Refraining from Sex - Advice please!

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

Interesting, this is a Biblical concept (genuine question, first time encountering the idea as an ability or gift)?

How does it work in relation to love?

It would mean one has power over one's affections not to 'fall in love'. One would be free to love in a non-sexual way, with the deepest affection, but be able to prevent that love from developing into romantic interest. As the Lord Jesus loved Mary, Martha and Lazarus.

************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would mean one has power over one's affections not to 'fall in love'. One would be free to love in a non-sexual way, with the deepest affection, but be able to prevent that love from developing into romantic interest. As the Lord Jesus loved Mary, Martha and Lazarus.

************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

And this is better how? If we all were so gifted we be fuc.. actually the opposite but we would be extinct.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would mean one has power over one's affections not to 'fall in love'. One would be free to love in a non-sexual way, with the deepest affection, but be able to prevent that love from developing into romantic interest. As the Lord Jesus loved Mary, Martha and Lazarus.

************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

I'm going to ask for Biblical quotes if you have them, but please don't take this as some sort of challenge, I'm not in anyway saying you are wrong, I'm genuinely interested in concept as it is a new one for me.

mascaput

PDN wrote: »

The literal meaning of the Hebrew word ishsha is woman. So that passage's literal meaning is: "And Sarai Abram's woman took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife"

Elsewhere in the Old Testament it is translated as 'concubine', 'woman' or 'wife' according to context. The relationship of Hagar to Abraham, as a bondwoman rather than a free woman, appears to be much more of a concubinage arrangement than a marriage.

So which one is it in this particular context? How could any normal, seriously-minded student of religion and biblical scripture know that in this case that the King James Version of the bible, one of the mainstays of modern Christian belief, is possibly not referring to a 'real' wife, but a possession of another woman who is also allegedly not his wife i.e. Sarah?
If Sarah herself was only a slave or a servant, what authority would she have to make Abraham take her servant as a wife, as though she was a piece of property? Surely God would not like that sort of thing? What sort of man would take orders from a chattel or concubine, basically a wife with no rights? Maybe there is something missing in what I understand, but it makes no sense right now at all.
Thanks,
M

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

And this is better how?

Well if I'm following it is not a gift that is given to everyone.

PDN

mascaput wrote: »

So which one is it in this particular context? How could any normal, seriously-minded student of religion and biblical scripture know that in this case that the King James Version of the bible, one of the mainstays of modern Christian belief, is possibly not referring to a 'real' wife, but a possession of another woman who is also allegedly not his wife i.e. Sarah?

One of the ways in which we discover the context is by comparing different passages in which the same subject matter is discussed. So, when looking at Genesis 25, we see that Sarah (as Abraham's wife) is distinguished from his concubines. The word 'concubine' here is a different Hebrew word - piylegesh - which means 'paramour' or 'concubine' and is never used of a wife.

Btw, most modern Christians would have no opinion at all on the KJV (since most Christians don't speak English). The KJV was a good, if somewhat flawed translation when it was produced 400 years ago, but most English speaking Christians today would recognise that it has its limitations.

If Sarah herself was only a slave or a servant, what authority would she have to make Abraham take her servant as a wife, as though she was a piece of property? Surely God would not like that sort of thing?

I'm sure God didn't like it. There is no hint in the text that God approved of this at all - in fact the opposite would seem to be the case.

What sort of man would take orders from a chattel or concubine, basically a wife with no rights?

A weak and flawed man. The same kind of man that would encourage his wife to lie and pretend to be his sister.

mascaput

Zombrex wrote: »

Well if I'm following it is not a gift that is given to everyone.

But if God loves everyone equally, then why should some be given the 'gift' of not being attracted to members of the oppsite sex, and not give it to others? How can you deprive someone of something that would by its consequence end up in your blood dying out, be in accordance with God's command to "go forth and multiply"?

Is the bible saying that Paul was not attracted to women? What was wrong with him? I never heard this before, but maybe I'm wrong.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Well if I'm following it is not a gift that is given to everyone.

Never got a snif of it myself.
Oh how the Lord has showered me with blessings

tommy2bad

mascaput;
Is the bible saying that Paul was not attracted to women?

I duno about attracted but you wouldn't be the first to accuse him of misogyny.

PDN

mascaput wrote: »

But if God loves everyone equally, then why should some be given the 'gift' of not being attracted to members of the oppsite sex, and not give it to others? How can you deprive someone of something that would by its consequence end up in your blood dying out, be in accordance with God's command to "go forth and multiply"?

Is the bible saying that Paul was not attracted to women? What was wrong with him? I never heard this before, but maybe I'm wrong.

It may well be that some people's calling from God would not be possible if they were married.

I have met a number Christian leaders in China who were imprisoned for many years due to their church activities. Several of them expressed the view that, if they had known this would happen, then they would have refrained from marriage due to the consequences of their extended imprisonment upon their family.

Bear in mind that Paul was writing to people who could well face similar persecution, and he himself was imprisoned and ultimately executed.

Btw, a number of biblical scholars believe Paul was either widowed or divorced. (Based on his membership of the Jewish Council, which would seem to refer to the Sanhedrin - apparently membership of this body was only open to married men).

In this case, I am very glad not to have been given that particular gift.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Never got a snif of it myself.
Oh how the Lord has showered me with blessings

Lol, yeah tell me about. This declining moral standard and sexual immorality people are always going on about .. where do I sign up for that, cause I must have missed the emails

mascaput

PDN wrote: »

In this case, I am very glad not to have been given that particular gift.

He, he...I agree. Looks like being deprived or handicapped is not such a bad thing after all....thank Zeus!

mascaput

Zombrex wrote: »

Lol, yeah tell me about. This declining moral standard and sexual immorality people are always going on about .. where do I sign up for that, cause I must have missed the emails

You need to be on the Vatican mailing list www.getsomehere.va and sign up for the 'aid and relief' programme. It's a hands-on programme, run by Sister Palm and her five helpers

mascaput

tommy2bad wrote: »

I duno about attracted but you wouldn't be the first to accuse him of misogyny.

Well, that's not beyond doubt. :rolleyes:

mascaput

Onesimus wrote: »

Each Christian who is failing in chastity before marriage in the case of the op, just need to reguarly attend confession, pray, receive the Eucharist and continue to ''work'' hard at acheiving the goal of chastity.

Onesimus

It just struck me that the use of the words 'working hard' at achieving the goal chastity seemed a little humorous ...though maybe not intended that way.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

And this is better how? If we all were so gifted we be fuc.. actually the opposite but we would be extinct.

It's only for some. God knows how to manage things so that the race will not expire.

**************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm going to ask for Biblical quotes if you have them, but please don't take this as some sort of challenge, I'm not in anyway saying you are wrong, I'm genuinely interested in concept as it is a new one for me.

These are the ones that spring to mind:
Matthew 19:10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

******************************************************************
John 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

wolfsbane

mascaput wrote: »

But if God loves everyone equally, then why should some be given the 'gift' of not being attracted to members of the oppsite sex, and not give it to others? How can you deprive someone of something that would by its consequence end up in your blood dying out, be in accordance with God's command to "go forth and multiply"?

Is the bible saying that Paul was not attracted to women? What was wrong with him? I never heard this before, but maybe I'm wrong.

1. God does not love everyone equally. He loves all His elect equally.

2. Each one has his/her own gift from God, to serve Him according to the grace He gives. He is free to give it as He pleases.

3. Go forth and multiply is the general rule for mankind. God has provided exceptions, or rather the possibility of exceptions. It is never a commandment to abstain from marriage.

4. There is nothing wrong with anyone able to control their sexual urges, or who have a lessened desire, as a gifts from God.

5. We don't know whether Paul was not attracted or was able to control his attraction.

******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

tommy2bad

Its a pretty negative view of sex though, easy to see how the gnostics got it wrong.

"For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
HaHa so the joke about sex before marriage cos theirs none after is that old.
I duno about Paul but theirs plenty passion in my marriage.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

I duno about attracted but you wouldn't be the first to accuse him of misogyny.

One man's misogyny is another man's due respect. Only when we know the proper status and role of women can we properly call a position misogyny. Paul was not guilty as charged. It is modern society's corrupted idea of woman's role that has given rise to this libel.

*****************************************************************
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Its a pretty negative view of sex though, easy to see how the gnostics got it wrong.

"For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
HaHa so the joke about sex before marriage cos theirs none after is that old.
I duno about Paul but theirs plenty passion in my marriage.

Seems a balanced view to me - just not exalting sex to be the supreme activity it is to the ungodly world. It is beautiful and good, but not the highest devotion to God.

************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

One man's misogyny is another man's due respect. Only when we know the proper status and role of women can we properly call a position misogyny. Paul was not guilty as charged. It is modern society's corrupted idea of woman's role that has given rise to this libel.

*****************************************************************
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Kicking a hornet's nest their Wolfsbain.
You brethren by any chance?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

These are the ones that spring to mind:
Matthew 19:10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

******************************************************************
John 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

Thanks

lmaopml

Paul wasn't a mysogynist, heck I've seen good men fighting for simple rights being accused of mysogny in todays world - he was simply explaining that if one has a calling or vocation then they should be discerning about how to fulfill it properly and with honour to that vocation.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Kicking a hornet's nest their Wolfsbain.
You brethren by any chance?

I'm a Baptist, a member of Lurgan Baptist Church, which church is in the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland.

*********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

HamletOrHecuba

lmaopml wrote: »

Paul wasn't a mysogynist, heck I've seen good men fighting for simple rights being accused of mysogny in todays world - he was simply explaining that if one has a calling or vocation then they should be discerning about how to fulfill it properly and with honour to that vocation.

Fair points but also leadership roles are spiritually dangerous because the authority can easily go to peoples head. Learning to cut off one's will which can only really be learnt by obedience is on the other hand spiritually profitable. We should try and look at things from a spiritual point of view as opposed to a carnal one.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm a Baptist, a member of Lurgan Baptist Church, which church is in the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland.

*********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Not being nosie, it was more a reference to the bible quotes you picked, brethren have a thing about headship being male only.
Thanks for answering. Even if it was rhetorical

Festus

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. God does not love everyone equally. He loves all His elect equally.

Does the Father not love all His children equally?

HamletOrHecuba

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. God does not love everyone equally. He loves all His elect equally.

Do you have any Scriptural evidence that God loves His elect equally?

Festus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Do you have any Scriptural evidence that God loves His elect equally?

Do you take the Bible literally?