"SEX" vs Romance & Spirit Led Intimacy

[FrenchyBearpaw]

"traditionally viewed the book as a portrait of Yahweh’s love for Israel (Jewish) or Christ’s love for the Church

Your god sounds like a healthy heterosexual male who delights in mammary glands!

 

[seeking Christ]

Your god sounds like a healthy heterosexual male who delights in mammary glands!

And pomegranates, don't forget the pomegranates.

But the point is neither Jew nor Christian misses the fact that the book compares our own natural desires to the Lord's love for us, and also for the love we are to develop towards Him. (As awkward a concept as that is)

And that holy matrimony mixes all that together, and is Blessed by God. Which I believe is the OP's main point?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

*snip OP*

This is some of the worst sex and relationship advice I've ever seen. I hope you're not a youth pastor or something.

 

[jminnesota]

sex is beautiful when your married to someone you love

 

[apache1]

sex is beautiful when your married to someone you love

You are exactly right. You make a lot of sense on most of your answers

 

[apache1]

This is some of the worst sex and relationship advice I've ever seen. I hope you're not a youth pastor or something.

Even more importantly than that, I hope he isn't some aspiring cult leader(I hope I'm only joking). If your over 14 and don't want to share a husband if you are a girl you might as well give up. And be sure not to let your slip show or bare your ankles.

 

[forcedelune]

Your concept isn´t hard to understand, a tribal man can understand it, and it doesn´t require a 50+pages book to cover it.

Which is why it only took an 11 page thread.

 

[forcedelune]

equally a hundred years ago (or even less) most people (incl many in the churches) thought it perfectly fine to regard coloured people as something less than fully human, to transport (poor) people to Australia for stealing, to lock up those with mental health issues in horrendous asylums etc. And at least in the UK, marriage gave conjugal rights to a spouse, and marriage could not be revoked except by private Act of Parliament—it therefore seemed to follow that a spouse could not legally revoke consent to sexual intercourse, and if there was consent there was no rape.

Some things have changed for the worse, others for the better

The difference is that such sensitivity to women being modest in public was based on Scriptural concepts (or at least a natural sensitivity to concepts that Bible also expressed as good) and none of those things you mentioned were. There's been cultures that sacrifice their children to Molech, but what's the point. I'm simply saying that most Christians and even most of the world (in the West and the East) followed Biblical standards of modesty for women prior to our last generation. There were exceptions in the area of art and such, but nothing compared to our generation and certainly not nearly as wide spread.

And even if, in every past generation, 100% of the women were less modest than women today in the West...it still would not negate that God's Word states that women should dress modestly in public and is pretty detailed as to what that entails. I was just making a side-point to appeal to your reason a bit.

 

[forcedelune]

What he's specifically doing is telling people that they shouldn't use the term "having sex" while himself using a term that's worse. At the very least "physical act" doesn't have the ickiness.

These are my actual quotes regarding this subject. I don't consider it sinful to say "having sex"...I just don't see a Biblical precedence for it and I think it takes away from the full meaning a bit (in the context of marital intimacy). It's just my perspective and you can feel free to call your intimate experiences what you want.

No one is condemning you...I was just giving my perspective for those who might think along the same lines and benefit in their own marriage bed (so to speak). No worries. And, yes, I did use the "fleshly" word to make a point (as the Bible also uses the very same term) of how the world often presents us when discussing the subject of what "having sex" is all about. Not a term I care to use with my own wife, but I'm not afraid to say it...if that's what you're thinking.

"The world has, sadly, influenced the Church so much in this area that we often talk and act like they do (commonly saying things like "having sex" to refer to the fleshly act, using scientific/cold/flesh focused names for certain private parts of the body, focusing first on the physical rather than the spirit). Now I'm not discussing medical terminology (that's another subject), but rather within the context of marital intimacy. I'm also not saying that it is "sinful" to use such expressions...it's just not as meaningful and respectful as I feel God intended it to be."

" You see, we don't find any words in the Old or New Testaments (at least not in the original Greek/Hebrew texts) which exemplify the way the world describes certain aspects of marital intimacy (such as "having sex" or any of the specific acts that we will not even mention)."

"I know it seems very trivial to pick on words, but I believe they’re very important and that we should not just change them from their original meaning (except in the case of slang, of course). That's the whole basis of language- otherwise everyone would just come up with their own meanings for words and there would be confusion in communication. For instance, "sex" was originally a designation of male or female (not an act between them).

Yet, as far as I can tell, the "sex" word that most people use is just a short way (an abbreviation) of saying "sexual intercourse" and not the way God originally created the word to be expressed for our good. So with that being said, I can understand why people use it. That may seem fine for most, but I personally don't care to use that word in this way- it's just too sterile, casual, flesh focused, and scientific for me. I prefer to keep expressions of this experience (marital intimacy) as mysterious, deep, symbolic, spiritually focused, and sacred (very carefully and reverentially spoken of) as reasonably possible.

I don't want to speak about it in terms of this act or that act (which focuses me on the flesh rather than the heart, soul, and spirit of my mate)...I want to consider it so holy that I only "speak" of it in the most sensitive of ways. The Song of Solomon is my favorite example of this...passionate, playful, yet...so very holy."

 

[forcedelune]

As you know, lots of gay people in the general population now and out of the closet (and more still in the closet) . If you had to have a "digital exam" to try to detect colon cancer or polyps down there, would you rather have a hot looking female urologist or nurse "using the rubber glove" or a very flagrantly gay man doing it.

If my only choice was between a man who has unnatural desires for a man (according to Scripture) or a woman who has natural desires for a man...I would choose the man. You can't help if people have unnatural desires (for instance, your podiatrist may have a sexual foot fetish or your vet may be into inappropriate behavior with animals), but we are responsible to respect their natural desires...according to Scripture.

Yet, if I do have the choice of a heterosexual man or a homosexual man...I would definitely choose the heterosexual man if at all reasonably possible, because the Bible also says that if we know someone else struggles with sinful desires...we should try to not be a stumbling block for them if it is within reason to do so. [1 Corinthians 8:13]

Then again, the Bible does not command that men be modest in dress, but specifically does that women be modest in dress. Although, the Scriptures do teach that it is also a shameful thing for a man to be naked in public. Women have a different nature than men, in which such immodesty tends to naturally produce a flame in men and so the concepts do not apply the same to both sexes. That's a story for another thread, but just wanted to point that out as well.

Overall, I think what you were getting at is kind of putting us in a moral relativistic situation with no choice but to do something wrong one way or the other...like, what if your family was kidnapped by Al-CIA-da and you were given the option to either rape another family's child or have your self and your children be executed on the spot? What do you do? Please don't answer that question...it's just to make a point.

 

[forcedelune]

And be sure not to let your slip show or bare your ankles.

Are you just that ignorant as to the content I've posted on this site or are you purposely lying to other board members in some kind of character assassination attempt? I've clearly laid out what I believe are Biblically based standards of modesty...and covering your ankle or slip showing was not one of them. I actually argued specifically against that idea.

For now, I'm going to assume you were just ignorant to that fact...but you seem to be displaying a pattern with these comments about cult leaders and false accusations. It's not very becoming of a professing Christian if you are in fact using deception to slander another brother in Christ.

 

[apache1]

If my only choice was between a man who has unnatural desires for a man (according to Scripture) or a woman who has natural desires for a man...I would choose the man. You can't help if people have unnatural desires (for instance, your podiatrist may have a sexual foot fetish or your vet may be into inappropriate behavior with animals), but we are responsible to respect their natural desires...according to Scripture.

Yet, if I do have the choice of a heterosexual man or a homosexual man...I would definitely choose the heterosexual man if at all reasonably possible, because the Bible also says that if we know someone else struggles with sinful desires...we should try to not be a stumbling block for them if it is within reason to do so. [1 Corinthians 8:13]

Then again, the Bible does not command that men be modest in dress, but specifically does that women be modest in dress. Although, the Scriptures do teach that it is also a shameful thing for a man to be naked in public. Women have a different nature than men, in which such immodesty tends to naturally produce a flame in men and so the concepts do not apply the same to both sexes. That's a story for another thread, but just wanted to point that out as well.

Overall, I think what you were getting at is kind of putting us in a moral relativistic situation with no choice but to do something wrong one way or the other...like, what if your family was kidnapped by Al-CIA-da and you were given the option to either rape another family's child or have your self and your children be executed on the spot? What do you do? Please don't answer that question...it's just to make a point.

I thought so.

 

[Eudaimonist]

sex is beautiful when your married to someone you love

I have found that it is also beautiful when one isn't married to someone one loves. The love is the important part.


eudaimonia,

Mark