D
Dokimas
Guest
Sex in a marriage between one man and one woman is commanded (lovingly) in the Bible (with few exceptions). Any other sex is SIN to be repented of and turned from.
- Status
L
larkin31
Guest
So, you WANT to get started on sex and the Bible? I really don’t…
D
Dokimas
Guest
There are several (maybe many) stories of misuse of sex in the Bible; OT especially.
But I won’t bore you with them as I see you don’t want this discussion.
I hope your search ends in the arms of Jesus.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, you’re on the right track to being a Catholic then, larkin.
'Cause not only is “there nothing wrong with it”, but the CC has elevated it to a holy, sacramental thing!
L
larkin31
Guest
“Catholic girls start much too late…”Well, you’re on the right track to being a Catholic then, larkin.
'Cause not only is “there nothing wrong with it”, but the CC has elevated it to a holy, sacramental thing!
I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints…
P
PRmerger
Guest
Many denominations claim to be the guardian and interpreter of Scripture?
I am only presenting the facts. Because Scripture is unclear about a multitude of issues there are now thousands of different understandings about what God has revealed. It is not a dichotomy. It is a simple fact.
Take Baptism. Since being on the CAFs I’ve learned that some Protestants consider it a sacrament, some an ordinance. Some say it’s ok to baptize infants; some say it must be adults only. Some say you must immerse yourself in a river; some say sprinkling is ok. Some say you must use Jesus’ name only; some say it must be in the Trinitarian formula.
The above is an example of chaos and confusion, and that’s just one issue!
P
PRmerger
Guest
L
larkin31
Guest
That’s not “chaos and confusion,” and it is not the necessary and inevitable and only possible result of not having a central authority. Which was the import of your statement.Many denominations claim to be the guardian and interpreter of Scripture?
I am only presenting the facts. Because Scripture is unclear about a multitude of issues there are now thousands of different understandings about what God has revealed. It is not a dichotomy. It is a simple fact.
Take Baptism. Since being on the CAFs I’ve learned that some Protestants consider it a sacrament, some an ordinance. Some say it’s ok to baptize infants; some say it must be adults only. Some say you must immerse yourself in a river; some say sprinkling is ok. Some say you must use Jesus’ name only; some say it must be in the Trinitarian formula.
The above is an example of chaos and confusion, and that’s just one issue!
D
Dokimas
Guest
That’s not always the case. Sorry to say. Too many young people of ALL ‘faith’ start too early.
Don’t be deceived!!! Sin gives pleasure for a while; then comes the payment - STD’s are epidemic to mention just one type of payment. Little unborn babies are murdered and their mom’s ofter emotionally struggle because, no matter what the pro-abortion people say, God has placed in the heart of each one right and wrong and they know the killing of the unborn is wrong. Those poor young ladies carry such a heavy burden. Jesus wants to carry it for them.
L
larkin31
Guest
It’s Saturday night and I have been out. I was just singing to myself. I’m an aesthete and a poet and a drummer and a sinner. My crowd parties and dances and enjoys many of the beauties and pleasures of this world. We sin a fair amount, repent a little, and live a lot. If you don’t live a bit, then ya got nothin’ to talk about in the locker room…
D
Dokimas
Guest
Live a lot: I’ve had the great pleasure and privilege to go street witnessing with the Gospel of Jesus. I’ve walked down some streets that many would not go for fear. I’d started out fearfully and would walk up to the biggest man around and tell them about the love of Jesus.
I will refrain from locker room language, but I have some neat stories to tell, like the time I was grabbed by the collar and kicked in the shins. I’ve also had many listen to the claims of Jesus spoken from the lips of a sinner (me).
You claim to be a sinner. I am one too. Paul, of NT fame, claimed to be the worst of the lot of us.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I’m willing to bet that most of these people who live this lifestyle suffer great moments of despair and emptiness.
I’m not going to argue with you on this, larkin. I’m just sayin’.
And I think you know it’s true as well. There’s not a single person who has lived the drugs, sex and rock-n-roll lifestyle that’s been celebrated in song and story that hasn’t woken up in the morning thinking, “What in the world? Why aren’t I happy? Why do I feel such misery?”.
That’s because they’re looking for love in all the wrong places. And their hearts will be restless until they rest in God.
I don’t know, but I’m guessing that the people who live this lifestyle you’re advocating probably have a higher use of anti-depressants, higher rate of addiction, divorce, suicide.
I dunno…they usually seem quite…um…miserable. When they’re sober that is.
P
PRmerger
Guest
'cept the locker room talk doesn’t really mention that the “beauties” that were “enjoyed” really looked like this, instead of like Kim Kardashian:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
B
benedictus2
Guest
How sad that sinning is equated to living a lot when sin leads to death.
How pathetic that one does things so that one may have something to talk about in the locker room. To me that proclaims a low self-esteem and a need to be validated which happens when one falls away from Christ.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Go Dokimas Go!!! (can’t find a cheerleader smiley but it’s supposed to be inserted here
)That is what living is all about. That’s what needs to be discussed in the locker room. :clapping::tiphat:
D
Dokimas
Guest
Thank you, Benedictus. Your kind comments are much appreciated.Go Dokimas Go!!! (can’t find a cheerleader smiley but it’s supposed to be inserted here
That is what living is all about. That’s what needs to be discussed in the locker room. :clapping::tiphat:
B
benedictus2
Guest
You’re welcome
M
minkymurph
Guest
I feel my words have been taken out of context. Perhaps due to a poor choice of words on my part; eg: the word ‘wrong.’
My point of inquiry was: by telling us Joseph did not know his wife until after the child was born, what message did the author want to communicate to us?
I don’t think the author wanted to communicate the following: sex is wrong, the Catholic Church is wrong to teach Mary was ever virgin, the Protestant Churches are wrong not to believe she was ever virgin.
Another poster stated it was so there would be no doubt as to the Virgin Birth. The significance of the Virgin Birth was Jesus was the Incarnate Word. All Christians agree on this point.
Regarding sex, it was perfectly common for married couples not to have sex. My Grandmother told me in her day, if you did not want any more children your sex life was over as contraception was not readily available. Condoms were not sold in pharmacies and there was no contraceptive pill. Rich Arabs in contemporary society have up ten wives, how often would one wife get to have sex with her husband? Of course he could be very active!!!
I once read of a man in Laos who only had sex with his wife when she had her period as she would have been risking her life having more children. In hunter/gatherer communities, women may not have seen their husbands for weeks on end. The point is we should not see sexual relations between married couples in the first century or ancient civilizations in the same context as contemporary western society. It was therefore not usual for married couples not to have sex.What the Gospel writer wants readers to believe is Jesus was the Incarnate Word, the Messiah, the Saviour of the World. If the author of the Gospel wanted readers to believe Mary was a Virgin, simply telling them Joseph didn’t have sex with her before Jesus was born is insufficient. What was to stop Mary having sex with Joseph before they married? Are we to believe that kind of thing didn’t go on in Ancient Israel?
In the Gospel account, the miracualous circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus are recorded before this statement about Joseph not knowing her is made. Was it simply out of reverence for the child she was carrying Joseph refrained from having sex with her? Or is the author trying to tell us something else?
In my personal opinion, Joseph ‘not knowing her’ could have many interpretations; none of which are relevent to the message the author is trying to communicate. But I stress that is a personal opinion and therefore not one is anyone else is obliged to accept.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Me too. And soon.
L
larkin31
Guest
Additionally, miraculous births are common to mythology.I feel my words have been taken out of context. Perhaps due to a poor choice of words on my part; eg: the word ‘wrong.’
My point of inquiry was: by telling us Joseph did not know his wife until after the child was born, what message did the author want to communicate to us?
I don’t think the author wanted to communicate the following: sex is wrong, the Catholic Church is wrong to teach Mary was ever virgin, the Protestant Churches are wrong not to believe she was ever virgin.
Another poster stated it was so there would be no doubt as to the Virgin Birth. The significance of the Virgin Birth was Jesus was the Incarnate Word. All Christians agree on this point.
Regarding sex, it was perfectly common for married couples not to have sex. My Grandmother told me in her day, if you did not want any more children your sex life was over as contraception was not readily available. Condoms were not sold in pharmacies and there was no contraceptive pill. Rich Arabs in contemporary society have up ten wives, how often would one wife get to have sex with her husband? Of course he could be very active!!!
What the Gospel writer wants readers to believe is Jesus was the Incarnate Word, the Messiah, the Saviour of the World. If the author of the Gospel wanted readers to believe Mary was a Virgin, simply telling them Joseph didn’t have sex with her before Jesus was born is insufficient. What was to stop Mary having sex with Joseph before they married? Are we to believe that kind of thing didn’t go on in Ancient Israel?
In the Gospel account, the miracualous circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus are recorded before this statement about Joseph not knowing her is made. Was it simply out of reverence for the child she was carrying Joseph refrained from having sex with her? Or is the author trying to tell us something else?
In my personal opinion, Joseph ‘not knowing her’ could have many interpretations; none of which are relevent to the message the author is trying to communicate. But I stress that is a personal opinion and therefore not one is anyone else is obliged to accept.
- Status