Christian God encourages abstaining from sexual relations

[Nihilist Virus]

Not.
Adultery is cheating on your spouse.
So this doesn't apply to singles.

So then you're saying Jesus was wrong?

And eunuchs can be non-sexual by choice without bodily violence.

A eunuch is a man who has had his testicles removed. That's usually considered bodily violence, no matter how "civilized" the procedure is.

Just as circumcision is discussed as an idea rather than a surgery.

I think you're referring to "circumcision of the heart", which is not relevant.

God encourages monogamy and permanent commitment to ones partner.

Funny, because what I see in the patriarchs is a bunch of men with multiple wives. Were they punished or chastised for that? No. No, they were not.

God also allows for the reality of marriage to the wrong person
and remarriage for whatever reasons.

Jesus said that those who remarry commit adultery.

But it could be said that he is allowing it because he never acts on his laws or enforces anything... except in the Bible. But not in "real reality."

 

[SkyWriting]

It's no secret that Jesus was not married and he is considered a perfect human being, at a level all Christians are striving to or are supposed to be striving to.

Note what Jesus said:
Matthew 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

This means that a young man who is looking to get married can not look at his future wife with lust, or sexual desire, lest he be committing adultery!

Adultery is not a crime for singles. Only married people.
Singles should work to restrain and control their lust.
There are 4 other types of love to substitute besides lust.

 

[Zoii]

I dont get all this.
My understanding is that God favoured Abraham who had several wives and concubines. indeed having concubines was common place.

I also understood that incest occurred by necessity in the time of Adam.

So I dont get the comments that God requires:

• Sex is only between a husband and wife
• That a person may not re-marry
• That abstinence is holy.

I think the main issue I have with it all, is that too often sex is painted as a "dirty" act and given labels of sinful, harmful, shameful. It extends to all forms including masturbation. Given that all humans are sexual in nature, can you not see how harmful these negative tropes are for normal human development.

The negativity extends even to the menstrual cycle, and seems particularly focussed on women. Surely we have moved on to have a far better understanding of sexuality than this negative harmful view of human sexual behaviour.

 

[SkyWriting]

But it could be said that he is allowing it because he never acts on his laws or enforces anything... except in the Bible. But not in "real reality."

In reality, Moses created certificates for divorce.
In reality, divorce for reasons of infidelity are allowed.

 

[BigV]

Adultery is not a crime for singles. Only married people.
Singles should work to restrain and control their lust.
There are 4 other types of love to substitute besides lust.

Well, you are technically right, but the New Testament does not allow for sexual relations outside of marriage.

1 Cor. 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

1 Cor. 7:8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Now, what happens when couples get married but one side doesn't want to have sex? The other party will be stuck. They can't divorce, because their spouse has not cheated, but they themselves don't have a God sanctioned release mechanism.

 

[BigV]

I dont get all this.
My understanding is that God favoured Abraham who had several wives and concubines. indeed having concubines was common place.

Old Testament is totally different when it comes to sexuality. David had multiple wives too, so had Solomon.

That's why the OP is about a Christian God or New Testament teachings.

 

[Zoii]

Old Testament is totally different when it comes to sexuality. David had multiple wives too, so had Solomon.

That's why the OP is about a Christian God or New Testament teachings.

Are you telling me that Jesus' father, God, is different to the God that fills the Old Testament?... if not; is it your argument that God Did think multiple sexual partners was okay but then rethought his position on it later on when Jesus was born?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, judging by some of the Christian posters here, Christian Hermeneutics seems to be learning how a given text doesn't mean what it actually says to do. For example, a text "do not resist an evildoer" actually means, "use deadly force if necessary to protect yourself or your loved ones".

...backing up again to this post of yours, I noticed that you've delineated a term I did not intend to imply: "Christian Hermeneutics." I've never heard of this term. All I've been talking about thus far in this thread, and in others, is ... Hermeneutics, of both the Philosophical type as well as the Biblical type.

So, you might want to explain to me what you mean by this newish term you've created.

 

[BigV]

So, you might want to explain to me what you mean by this newish term you've created.

I'm just calling it as I'm seeing it played out. The Bible is taken to mean what it says, unless it talks about God calling on Israel to commit genocide or kill women and children. Then it's allegory.

God's promises that can't be verified are always true. Promises that can be verified and are found to be false are 'interpreted' to mean something other than what they say.

May be my ex-Soviet side kick can offer more details? Where is he/she?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm just calling it as I'm seeing it played out. The Bible is taken to mean what it says, unless it talks about God calling on Israel to commit genocide or kill women and children. Then it's allegory.

Really? I don't think I've ever said that all of that was allegory.

Of course, what with my challenge to the entire so-called civilized world in its supposed reliance upon its "Modern Wisdom" by which it has falsely structured what should be beneficent Human Rights thinking, I'm wondering just who it is that is really screwing the pooch THE MOST when applying 'hermeneutics' of any kind to just about anything, even the Bible?

God's promises that can't be verified are always true. Promises that can be verified and are found to be false are 'interpreted' to mean something other than what they say.

We've been over this before ... and I think you know what I'm going to say ...

May be my ex-Soviet side kick can offer more details? Where is he/she?

I don't know about him, but I know of another person other than him ... who is glad (and feels more or less blessed) each day to be away from a socially and spiritually haphazard place like Russia.

 

[BigV]

I don't know about him, but I know of another person other than him ... who is glad (and feels more or less blessed) each day to be away from a socially and spiritually haphazard place like Russia.

From what I understand, Soviet Union =/= modern Russia, especially if you talk spirituality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From what I understand, Soviet Union =/= modern Russia, especially if you talk spirituality.

Really? I guess I didn't learn this in the class I took on Russian History and Politics at the university. Thanks for enlightening me...

 

[BigV]

Really? I guess I didn't learn this in the class I took on Russian History and Politics at the university. Thanks for enlightening me...

I sense sarcasm, but I am being serious. As I see things, Russia is swinging the other way, with at least one Atheist facing prison time for insulting Christianity.

Russian atheist faces year in jail for denying existence of God during webchat

 

[BigV]

Are you telling me that Jesus' father, God, is different to the God that fills the Old Testament?... if not; is it your argument that God Did think multiple sexual partners was okay but then rethought his position on it later on when Jesus was born?

Well, I'm an Atheist, and to me, it's clear that the position on sexuality is very different between the Old and the New Testaments. Jesus basically ignored the Old Testament, while claiming it's God's Law. For example, according to Numbers 15, a person who gathers sticks on a Saturday is to be put to death, and same penalty applied to adultery. Jesus, as far as the New Testament record goes, never punished anyone by pelting them with stones until they die. So, how can Jesus be the same God as the God of Numbers 15?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I sense sarcasm, but I am being serious. As I see things, Russia is swinging the other way, with at least one Atheist facing prison time for insulting Christianity.

Russian atheist faces year in jail for denying existence of God during webchat

... is a situation where a Russian atheist is going to prison supposed to be a 'good,' Christian thing? I'm not under the impression that it is.

Oh, the wonderful world of 'Leftover Caesar-ism.'

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In reality, Moses created certificates for divorce.
In reality, divorce for reasons of infidelity are allowed.

You know it's a sad state of affairs when you redact 80% of what I said, then contradict Christ to make your point.

And again, who cares if we are or aren't allowed to do something? Christ won't come down from heaven to smite us. Evil men can repent on their deathbed and go to heaven while good men can believe the wrong religion and go to hell. "Allowed" is a joke and there's no accountability.

I even made a whole thread on accountability in Christianity and no one could point to where it is. The closest one came was mentioning Purgatory, and also the notion that inhabitants of hell are punished in a system according to their deeds, but he was unable to back this up with scripture. Furthermore, it does nothing to negate the fact that there will be serial killers in heaven and decent men in hell.

 

[Silmarien]

The negativity extends even to the menstrual cycle, and seems particularly focussed on women. Surely we have moved on to have a far better understanding of sexuality than this negative harmful view of human sexual behaviour.

You know, I don't really think this is true. There is a weird obsession with emissions of all sorts in the Old Testament, not just about menstruation. Ritual cleanliness in Judaism is significantly bigger than just sexuality--look at things like leprosy and touching corpses--so reducing it to negativity towards human sexuality seems like a bit of a stretch. I'm not sure why ritual purification is such a big deal in Judaism, but whatever is going on, it has implications for sexuality rather than being specifically about sexuality.

A couple thoughts on the rest of your comment:

Instances of concubinage or polygamy in the Bible aren't necessarily portrayed in a positive light. I find the story of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah striking because of how negatively it portrays polygamy--it led to nothing besides competition and dysfunction in that family, which culminated in Joseph being sold into slavery. It's dangerous to take just about anything in the Old Testament at face value, though, because one of the major themes is human frailty rather than righteousness.

Not everyone who is in favor of traditional sexual ethics is so because they think sex is "dirty" (though many clearly do fall into that category). It's a bit too conservative for me, but I'm somewhat sympathetic to the theology of the body of Pope John Paul II, for example, for whom sexuality is sacramental in nature and ought to be treated with utmost care because it is holy rather than because it is dirty.

It also needs to be taken into account that sexuality can and often does become sinful and harmful, given how easy it is to slip into objectification and entitlement. I think negative views of sexuality only contribute to this problem, but an elevated view of sexuality does involve putting a proper emphasis on abstinence as well. Lose that, and you end up with 4chan psychopaths who think they have a "right" to women's bodies.

 

[BigV]

It's dangerous to take just about anything in the Old Testament at face value, though, because one of the major themes is human frailty rather than righteousness.

God explicitly told David that he would provide him more wives if that's what David wanted.

(NIV) 2 Samuel 12: 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.

 

[Silmarien]

God explicitly told David that he would provide him more wives if that's what David wanted.

(NIV) 2 Samuel 12: 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.

Uh... I wouldn't say that David's various romantic relationships are portrayed in anywhere near a positive light. Abandonment, adultery, and then he outright has Uriah killed so that he can cover up the affair that he was having with Bathsheba.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God explicitly told David that he would provide him more wives if that's what David wanted.

(NIV) 2 Samuel 12: 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.

That's not what this statement you've chosen actually says, though, now is it? The inference here isn't that God is saying that He would give David more wives if he wanted them, but that God had protected David against Saul and removed Saul. David thereby 'inherited' Saul's wives.

Nowhere here is there an indication that David wanted Saul's wives to begin with and secretly longed to have them, or that David had asked God to give them to him. So, let's not stretch the inferences inherent in this passage beyond what's warranted.

If this is 'how' you do hermenuetics and read the Bible, no wonder you're having such a difficult time with it, BigV. If I read into it all the way like you're doing here, I'd have let Christianity go bye-bye 30 years ago due to disappointment exhaustion.