart rate is getting too high ... I don't want to say things that are ill-advised.
I'll close this post by simply saying that I don't think any woman should feel bad because she suspects she may not be "good enough" for husband like me. God has made her and God is the one who gives her dignity.
As far as "disrespect" -- there are many ways I can show respect for my wife --- and I do whenever I see a way I can, but this one way I have simply not been able to master with anything approaching a 100% success rate.
I would like to see GOD specifically tell me via the Bible why this particular way is of such paramount importance - because this is the primary thing I have not been able to do (even when I beg Him for the strength). I realize wives seem to think this may be be very most important way for us husbands to show them respect, but personally, I just don't remember ever seeing where God "endorses" that way of thinking.
(sorry if I am giving folks a bad day)
-Dennis
Last edited on Fri Jan 18th, 2008 01:11 pm by dennis1soil
|
dennis1soil
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 02:16 pm |
|
OK, now I am really, really, going where I have dreaded to go -- but I feel that I must so I will pray and then proceed.
David didn't seem to have much trouble saying what he felt (in some Psalms), even when it looked like it was really bad (like the idea of asking God to bring harm to his enemies, even their children).
So maybe you can understand some of what I am about to say in the same type of spirit -- I am feeling great emotion and I am going to be honest instead of pretending I am too good to think such thoughts.
I think I may have said somewhere recently that I don't like to see women hurt by men. True. I have also said I am very guilty of bringing severe pain to my wife (who obviously is a woman).
My heart hurts. Because I don't like saying "I am very guilty" - I would prefer to say "some guys are very guilty".
The natural thing for some of us people to do when we are on the "hot spot" is to try to shift the blame. For instance --- consider Adam " --> that woman you gave me", and Eve " --> the serpent".
Well - I sometimes say " --> 1 Cor. 7:2-5".
Why would I point to 1 Cor. 7:3-4 in an attempt to "shift the blame" ?
Because that was what I used (both consciously and sub-consciously) when I was making my wife feel like she was "not enough" for me.
Now, my reasoning (when I am trying to shift the blame) goes something like this: if I couldn't point her at 1 Cor. 7:3-4, maybe she could at least be spared some measure of the pain she has felt thinking she is in some way responsible for my failures (after we were married, that is).
Sometimes I feel like God is cruel for allowing the apostle Paul to write that passage - because it puts such a burden on the backs of women (in my opinion).
Also, at least in my case anyway, I have interpreted 1 Cor 7 to be saying that married sex will make it easier for me to avoid seeking sexual opportunities for satisfaction outside of a personal relationship with my wife. Unfortunately, I don't know if this has actually been the case -- I have not found that the desire for soft porn goes away just because I have enjoyed sexual intercourse with my wife recently -- in fact often it increases, especially if it has been awhile since we made love previously. If after a long wait, we don't repeat and have sex again in say, 8 to 24 hours then ... I am sort of like a little kid who has enjoyed something very special to him, you might hear him say "Let's do it again!, Let's do it again!" -- I feel that way too, so shortly after making love after a fairly long wait - I find temptation for sexual gratification to often be of even greater intensity over the next 24 hours or so.
The way I understood 1 Cor. 7 (or thought I did), turned out to give me false expectations about marriage. I really wish some pastor would have clarified some things for me, a pastor who had been familiar with guys who have a high sex drive. I know pastors of both types - high and low sex drives - and the ones with a low sex drive don't seem to have a clue about what is going on inside guys like me, I'm wondering if maybe Paul was one of those types.
I get the opinion that women often feel like "a whore" if they have sex when they don't feel real romantically inclined toward their husband. Now maybe that is as it should be - I don't really know. But if so, it seems like the apostle Paul should have included some "qualifications" in those Corinthians verses.
We tell our daughters, "don't have sex with a boy just because he want's to" (unless you are married first), and I agree with that completely - there needs to be a public commitment of marriage first. However, then it appears the Bible is telling them "have sex with your husband as much as he wants to". However, there is something inside them that says (wait a minute, I will feel like a whore if I don't feel some romantic inclination toward him). Surely the Bible is not saying a wife needs to feel that way??? But what if she can't keep from it, and her husband can't do the things to help his wife feel romantic about him, that is, as often as he seems to "need" to experience sexual pleasure???
I don't see the above issued dealt with as clearly as I would like to see.
Yes, I do understand that I as a husband should love my wife as Christ does his bride, the church --- but I find it hard to apply that analogy when I compare how I want to have sex with how Jesus feels ??? Maybe there is a good way to do that kind of analysis, but I suppose I have just been a bit hesitant to "go there". (For instance, though I realize Jesus meets my needs, I have a hard time seeing how our "relationship" can involve me meeting his needs)?
At any rate -- in the last few years, when I have tried to shift the blame about how I have hurt my wife in regard to sexuality, I guess I have been saying to God (and/or my wife) :
yes, but "---> Look at 1 Cor. 7:2-5"
It would be nice if I could say that scripture (1 Cor. 7:2-5) has inspired me to Godliness, but I'm afraid I may have twisted it, or misunderstood it's proper place, in such a manner that I have felt justified in using it as I have spun downward in the opposite direction.
-Dennis
Last edited on Fri Jan 18th, 2008 02:24 pm by dennis1soil
|
dennis1soil
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 03:14 pm |
|
junkyardboy wrote: dennis,
in your own words you state you don't know if you are saved.
that in other words, means NO.
what does it benefit if a man has the whole world and yet loses his own soul.
your discussion thread is foolishness for a man in such a precarious position.
peter
Peter,
Maybe you don't understand, but in many ways this thread is a desperate attempt for me to reach out in hopes someone can help me with the things that torment my soul.
Btw, I disagree with what it seems (to me) you are saying when you say
"in your own words you state you don't know if you are saved that in other words, means NO"
If a were to be a 5 point Calvinist, I would think that my "words" would not necessarily be the telltale clue as to whether I am "saved" --- rather the one and only possible Savior is the one whose "words" really matter considering that crucial decision. I am content to leave that up to Him, (cause if I were to assume I could play any important role in such a project, I suspect I would screw it up, like I have most everything else that has been really important to me, for instance helping my wife to feel like she has dignity and honor).
....
Back to the issues of my soul.
The very things I am talking about in this thread - are those which have caused me to doubt the condition of my soul the most.
For instance,
Has the Holy Spirit departed from me because my heart has simply become too callous? Have I committed the unforgivable sin? Am I one of those who are not of "the elect" (sort of like Esau whom God "hated" before he had come out of his mother's womb and had any opportunity to do neither good or evil)? etc.. etc...
The main sin of my life --- at least I felt this way most of my 52 years -- has been the inability to curb my sexual appetite. According to WV, (I think, if I read him correctly that is), I will go to hell (definitely a problem with the condition of my soul) IF I don't recognize that I am a sinner and demonstrate some real heartfelt repentance (which I have been unable to do now ever since I was somewhere around the age of accountability).
Yep - I am concerned about the condition of my soul alright - and that is why I have come to this site.
I want to know what the Bible says about my sins - I know what most of the folks here say. (I have committed adultery and continue to do so each time I sin again). What I am asking people here to do however, among other things, is show me why they are so convinced of that position. By using specific Biblical texts. Also I want to understand why the Bible does not "spell out in specific language" that which most of us consider to be rock-solid Biblical proof. Also I want to understand which of the prevailing ideas about sexuality are Biblically based, and which are more culturally based (and then perhaps sub-consciously attributed to the Bible).
So far - I think Truthseeker has come closest to doing what I am asking folks to do. I have not finished responding to the specific teachings in the Bible she has referred to.
It would be good if you, or any other Bible scholar could take specific sentences from my posts where I say something about a Bible passage (or something I think the Bible does not say) and put it in a quote box and directly show me that I am incorrect (perhaps by pointing at a different Bible text or explaining why God might choose to avoid saying something specific or clarifying something that might be taken more than one way).
It is a help to me to attempt to respond to TruthSeeker's questions and comments because some of them have already shown me where my eyes were operating under some kinds of "blinders" by not remembering some key passage -- also that process can assist in helping me to recognize the true magnitude of my sin. Maybe still yet I will come to hate it so much that I stop it.
Yes, there are other motives for what I am writing in this thread as well. For instance, my heart was severely hurt when I witnessed the pain my oldest daughter felt - in a marriage where her husband was acting toward her much as I have acted toward her mother. When I saw myself in that light it was a very, very awakening and painful experience. When I did some research and found those sinful ways (and even more severe practices) are characteristic of many if not most of the men in several other cultures (in today's world - even in the Christian church) - my heart started hurting even more - because it is not only the heart of my wife which has been "stabbed", but in addition countless other women all over the globe. So especially since that point in time I have been trying to learn how I can communicate words from the Bible in as "air tight" a way as possible hopefully to be used by the Holy Spirit in a process of persuading at least some small percentage of "Christian" men to treat their wives as Jesus treats us.
Obviously I am not a worthy instrument for such a task at this time however, for at least two reasons,
1) I am still a sinner who continues to do the very same things I probably should tell other men to stop doing.
2) At this point, I still don't feel like I can make a case as "air tight" as it needs to be - by using Scripture verses - in order to be likely to achieve a better success rate than is currently being seen (to my knowledge anyway).
Sorry for going on, and on, and on .... but my soul is very exercised at this particular moment, and yes, I know it is in a "precarious position" - and this is best think I can think of to do just now, in light of that fact.
-Dennis
|
truthseeker
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 795 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 05:32 pm |
|
Hi Dennis,
I don't have much time right now, but wanted to mention a couple of things.
First, speaking of culture, while there were certainly artists in biblical times who rendered images of the female form via painting or sculpture, there was certainly no photography. So are you saying that since you weren't present when the picture was taken, or taking the picture yourself, that you are not looking upon a specific female creation of God with lust? Would you consider seeing a woman's photograph different than seeing her at a gogo bar? If so, why should a secondhand look be different from a firsthand look?
Never, as far as I am aware, does Scripture refer to Christ's brides. The church is referred to singly as THE bride, and THE body. I concur that this is profoundly difficult for us humans to grasp, and it is described as a mystery. Eph. 3:6 and 5:31-3.
May God speak to your searching heart...
TruthSeeker
|
Paulos
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 06:48 pm |
|
Dennis1soil,
The verse you ask for--where Paul suggests a better reason for getting married than avoiding lust--doesn't exist, as I think you know. That's because his epistles were, for the most part "occasional" in nature, written in response to concrete problems, questions and needs that arose in churches he had founded. I could challenge you in reverse to take us to the place anywhere in Paul's epistles where he devotes a chapter or a paragraph to the topic, "Reasons to get married." Of course there isn't any such section. It wasn't an issue that came up between Paul and his converts, at least if it did there's no record of it in the letters that survived the vicissitudes of time. The fly in the ointment here is your large assumption that Paul ought to have a paragraph that addresses your particular concern. In fact he does not.
The concern he does address in 1 Corinthians 7:9 is different. Having just recommended celibacy to others as the way of life in which he himself has found his calling and joy (verses 7-8), the question arises, Is celibacy for everyone? No, says, Paul, for some individuals the attempt to maintain total abstinence imposes a greater burden than the obligations and risks of marriage. These individuals will be wise to take refuge in marriage in spite of the different weight of burdens it will bring--in a Greco-Roman culture that was rapidly warming toward persecuting Christians: note verses 26, 28-31.
We have to be careful not to tear verse 9 from this contextual flow of thought in this particular historical and cultural setting. Paul certainly isn't laying down an abstract judgment in answer to the general question why people might marry. So we err if we press verse 9 as though it were such a statement.
I hope this helps.
Last edited on Fri Jan 18th, 2008 06:51 pm by Paulos
|
dennis1soil
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19th, 2008 11:30 am |
|
Paulos wrote: .
...
I hope this helps.
Thanks Paulos,
Well, Yes, and no.
The helpful part is how you have explained that Paul was not in that passage setting out to write something specifically and solely related to : "This is the WHY about getting married".
So yes, some of what you have said does help, but something else you said has brought again to mind another aspect of my overarching question: What really is the purpose of Scripture?
The verse you ask for--where Paul suggests a better reason for getting married than avoiding lust--doesn't exist, as I think you know. That's because his epistles were, for the most part "occasional" in nature, written in response to concrete problems, questions and needs that arose in churches he had founded. I could challenge you in reverse to take us to the place anywhere in Paul's epistles where he devotes a chapter or a paragraph to the topic, "Reasons to get married." Of course there isn't any such section. It wasn't an issue that came up between Paul and his converts, at least if it did there's no record of it in the letters that survived the vicissitudes of time. The fly in the ointment here is your large assumption that Paul ought to have a paragraph that addresses your particular concern. In fact he does not
... Above Bold&Italicized emphasis mine.
I grew up with the idea the Bible provides for us all we need to know concerning the most important areas of our life. It is sort of like our Owner's Manual since it is written by the God who made and owns us.
I was of the impression that the Bible could be used in a practical way to help us obey the will of God. I still believe this, but to be honest I don't find it nearly as practically helpful as I would think it could have been with only the insertion of a few more paragraphs about the "most important areas of our live".
Marriage is I believe one of these important areas in my life. The decision to marry or not marry and to which girl was certainly one of the most important decisions in my life.
I have 5 grandsons, and when they are of age, I would like to be able to point them to the Bible as a help when they are faced with making their important decisions in regard to marriage. I don't see why it would be considered unreasonable for me to search for (and then express surprise when I don't find) at least one paragraph inspired by God and insured by God to survive the vicissitudes of time, in which we are told explicitly why people should choose to get married.
(I'm sorry to have to admit this in such a forum, but I would also feel better if God would have inspired and preserved something a scriptural reference mentioning something to the effect of how it might be helpful if the magnitude of both the groom and the bride's sex drives were relatively similar, or at least close enough to be within in the same ball park.)
Perhaps I am asking for something different than God desires the Bible to be?
...
... It wasn't an issue that came up between Paul and his converts, at least if it did there's no record of it in the letters that survived the vicissitudes of time. ...
...
I was also of the impression (about the purpose of the Bible), that God was providing for the important issues of people through time -- or at least from the time the words of the Bible were first penned, until the end of earth time -- however, I am wondering about that now. With the abundance of sexual stimuli presenting itself via media of many kinds today, I would think the issues related to sexuality within marriage would be an "issues" which God would have wanted to provide more biblical text for. God knew when Paul was writing his occasional epistles what temptations would be made possible by technology and greed - so I would think the Bible would not be limited to the issues Paul felt he needed to address in the culture in which he was living. That is, I would think that if I were to continue to think as I have earlier in my life, about the WHY behind the Bible.
I'm sorry to just appear to rant like this, but I very seldom find anyone who appears to show much in the way of sympathy toward the kind of frustration I express, and/or these kinds of questions and/or observations. I find it strange that I would be one (of relatively few?) who mention these kinds of things that seem so obvious to me.
-Dennis
P.S.
I am upset because I am a sinner and I want to lay some of the blame on someone else - I don't want to hurt my wife and/or pastors, or any more humans - so I suppose I am now pointing at God (it appears I am challanging how He did, and did not inspire and preserve the Bible). So, yes I am angry and very frustrated -- and there is another group of people for whom I have similiar vicarious feelings ... they are the wives with low sex drives who are married to husbands like me. (I wish I could see how God was helping them more, because I certainly haven't helped them enough).
Last edited on Sat Jan 19th, 2008 11:39 am by dennis1soil
|
truthseeker
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 795 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19th, 2008 04:58 pm |
|
Hi Dennis,
You raise so many issues here. Let me see if I can throw out some stray thoughts.
You are seeking an answer to a circular problem. If we behave purely prior to marriage, as the Bible clearly instructs, (I hope we agree on that,) there is no way to know how equal the spouses' drives will turn out to be. Indeed, it is my experience, and that of many others with whom I have shared, that actual physiological drive varies for each partner in various points in life, admittedly probably more so for the woman than for the man. It is my personal opinion that two mature believers will be able to bridge the gap between physical drives with the gift of love, or at least some equitable compromise, (more than she wants, less than he wants). But that is a perfect world scenario, and many, many marriages do not fall in that category. It took me nearly 20 years of tug-of-war in the bedroom to realize two things:
1. I do not have to have a passion driven experience in order to treasure the time with, and embrace of my husband. What difference does it make if there is one extra point of connection to the embraces I do crave?
2. I am in no way diminished by giving the gift of myself. In fact, I am blessed by the physical, emotional, and spiritual equalibrium his contentment brings.
There is one mindset that the husband needs to let go of for this to work. He has not failed if she does not want to experience physical gratification herself. No woman should feel pressured to perform, or fake performing, to keep her spouse from feeling like a failure. Sometimes just the closeness is enough.
Please do not misunderstand me! There is absolutely no place for selfishness on the husband's part. If physical desire is not integrally intertwined with day in, day out demonstrable love, (1 Cor. 13:4-7,) she will feel objectified and used. That's why I describe this as an idyllic situation, achieved between two believers with maturity. Conversely, though, I submit that, if disinterest is not a symptom of a problem or problems in the marriage, which should be addressed swiftly, withholding for a mere lack of passion is also selfish.
So if husband and wife are not both ready for this scenario, it is time to deal with it as part of the curse of the fall, and apply other Scriptural principles, such as patience, unselfishness, and self-control.
Now it's been a while since I took a rudimentary course in Visual Basic, so please forgive if my analogy has holes.
Try to think of the Bible as the VB workspace environment. It has tools, templates, etc., to be used in constructing a program. It does not, however, read your mind and write the program for you. You must combine the parameters of that program with the skills imparted to you by those more experienced in using it, in order to fill in the specifics that will result in a program that will run properly. Sometimes VB will alert you during the writing process that something does not compute, but other times you don't find out until you try to run the program that it is not working out as you had envisioned. At that point, you have to go back and figure out which of the broad principles of the VB program you did not apply correctly.
So the Bible doesn't spell out, "Don't look at photographs of nude women," nor does it say "looking at photos of nude women is cool." Nor does it say whether or not women should be upset by such behavior.
Is not, however, a woman who sells her image for men's gratification essentially equal to the immoral woman, prostitute/harlot, or adultress of whom we are warned so often? Does it really matter that you are not in her presence, that a middle man with a camera has done that for you? Prov. 6:23-35. 7:7-27. 9:13-8. That last passage mentions secrecy. If your inclination were legitimate, would you seek to hide it from your wife?
I cannot explain why God left some things more like a dot-to-dot than a coloring book page, but perhaps it is because it compels us to delve more deeply in to His Word and His presence, relying on prayer and the still small voice of His Spirit.
TruthSeeker
|
dennis1soil
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19th, 2008 08:04 pm |
|
Hi again TruthSeeker,
Thank you,
Yes the ideal would be so very ... well ... ideal !
I'm sorry that I have taken too long to get to the other questions you asked in your first post ... I'll try to cover some of those, and then get to some of the newer questions.
First however, I think from some of what you have said in your most recent couple of posts that I probably need to clarify something about what I am not trying to do here. I am not trying to convince any of the folks here (or even myself) that I am innocent of sin when I look at a photograph of some nude woman. I know when I do that I am guilty of sin. I have said that I don't always feel guilty when I do that. I think I have also at least implied that I am very concerned for the state of my soul precisely because I don't feel as guilty as I would expect to feel - if I am grieving the e Holy Spirit by such actions. I mentioned I may have numbed my conscious (like Paul speaks in Romans) so much that God has basically turned me over to uncleanness.
So - due to what I have just said in the previous paragraph, I may skip some of your questions - since I am not trying to deny in this thread that I am a sinner. That's a rock-solid truth, we can all take to the bank.
What I am trying to do in this thread is to gain a better understanding of why some women feel as they do -- (e.g. see my first post) - and I also would like to be able to come to a better understanding about why the Bible seems to omit things which I would think would be very helpful for the faithful who want to better love our spouse and better obey God.)
OK - I do still want to say a couple of things about some of your questions - even though I'm not trying to say I am not guilty.
What is adultery? What is the lust that Jesus equated with adultery in Matt. 5:27-30?
Earlier, I copied some technical definitions from Smith and also Easton's Bible Dictionaries - so I won't spend much more time with that in this post - other than to remind folks that each of those definitions (and others I have read but not copied here) reference a Man engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman who is married to another man.
I believe the main thing Jesus was equating with adultery via the word "lust" was likely a situation where a man might look intently on another's man's wife (or a woman betrothed to become the wife of another man) and strongly desire to be sexually intimate with her. Now, I am not saying I think this is the only thing Jesus was referring to, however given what I have read about what the word "adultery" most likely brought to most of the minds of people in that culture, my guess is that was the primary meaning.
To me the context is really important when considering really anything in this whole sermon on the mount. In my opinion, the main purpose of the whole sermon was to convince every person there that there is no way they can possibly "qualify" for heaven without His help (he would eventually fulfil the law - which they could never keep). In that sermon he said something to the effect that if those people (many poor, most likely) didn't have righteousness even better than the scribes and Pharisees, they couldn't enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus talked about murder and anger also (just prior to talking about adultery and lust). I think he also said something to the effect that people would be in danger of hell fire if in anger they called their "brother" a fool. I don't think Jesus was trying to set up some kind of hierarchy of sins, and for instance say something like "this one is the really bad one - and this other one you don't need to get all that upset about". But perhaps sometimes if we are tempted to think "since you lusted you are guilty of adultery"-- maybe we should not forget the corollary "since you are angry you are guilty of killing that person". It looks to me like a lot of that sermon does what the apostle Paul was saying the law can do -- it points us to our need for a Savior.
<OK, now I'm turning off the "preach mode" toggle button!>
-Dennis
|
dennis1soil
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19th, 2008 08:37 pm |
|
I think I'm running out of time here - so this post will not likely be very polished (not that any of my other posts are ).
I want to say that as I see it, there are some big mistakes that can be made by male and female when we read that 1Cor7 passage about our bodies belonging to each other (and that being associated with helping folks not get into so much sexual troubles).
I have seen these kinds of problems:
I assumed (in computer programming we have an acronym for the letters "ASSUME" - I will not state it here, but suffice it to say that seasoned computer folks know you can get into trouble when you assume anything).
OK -- here is what I assumed : Since the Bible says marriage can be helpful to people who have a strong sexual drive, and the Bible says basically my wife has to let me have sex with her whenever I want .... Then I'll just get married and have lots of sex, and I'll never have any temptation with this porn stuff again !!!
WRONG -- bad assumption ... it didn't work out that way.
another assumption :Since it looks to me like the main reason to get married (at least the only thing I see along those lines anyway) - is related to having plenty of sex, then I guess that may be one of the very most important things in a marriage. Well, I am always trying to be Biblical .... so ..... the more we have sex the better our marriage will likely be !!!
OHH, bad assumption -- "what happened!" <as he picks himself up off the floor!>
.....
OK - now here is an assumption that I think a lady could possibly make:If I have sex with my husband a whole bunch, then he will never have problems with any non-appropriate sexual temptations.
WRONG -- bad assumption ... it didn't work out that way (in our case anyway)
There have been several times in our marriage when we were having sex plenty frequently, and it was incredibly great fulfilling sex - so you would think that would mean I didn't have any problems at all with a desire to look at nude images of other women ---- BUT sadly, (though honestly), that was not the case.
...........................
Now, I doubt any of those bad assumptions have surprised anyone reading this.
I wanted to list them (though probably everybody already knows about them anyway) -- for the following reason.
I think we need some good qualifications for that passage - because it can be misapplied relatively easily.
Also .... I don't think a woman should ever "assume" her husband knows for sure what he is talking about if he says to her something to the effect that - because she didn't have sex as often as he wanted - she is to blame for his being involved in outside sexual pleasures. I strongly suspect (at least given my own personal experience) that he really can't be certain about that one way or the other.
I think the pain that wives feel may be made even greater due to that passage not having good "qualifications" associated with it (for the benefit of both the man and the woman).
I am beginning to think we really need the Holy Spirit for help in these matters. Also, I think it would help if, before getting married, a couple sat down together, maybe with some couple who are mutual friends (that have been married for several years) -- and talk very frankly about that particular scripture passage -- as well as the one about Jesus and his Bride, etc ...
I'm not saying that passage has caused only problems - I'm sure in ideal cases it has been an incredible blessing.
(OK - wow, I've been on my soapbox so long it's beginning to slide out from under me!)
-Dennis
Last edited on Sat Jan 19th, 2008 10:23 pm by dennis1soil
|
dennis1soil
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20th, 2008 03:33 am |
|
What is adultery? What is the lust that Jesus equated with adultery in Matt. 5:27-30?
OK,
I have been doing some more searches through Strong's Greek Dictionary and what is called "Literal Translation with Strong's Numbers" - this time for the Greek word (I think) that is associated with the English word "Lust" found in Matthew 5:28. If I understand correctly about how to use this thing properly, the Greek word is "epithumeo 1937" (interestingly enough, not either "ekporneuo 1608" or "porneuo 4203" like I was previously thinking).
By checking the other places in the NT where "epithumeo" is used (in the primary source group of documents from whence the KJV was translated) - I get the impression that word means something like "strong desire" and it can be used for good "strong desire" as well as bad "strong desire" depending on the context (e.g. it's also used in Matthew 13:17 talking about righteous ones desiring to hear what they hear, etc...).
Given God's command to be fruitful and multiply (in Genesis), I don't think Jesus was against a strong sexual desire for people to have toward their spouse, so I don't think He wanted to give the idea that any time a man has sexual desire for any woman, he would be guilty of adultery (because a man's wife is certainly a woman and sexual desire is OK there).
At any rate, that's just my way of looking at that. I guess the only reason I mention it, is because I think there may still be some Christian women who may mistakenly (at least I think so) get the idea from that passage that there is something sinful going on even when she senses her own husband is very strongly attracted to her sexually. To me that would be a real shame (note, I'm using the word "shame" here - sort of on the other side of the sexual fence).
-Dennis
|
dennis1soil
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20th, 2008 04:08 am |
|
TruthSeeker,
You are exceedingly helpful ! - I want to say a hearty "Thank You!".
Especially these two things you said are (IMHO) very, very good.
...
...There is absolutely no place for selfishness on the husband's part. If physical desire is not integrally intertwined with day in, day out demonstrable love, (1 Cor. 13:4-7,) she will feel objectified and used. ...
...
...
2. I am in no way diminished by giving the gift of myself. In fact, I am blessed by the physical, emotional, and spiritual equalibrium his contentment brings.
...
I'll tell you now what my own personal opinion is, concerning what I consider to be the missing but needed Biblical parts. I think the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary to help us not get "the wrong idea" from a lot of Biblical passages (and lack of passages) like for instance some of the things I have mentioned in this thread. I think God does sort of "upgrade" the Bible (in a way) - or at least help us understand better how it relates to today's situations - through providing insight by His Holy Spirit though people like yourself, via diligent study and reflection on their own life experiences. I think there is a desperate need today especially for young people to hear not only the Biblical passages but also to be able to discuss frankly the kinds of things you have said in this thread.
I think the marriages of tomorrow will be better if the young girls of today, those who are not yet married (and probably even not yet seriously dating) - would talk with someone like yourself and hear what you have said. Likewise young guys - preferably with an older respected man, who can be honest with them and who so emanates Love for his wife, that the guys can't possibly miss his sincerity about the importance of self-sacrificial love. (Actually I think the apostle Paul says something to the effect that the older women should be helping the younger women learn how to love their husbands --- from my perspective, in today's world, what may be needed even more is for younger guys to learn from qualified dads and/or older men practical ways they can show their wives they truly do love them).
-Dennis
Last edited on Sun Jan 20th, 2008 04:18 am by dennis1soil
|
dennis1soil
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20th, 2008 06:52 pm |
|
This morning while driving the half-hour to church and back, I listened several times to Alexander Scourby read the 5th chapter of Matthew (man, that guy is the very best at reading the Bible!).
A few different ideas popped into my head as I thought more about that question concerning what Jesus meant when he spoke of lust and adultery (and in a wider context, the whole sermon on the mount).
I am only going to speculate about a couple of things in this post (which I suppose is not much different than what I always do).
When one of my daughters went through a divorce, my entire faith was put to a very strong test, because I didn't think Jesus was specific enough in explaining some of the hard questions that can come up with divorce. So I am still very sensitive on this issue whenever I see it appear in scripture ... and ... wouldn't you know it, it comes up just a couple of verses after Jesus talks about the lust and adultery connection.
I'll try to get back to that point, but I want to mention something else first, I mentioned in a previous post that I think it is of interest that Jesus spoke about anger and murder just prior to lust and adultery. I noticed there are a couple of places in that 5th chapter where Jesus mentions hell (or "gehenna"), and the two places are the things I just mentioned. I am wondering if when Jesus speaks of how it is better to pluck out a lustful eye or cut off a hand, is it possible that the reference to the hand might in some way be associated with anger? It would make sense to me since he is talking about how it is best to avoid hell at all costs, and anger was already said to be something that could put a person in danger of those fires.
Well - I was just thinking about that stuff and sometimes if I have written down my thoughts it can help me to remember them, in case I come across something else in scripture which might seem to further support such speculation. I hope anyone will say something if you see something that I may have missed that you think can shed some more light on this subject.
OK - now to the more controversial thing --- divorce and it's connection to adultery.
I don't know if Jesus felt there was a connection with the divorce subject when he had just spoke about lust and adultery, but I suspect that may be the reason why he moves right into saying a man can cause his wife to commit adultery if he divorces her.
On just a surface examination, that didn't seem to make sense to me - and it seemed very unfair to the former wife! I am thinking maybe Jesus was considering how in that culture it might be necessary for the woman to marry again (quickly) in order to survive (well, either that or perhaps become a prostitute just to get money to eat) - at least I have read that it was very hard for a woman to make it on her own in that male-dominated culture. If my guess about that is correct, then maybe Jesus was thinking that the man who divorced his wife would really be the one most responsible for her becoming united to man other than her original husband (which evidentially would be considered adultery for her, a little different situation than the definitions for the word "adultery" which I copied into another post).
I'm sorry if the flow of these paragraphs makes my train of thought hard to follow - but I am thinking that possibly one reason why a man might choose to divorce his wife could be related to the fact that he may have been strongly desiring (lusting) maybe about some other woman - perhaps a woman some other man had already divorced ... now if that were the case, then if Jesus says a man is guilty of adultery, even if he marries a previously divorced woman .... well then that might help to limit the amount of divorcing and remarrying going on. Of course if married men would stop lusting, that might also help to reduce the amount of divorce.
From that specific text, I'm not so sure that it would have to be interpreted that "fornication" (or adultery) on the part of a spouse is a legitimate reason for divorce. The reason I say that is because of this: ... If the woman had already committed adultery, than the act of the divorce would not be something through which the man caused his wife to commit adultery -- (simply because in that case, she had already been guilty of that) -- and that is what Jesus was primarily talking about there. In my opinion anyway - (sort of like a similar point on another subject that Paulos was helping me understand). The main point Jesus was making was not a treatise on what offense can constitute an allowance for divorce - rather (I think) Jesus was saying that a man can be guilty of causing his wife to become known as an adulteress if he divorces her when she has not committed adultery.
OK, now concerning the idea about how another man would be committing adultery if he married the woman who had become divorced from her original husband .... well I guess that would simply mean that Jesus must have still considered her to be married to her "legitimate" husband (the guy Jesus said should not divorce her in the first place) i.e. if I understand correctly.
This whole passage made me very angry for a long time - because I just didn't think it was being fair to women. What about the woman who was married to a real jerk of a husband who divorced her for no good reason (or who she needed to divorce to be able to remain sane, or safe, or whatever)... does she have to fear being a part of a situation where her future husband is guilty of adultery when because he marries her ???
Well, I seem to be calming down a bit ... (though I'm not completely certain why) ... at least my emotional framework is not totally coming unglued just now (as it once would have any time I would even think about this type of NT teaching).
Maybe the answer to my angst is in the knowledge that we are all sinners who desperately need a savior, and Jesus was trying to drive that point home in this chapter. Just because "sin happens" that doesn't mean God's mercy doesn't. It is Jesus (the one I was thinking was so insensitive and unfair to women) who actually went to the cross, suffered, and died so any woman could have all sins forgiven. That's certainly a whale of a lot more than I have done to help women be treated more fairly (I who claim to be so interested in the subject, yet who has such a history of causing his wife searing pain.)
Just some thoughts ...
-Dennis
|
dennis1soil
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20th, 2008 08:08 pm |
|
Hi again TruthSeeker,
What does it mean to love your wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing withwater through the Word,and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless?" Eph. 5:25-7. What does it mean for a husband to love his wife as his own body? v28. Perhaps it is not so much what the Bible tells you not to do, though that should be heeded also, but what it affirms that you should do. The passage in Eph. 5 continues by speaking of how a man cares for his body's needs, and shows love for his wife by doing likewise for her. If it is her need to feel solely cherished, completely united with you without any shadow of another woman's presence in any aspect of your life, then does not that need take precedence over your fleshly drives?
...
So the Bible doesn't spell out, "Don't look at photographs of nude women," nor does it say "looking at photos of nude women is cool." Nor does it say whether or not women should be upset by such behavior. Is not, however, a woman who sells her image for men's gratification essentially equal to the immoral woman, prostitute/harlot, or adultress of whom we are warned so often? Does it really matter that you are not in her presence, that a middle man with a camera has done that for you? Prov. 6:23-35. 7:7-27. 9:13-8. That last passage mentions secrecy. If your inclination were legitimate, would you seek to hide it from your wife?
I cannot explain why God left some things more like a dot-to-dot than a coloring book page, but perhaps it is because it compels us to delve more deeply in to His Word and His presence, relying on prayer and the still small voice of His Spirit.
TruthSeeker,
Just so you know (and anyone else reading this) - I think your questions are very, very good ones!
I must return to work tomorrow and when I am looking at this site much - I simply cannot do my work - so I may not be doing much more posting for awhile. (<Whew!, they express in relief!>
I do want to say something about the comments I highlighted in blue above.If it is her need to feel solely cherished, completely united with you without any shadow of another woman's presence in any aspect of your life, then does not that need take precedence over your fleshly drives?
Yes. Is not, however, a woman who sells her image for men's gratification essentially equal to the immoral woman, prostitute/harlot, or adultress of whom we are warned so often?
This one is much more difficult for me to answer. I don't hate or despise these women (I have never met one of them personally and really, never had any desire to). As I think I explained in some of my first posts at this site (quite a while back now), Probably around age 8, I trained my mind to NOT CONNECT with them as real people at all - I just saw a form - a form that caused a pleasurable mixture of chemicals which I desired to experience flowing through my body. So (and this sounds kind of weird I guess), I never even considered there to be another human involved when I would look at such photos, rather - if I thought anything at all - I would consider the forms in the photos as generic instances of "female form", and I would remember, in my real three dimensional world, my wife is the specific human person associated with that kind of form. In a way which I have a hard time explaining, I've believed there is some sort of essence of my wife present in my mind/body each time I appreciate any instance of femininty (again, this mindset begun for me back when I was maybe 8 years old, as a way in which I felt I would not be guilty of the "lust" Jesus was speaking of in Matt 5:28 because though I was looking at a nude female, I was not desiring "her", but rather I was associating the enjoyment of "female" looking forward to the person of whoever would become my wife.). Even today - when I see what I consider to be any gorgeous female form (in any context really, not necessarily sexually explicity in any way) - there is a connection in my mind to my wife (She is THE gorgeous female whose specific REAL form God has provided for me - so though there has been a generic type of female form for me via photographic images mostly - there is also a much better specific female - and she is ultimately the embodiment of all female beauty personified).
OK now - of course there is another part of my mind (strange though my mind can be) which knows there really are some real human women (not generic "types" alone) who have posed for those photos. For the most part, I suspect most of them have been lured into that "business" either by the need for money or the need to be considered as valuable (especially by a man, or men in general).
Even though in a sense "they" have caused me great anguish. I was sinning while thinking I was enjoying God's most beautiful creation - it's not all fun and games when I find myself being what most people (including sometimes myself) would label a Christian hypocrite --- it messes with my equilibrium and has lead me toward lunacy --- I would often question why God would create such beauty and then say His glorious work should almost always be covered from view --- Didn't He want to recieve the GLORY which should naturally be associated with his unspeakable magnificent design?
Well, back to what I want to say about "those" women.
Yes, there is bad stuff happening there - and their bodies are involved in it. The way I see things though is this: if there were no guys like me who wanted to see what they are showing, then there would be no "business" for them to be involved in. So the one most responsible for the "bad stuff (Sin)" is not "them" but "Me". Maybe that's one of the reasons I was able to stay for the most part with primarily "soft-core" centerfold-type material. Perhaps subconsciously I knew I would be held accountable for the damage done to the women who posed for the photos I enjoyed looking at -- and maybe I felt like the punishment associated with how much she was hurt by her involvement in supposedly soft-core activity would be less than if the material I viewed was portraying more overtly sinful things (e.g. depictions of acts of adultery, etc...).
....
OK - I'm sorry that haven't yet been comparing my idea of these modern day women to that type of woman the Proverbs are speaking about. In one sense though, I suppose I never did like the fact that God would compare his people (Israel) to a "whore" when they were not faithful (actually, I'm talking about the minor prophets here, not Proverbs). Again, I have always thought men were to blame whenever most any unfaithfulness happened (hence I felt the use of a female type for the comparison with unfaithful Israel was unfair). I think men are to blame principally because of the physical makeup (i.e. it's harder for a man to be raped, etc...). Also (until recently anyway), I think it's fair to say that a man is more likely to be the highly sexual person "on the look" for someone to be unfaithful with.
So, I just have never been able to look down on a "loose woman" - I always figured there was probably some "loose man" more worthy of blame.
<added a little later> Also when the whole subject of abortion is discussed, I have always felt very uncomfortable if I sense people seem to be thinking the women are mostly where the problem is, I suspect many of the times when a child is conceived and subsequently aborted, there was a man involved who by his lack of proper commitment has made himself culpable for the decision to abort.
-Dennis
Last edited on Sun Jan 20th, 2008 09:38 pm by dennis1soil
|
truthseeker
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 795 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21st, 2008 12:46 am |
|
Hi Dennis,
I'm glad you have found my rambling helpful.
I think that the difference between Israel being unfaithful to God, and individual men and women being unfaithful to one another, is that God is perfect, and completely faithful.
Breaking faith in marriage is not strictly a physical issue. From what I have read, women generally are lured by a man who offers more attention/emotional support than she feels she is receiving from her husband.
A cynical description I heard to describe this is:
"Men give love to get sex, and women give sex to get love."
While obviously over simplified, I believe there is much truth in this.
When we were discussing the sermon on the mount in our Sunday school class a while back, we talked about how a woman's use of romance novels can paralel men's use of pornography. Romance novels depict the male hero as so unrealistic, that no mortal man can hope to attain such perfection. Likewise, most women who have had children and/or aged a bit, cannot compare to the air-brushed women in photographs.
It is only natural that when the expectation is not met that each is disappointed, even angry.
I am no expert in these matters, but there is obviously some market for male nudity which is purchased by women, but, as far as I am aware, there is minimal market for men to be paid to sleep with a woman. To put it another way, if both a man and a woman stood on a street corner indicating availability to the opposite gender, for the right price, wouldn't you expect a man to stop first? So, since a man is more likely to pay for a physical encounter, and more likely still to accept one if no cost or strings are involved, then which is exploiting, and which exploited? I submit that, which certainly does happen, if a man knows that a woman is in dire financial need, and will only help her if she agrees to sleep with him, that it is the woman who is exploited. But if a woman chooses to lure hormonally vulnerable males, I think it makes sense for the Bible to caution men against such temptation, and not to paint the temptress in a favorable light.
When is the last time you saw an ad for a woman offering to pay a man to love her? I suspect you never have, since women know that sex is an act, but love is a relationship, and a genuine relationship can never be purchased.
Please do not ask me how all those thoughts relate to Israel's infidelity, because I can't for the life of me figure what she would see in any other god than Jehova.
TruthSeeker
|
Paulos
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 25th, 2008 01:12 am |
|
dennis1soil,
I fully share your belief that the Bible is God's word to give us direction. Since your comments were about Paul specifically, so were mine. If you're now opening the field of discussion to the whole of the biblical canon, yes, of course, there's material on reasons to marry.
From the creation account in Genesis 2:18-24 we can take it that God meant marriage for companionship above all. Part of marital companionship is a special fellowship in sexuality. This is undoubtedly an important, even a central component of marriage. A husband must provide for his wife food, clothing, and "marital rights" (Exodus 21:10). Not all can accept eunuchhood, an unusual way of referring to celibate singleness, and those who can't should marry (Matthew 19:11-12). Paul, of course, gives incontinence as a legitimate reason for seeking a wife (1 Corinthians 7:9) and makes it plain that sexual withholding without the partner's consent is an offense against the partner (vv. 3-5). So critical is sexuality to a healthy marital relationship that fornication constitutes a ground for divorce (Deuteronomy 241; Matthew 5:32; 19:9).
Other reasons for marriage are its economic and social benefits (Proverbs 31:10-31), or even to meet certain cultural expectations regarding family and property rights (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Nor is the Bible unaware of the possibility of romantic love (Genesis 24:66; whole of the Song of Solomon).
It may be wise to refine a few of your statements. The imperative in Genesis 1:28 is not a "command" but a blessing, an invitation to be fruitful and multiply. (Otherwise the teaching of Jesus and of Paul about the equal blessedness of the single state would countermand the will of the creator!)
Jesus' teaching about avoiding adultery in Matthew 5:27-32 follows that on avoiding murder (vv. 21-6) simply because that's the order in the Ten Commandments, the implications of which he's spelling out (cf. Exodus 20:13-14). The graphic imagery about plucking out the eye and cutting off the hand in Matthew 5:29-30 has nothing to do with violence. It makes the point that we must exercise severe discipline over the parts of our lives that threaten to bring down the whole. A legitimate activity might have to be sacrificed if it has become inextricably intertwined with sin. Applications: Because of past associations with sexual sin, a person might have to choose a route between home and work that takes longer and burns more gas, or might have to forego the convenience of a PC in the home.
What Jesus says about lustful eyes (Matthew 5:28; cf. Job 31:1; 2 Peter 2:14) does not prohibit a man from noticing a sexually attractive woman, otherwise marriages may never come about! But it does prohibit deliberate and prolonged gazing for the purpose of deriving venereal stimulation.
I appreciate your distinction between aesthetic observation and using a picture as a substitute for a wished-for relationship. But if you use a picture without any thought of a real relationship with the posing subject, the question is whether God intended us to use sex autoerotically. Back to Genesis 2: Sex is a function of the marital relationship, not of an individual in splendid isolation.
Last edited on Fri Jan 25th, 2008 01:31 pm by Paulos
|
Current time is 07:38 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
RSS