Originally posted by DarfiusFortunately we have turkey baisters today.
If the whole world were gay, we would have gone extinct. Tell me, if Noah's sons, after coming out of the arks, had spurned their wives, where would we be?
Should God have said "No homosexuality, except for a few, because a few are OK. Now, a few means around 2 percent of the population. After that, NO!"
I guess "No homosexuality" was just easier for us to understand.
Bump.Originally posted by Darfius
If God does not want you to have more children, when you have recreational sex (in marriage), He will not give you more.
Is this to say that you oppose any form of contraception?
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Heb 13:4)
Does this mean that all sex acts (including non-vaginal sex) are permissible because the
institution of marriage makes all acts honorable?
(1Co 6:9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Perhaps you could discuss the following chapter (1 Corinthians 7:1-11, particularly 5-6 and 8-9).
This passage seems to suggest that marriage is a lower state than virginity (...through lack of
self-control). As such, would you agree that the discussion above (of Christians who refuse to
touch their spouse sexually, but extract and implant sperm) is, in fact, a higher state of being, one
where a Christian fulfills his/her obligation to be fruitful and multiply, but also ones who maintain
'self-control' and do not engage in pleasures of the flesh?
Nemesio
Is this to say that you oppose any form of contraception?
I oppose contraception in a marriage between two, heterosexual, have-had-no-sex-before-marriage, monogomous partners. Outside of that, I am first and foremost for abstinence, but when animal lust rears its ugly head, contraception is endorsed by me.
Does this mean that all sex acts (including non-vaginal sex) are permissible because the
institution of marriage makes all acts honorable?
I am not an expert on this. I just know that all sex outside of marriage is sin.
Perhaps you could discuss the following chapter (1 Corinthians 7:1-11, particularly 5-6 and 8-9).
This passage seems to suggest that marriage is a lower state than virginity (...through lack of
self-control). As such, would you agree that the discussion above (of Christians who refuse to
touch their spouse sexually, but extract and implant sperm) is, in fact, a higher state of being, one
where a Christian fulfills his/her obligation to be fruitful and multiply, but also ones who maintain
'self-control' and do not engage in pleasures of the flesh?
It seems clear to me that Paul is giving advice to avoid lust. The Word of God is quite clear in that we are to 'be fruitful and multiply' and that 'only the marriage bed is undefiled'. Paul did not use words such as 'better' to imply that total celibacy was more holy than sex within marriage. He said celibacy was 'good'. Which of course it is, until marriage.
Originally posted by DarfiusI'm curious as to why you oppose contraception in the situation you mentioned.
[b]Is this to say that you oppose any form of contraception?
I oppose contraception in a marriage between two, heterosexual, have-had-no-sex-before-marriage, monogomous partners. Outside of that, I am first and foremost for abstinence, but when animal lust rears its ugly head, contraception is endorsed by me.
Does this mean that all sex acts (i ...[text shortened]... han sex within marriage. He said celibacy was 'good'. Which of course it is, until marriage.
Originally posted by kirksey957Because God commanded us to 'be fruitful and multiply' and if we block the sperm from reaching the ovary, then there is no possiblity of fulfilling this command. However, if we leave it in the hands of God, He will never give us more than HE can handle through us.
I'm curious as to why you oppose contraception in the situation you mentioned.
Originally posted by Darfius
I oppose contraception in a marriage between two, heterosexual, have-had-no-sex-before-marriage, monogomous partners.
Could you elaborate on this? Couldn't contraception be part of God's
plan? The use of contraception (be it medical or physical) only
prevents conception during usage. Most people use contraception
until they reach a time in their lives when they can bring up children
most successfully. They would still be fulfilling God's command to
'Be fruitful and multiply.'
Outside of that, I am first and foremost for abstinence, but when animal lust rears its ugly head, contraception is endorsed by me.
Although I am not in favor of the way in which you articulate this
part of your stance, I am in favor of its general principles.
I am not an expert on this. I just know that all sex [b]outside of marriage is sin.[/b]
It is a critical point, don't you think, about whether or not non-vaginal
sex is permissible according to 'Christian' moral values? I mean, the
overwhelming majority of people engage in the acts, including
Christians.
It seems clear to me that Paul is giving advice to avoid lust...Paul did not use words such as 'better' to imply that total celibacy was more holy than sex within marriage. He said celibacy was 'good'. Which of course it is, until marriage.
Consider 1 Cor 7:5-6 -- 'Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by
mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to
one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of
self-control. This I say by way of concession, however, not as a
command..
Seems pretty clear that marriage is a 'concession' not a 'command.'
Continuing: 1 Cor 7:8-9 -- Now to the unmarried and to widows I say:
it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but
if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to
marry than to be on fire.
Again, this clearly states that, in the absence of 'self-control' (which is
obviously a good thing), one should marry. However, virginity is
clearly the preferable state.
Lastly:
1 Cor 7:32-34a, 35 -- I should like you to be free of anxieties. An
unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may
please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the
world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided....I am telling
you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but
for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without
distraction.
Again, St Paul clearly is pointing to virginity as a higher state, a state
wherein one can more clearly focus on the Lord, whereas marriage is
the result of a 'lack of self-control,' a compromise or 'concession.'
Could you comment, please?
And, lastly, how do you find the scenario wherein a married couple chooses
to avoid conjugal relations, but uses the sperm withdrawl and insertion
in order to fulfill God's command? Would this not be the best of both
worlds, both remaining chaste and multiplying?
Nemesio