Why did St. Paul have to write the things he did in his epistles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lucie333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fhansen said:
sex is a need,
Click to expand...
Nope. “Needs” are food, water, shelter, clothing for warmth and protection from the elements, sunlight, exercise, sleep. Without these things, we will likely become ill and/or die.

Sex is not a need. There are plenty of people who go without it for long periods, sometimes their entire lives, with no ill effects.

If sex were a need, we (and other religions) would not be able to have celibate clergy, religious order members, and holy people.

Sex is rather something that the vast majority of people who choose to marry are expecting to have and maybe even enjoy with their spouse as part of the marriage.
 
Last edited:
Celibacy is a gift. And while sex may not be an absolute need in the sense of sustaining life, it’s a need nonetheless, which St Paul is acknowledging in a very practical manner. He continues on:

I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and widows I say this: It is good for them to remain unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 1 Cor 7:6-9

Jesus in Matt 19:
For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Matt 19:12
 
Last edited:
In the original passage you quoted, the one word that really jumps out at me is “mutual”. Mutual consent. Both are engaged and willing to self sacrifice for the good of the other. A mutual dying to self for the good of another.

“Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor.” Romans‬ ‭12:10
 
Last edited:
It’s not ridiculous at all. It also doesn’t say force yourself on the other person. It says don’t deny the other person (it also applies equally to the husband and the wife).

Of course, the law of charity must always prevail (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) as St. Paul says elsewhere (see especially 1 Cor. 13). Each spouse should take into account the well-being and feelings of the other. What this precept does guard against is withholding or granting sex as a way of manipulating or punishing the other person, out of spite, etc.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think sex is a need. There’s many people out there who don’t even desire sex. And nobody should be required to have sex with anyone unless they absolutely want to, even through marriage.
 
Ok, so apparently it’s a natural, created appetite that approaches a need for some, and that seems to be what St Paul, and also Jesus, were addressing. You can also check out post #23.
 
Last edited:
My husband of 22 years hasn’t been really interested in sex for about 10 years now. We are at maybe 2x a month. I am not happy ab it, he knows it, he wont do anything to change it, try, sacrifice, ect. He doesn’t care. Guess what, IT MATTERS!! Refusal will ruin a marriage. It changes and erodes affections of the shunned spouse, even if divorce never occurs. Emotional divorce is a thing. Refusal bc you don’t feel like it CAN be a sin. A time or two here or there is fine. Bc you are sick or really exhausted, is fine. But bc you dont want to and it’s become routine? NO. You are hurting your spouse and your marriage, it is selfish, and you will answer for it one day. Think long and hard before you get this ‘only if you want to’ idea in your head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top