-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
sexual morality
- Thread starter Condemnation
- Start date
Provided they are between the two marriage partners and both consent, I can't think of anything explicitly immoral at the moment (though I can think of a lot I don't agree with). I would consider an open relationship (where both permit the other to do sexual acts with someone else) to be immoral though, but that is sex outside of the marriage (equivalents being adultry and fornication).
Upvote
0
The Bible does not to my knowledge get into specific acts within the marriage covenant.I would say two things to this,Condemnation said:
one would be neither partner should do anything they feel deep within their heart is wrong nor should their partner ask them to.
However lets also remember that one aspect to a healthy sex life in a long marriage is things being romantic and exciting so trying new things with ones spouse can be a healthy part of this.
Also remember sex between a husband and wife is moral and Godly and the pleasure it gives is something to enjoy and not something to feel guilt over.
Upvote
0
artybloke
Well-Known Member
Condemnation said:
Rape is, even when you're married to the person you're doing it to, because it's basically an act of violence against the person. Anything that doesn't involve mutual consent between adults is an act of violence against the person, and is a violation of the law of Love.
I can't think of anything else that's immoral though.
Upvote
0
Use of force, coercion, or fraud is always immoral.Condemnation said:
Indulging any desire, sexual or not, that puts a marriage at risk, particularly a marriage with children, is immoral.
Upvote
0
There's nothing immoral about sex with anyone, anywhere, as long as everyone's aware of what's going on and consenting. It's best to look to safety too, even if you are married. A lot of young women with AIDS get it from their husbands.
Upvote
0
The pleasure that comes with sex is felt outside of the "marriage covenant" too, believe it or not 
.
.
Upvote
0
HumbertHumbert said:
and
There's more to marriage than just two people bonding together: It's two families bonding together. And when children are produced by that marriage, they suffer the repurcussions of choices their parents make.HumbertHumbert said:The pleasure that comes with sex is felt outside of the "marriage covenant" too, believe it or not
It is possible to willingly, knowingly, and openly consent to something and then have regrets/recriminations afterwards. Say at the urging of one spouse, a married couple buys a house they can't really afford and end up losing it and ruining their credit. Both spouses agreed to the purchase, but if there is no forgiveness in the marriage it can be a festering sore point for years to come.
As for the pleasure of sex experienced outside of marriage, true. It's also pleasureable to hit somebody just as hard as you can and knock 'em flat on their back -- but you better not do it outside of a football game or a boxing match!
Upvote
0
so, sodomy, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and role playing are ok? I was thinking about role playing in particular... often rolls are violent or would be immoral if real (teacher-student games, for instance). does it matter that there is no real force or real age difference or whatever? isn't the desire the same thing?
Upvote
0
Condemnation said:
Yes, all of those things are ok. Role playing is fine, and often encouraged by relationship therapists as a way to bring back some of the umph to a lukewarm sex life!
...I'm not sure what you mean by 'the desire' but as long as nobody is getting hurt it's all A-OK.
Upvote
0
D
Desinov
Guest
From a non-Christian view, yes, those are all ok.Condemnation said:
And exactly how are most role-plays violent?
Upvote
0
Assuming none of the above are forced, coerced, the result of fraud, or have no detrimental effects to a marriage even if consensual, yes, they are okay.Condemnation said:
Role playing is tricky. If you are genuinely pretending your spouse is someone he/she isn't, that's bordering on adultry (and definitely adultry if you're having them pretend to be a person you fantasize about; a celebrity, for instance). On the other hand, if you're not so deep into the fantasy that you never lose sight of the fact you and your spouse are play acting the mannerisms of other people but are not the people themselves, then it's okay.
Upvote
0
Eph. 3:20
Well-Known Member
What is immoral is what breaches your love for God or love for fellow man (wife's included). God made laws in the sexual area to protect the rights of the individuals involved. Thus rape is a crime, because the rapist is taking something that is not his to take. In "role playing" if the intent is to have fun, then there's nothing wrong with it, provided your partner agrees.
All's fair provided God has not commanded against it. What God has not legislated against He permits! God made sex, God made the human body, and He made it desirable. He wants us to enjoy His creation. Have fun!
Eph. 3:20
All's fair provided God has not commanded against it. What God has not legislated against He permits! God made sex, God made the human body, and He made it desirable. He wants us to enjoy His creation. Have fun!
Eph. 3:20
Upvote
0
Eph. 3:20
Well-Known Member
Hello Buzz. I always enjoy reading your posts.
I agree.
I have to disagree here though. I don't think your definition of adultery is correct. If we look at the OT we have patriarchs going beyond "thinking" about sex outside of marriage..they actually do it! Many, many, many, had sex with their concubines and slaves all without the accusation of adultery. All of this occurred in a legal system that demanded the death penalty for those caught committing adultery! I think our modern day definition is widely accepted but not Biblical. I'll post my view of Biblical adultery in a follow up post.
IMO "role playing" would be acceptable as long as it doesn't break some kind of vow that you have made to your spouse. If you have made a vow of sexual exclusivity to your wife, I would imagine having sex with another person in your mind would come pretty close to the line. If by mutaul consent you agree to nullify that portion of the vow to each other than it becomes acceptable. The vow or covenant that was made to the other party was something that was agreed upon by both parties and was there for the protection of the relationship. God has always been about the protection of the people involved. If they come to a place where that portion of the agreement is no longer applicable, then thay can mutually agree not to bind themselves in that way. And thus it is mutually agreed that neither party will be "damaged" if they decide to go down that road.
That's why the patriarchal (men) never incurred a charge of adultery, although they had sex outside of their marriage. They had no vow of sexual exclusivity. They did commit adultery when they stole another man's wife or committed apostasy (turning away) towards their own marriage covenant. That is what is mentioned in Malachi 2:15 which is what Jesus addresses in Matt. 19:3, a divorce for any and every reason.
Eph. 3:20
Buzz Dixon said:
I agree.
Buzz Dixon said:
I have to disagree here though. I don't think your definition of adultery is correct. If we look at the OT we have patriarchs going beyond "thinking" about sex outside of marriage..they actually do it! Many, many, many, had sex with their concubines and slaves all without the accusation of adultery. All of this occurred in a legal system that demanded the death penalty for those caught committing adultery! I think our modern day definition is widely accepted but not Biblical. I'll post my view of Biblical adultery in a follow up post.
IMO "role playing" would be acceptable as long as it doesn't break some kind of vow that you have made to your spouse. If you have made a vow of sexual exclusivity to your wife, I would imagine having sex with another person in your mind would come pretty close to the line. If by mutaul consent you agree to nullify that portion of the vow to each other than it becomes acceptable. The vow or covenant that was made to the other party was something that was agreed upon by both parties and was there for the protection of the relationship. God has always been about the protection of the people involved. If they come to a place where that portion of the agreement is no longer applicable, then thay can mutually agree not to bind themselves in that way. And thus it is mutually agreed that neither party will be "damaged" if they decide to go down that road.
That's why the patriarchal (men) never incurred a charge of adultery, although they had sex outside of their marriage. They had no vow of sexual exclusivity. They did commit adultery when they stole another man's wife or committed apostasy (turning away) towards their own marriage covenant. That is what is mentioned in Malachi 2:15 which is what Jesus addresses in Matt. 19:3, a divorce for any and every reason.
Eph. 3:20
Upvote
0
Eph. 3:20
Well-Known Member
I had posted this in another conversation that was similar to ours. From this I think we can get a clear understanding of what constitutes Biblical adultery.
Sex may or may not be part of adultery.
Note:
Adultery is defined as, "To apostatize; a woman that breaks wedlock (Strong's #5003,4,5)
"Symbolically adultery is used to express unfaithfullness to covenant vows to God, who is represented as the Husband of His people." (Smith's Bible Dictionary, pgs. 21,22)
"...adultery, an adulterss." Moixalis, an adulteress, applied as an adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections from God." (A critical concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, pg. 28)
" A young man meets an "immoral woman" who is "rebellious" and "would not stay at home," (Prov. 7:7-11)
"Israel tore off her bands and lay down as a prostitute," (Jer. 2:20) This is a woman who tore off the bands of her marriage vows to give herself to another husband.
These statements demonstrate the core issue of adultery. Adultery is committed by a woman who rebels against her husband in going after sex with another man, or in other ways giving her resources to them and depending upon them., relating to them as if they were her real husband. It is adultery because the husband has not granted her freedom to have such association (according to OT concepts) and she must not breach his property rights by giving to others what he reserves for himself alone.
A man commits adultery by taking from the married woman what her husband has claimed as his sole priviledge. It is this "property rights" issue that distinguishes adultery. Strictly speaking adultery is not a sex issue. Adultery is taking what belongs to someone else, (or the intention in Matt. 5:27)
Adultery was not limited to sexual unfaithfulness. Adultery was a matter of being faithful to the marriage covenant. A man's wife could not leave him and live with him as long as she didn't have sex with the second man. Property rights came into play. Since she belonged to her husband, to leave and to go to another man was to participate in marital theft; taking the husband's property (herself, her presence, her abilities, her house keeping, cooking etc...) and giving it to another man. Because she was an accomplice to this theft, she was as guilty as the second husband and they both were to be executed. Adultery was, and is, breaking marriage, destroying the marriage bond. When a man abuses his wife physically, mentally, emotionally or financially, has he "broken covenant" with her and is an "adulterer." Has their covenant not been adulterated?
Matt. 5:32-
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, exept for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery..."
Why is she considered an adultress? She is the innocent party, yet she is refered to as an adultress, why? It is not possible that the mere act of divorcing her has made her guilty of having sex with another man. It's because she is being forced to break the marriage covenant! Sex has nothing to do with it.
Comitt adultery- Greek word- moixeuthenai (aorist tense, passive voice). The form of this word is intresting in that the passive voice puts the woman, not in the posistion of doing something, but of something being done to her. What is said here is that the woman in this case has been forcibly made a participant, not in a sex act, but in "marriage breaking." Beck's translation says, "makes her a partner in adultery." Tyndale's translation says, "causeth her to break matrimony." This makes the matter plain. Adultery is "the act of breaking marriage." The Matt. 5:32 case forces the woman against her will, to become a party in the marriage breaking. And any man that marries her is also forced to participate in "marriage breaking." Neither of them are guilty of illicit sex. The situation of unjustifiable divorce has broken marriage illegitimately, and this is what God considers "adultery."
God never voiced displeasure with multiple wives or concubines. God did however, demand that when a man married a woman that he remain married to her. He is commanded to rejoice in the wife of his youth (Prov. 5:18). It does not exclude other wives. It does mean that he is not to get rid of her in order to marry other wives. Which is the subject of the next passage.
Matt. 19:9-
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The context of this passage is clearly divorce. Jesus was commenting on the practice of men disgarding their wives for erroneous reasons. If the man leaves his wife and marries another, but does not have sex with her, has he committed adultery? Of course, [b}he has broken the marriage covenant. Sex may or not be part of the equation.[/b]
This passage is akin to Malachi 2:14, "...because you have broken faith with her, though she is you partner, the wife of your marriage covenant." This applied to a monogomous man or a polygamist man..the principle is the same. You can't ditch one wife to marry another.
Is it any secret that men were divorcing there wives for erroneous reasons? Jesus put a stop to this. It was never God's intention. The marriage covenant was a lifetime comittment "from the beginning".
If sex outside of marriage is illegal then why weren't the patriarchs of our faith ever charged over the thousands of supposed transgressions? It wasn't cultural right?...sin doesn't change with culture.
Abraham- polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
Jacob- polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
Gideon-polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
Samson-polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
David-polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
Solomon-polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
And a host of others.....
All of this occured under a law that mandated the death penalty for those invovled in adultery. These very men are held up as heroes of faith in the NT (Heb.11) Their sexual proclivilties were never called into question, except when they strayed out of the boundaries that God set for them (adultery, women that would lead them into idol worship etc...)
Notice-
King Abimelech takes Abraham's wife, Sarah, to enjoy sex with her, (Gen. 20:1-18). In a dream God warns him 'she is married." (vs.3). Abimelech's defense is that, "he said she was my sister," (vs. 45). God grants Abimelech "integrity" in taking Sarah thinking she is single, (vs. 6,7). Yet Abimelech is married, (vs. 17,18) Abimelech has integrity before God because he knows "sin" is involved in taking the sexual property of another man, (vs. 9) & He is careful to avoid sin in sexual matters.
Notice-
The 7th commandment prohibiting adultery, is in proximity to that of theft, (Ex. 20:14.14). One is forbidden to covet his neighbor's house or wife or servant or ass or other property, (Ex. 20:17). Adultery refers to a man taking, or desiring to take, a married woman from her husband. We moderns understand that adultery to be sexual activity outside the marriage by either spouse. But OT teaching proves a woman who was another man's property must not violate his property rights, yet that same man could have sex with a single woman, a prostitute, another wife, a concubine, a slave, a divorced woman or widow, without committing adultery. This fact proves beyond doubt that the sex act alone does not breach maritial status and is not adultery.
Scripture teaches adultery is theft of another man's property, or rebellion against covenant committment. This is when God is speaking metaphorically or in human actuality. The consistency between the OT and the NT is crystal clear.
Blessings,
Eph. 3:20
Sex may or may not be part of adultery.
Note:
Adultery is defined as, "To apostatize; a woman that breaks wedlock (Strong's #5003,4,5)
"Symbolically adultery is used to express unfaithfullness to covenant vows to God, who is represented as the Husband of His people." (Smith's Bible Dictionary, pgs. 21,22)
"...adultery, an adulterss." Moixalis, an adulteress, applied as an adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections from God." (A critical concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, pg. 28)
" A young man meets an "immoral woman" who is "rebellious" and "would not stay at home," (Prov. 7:7-11)
"Israel tore off her bands and lay down as a prostitute," (Jer. 2:20) This is a woman who tore off the bands of her marriage vows to give herself to another husband.
These statements demonstrate the core issue of adultery. Adultery is committed by a woman who rebels against her husband in going after sex with another man, or in other ways giving her resources to them and depending upon them., relating to them as if they were her real husband. It is adultery because the husband has not granted her freedom to have such association (according to OT concepts) and she must not breach his property rights by giving to others what he reserves for himself alone.
A man commits adultery by taking from the married woman what her husband has claimed as his sole priviledge. It is this "property rights" issue that distinguishes adultery. Strictly speaking adultery is not a sex issue. Adultery is taking what belongs to someone else, (or the intention in Matt. 5:27)
Adultery was not limited to sexual unfaithfulness. Adultery was a matter of being faithful to the marriage covenant. A man's wife could not leave him and live with him as long as she didn't have sex with the second man. Property rights came into play. Since she belonged to her husband, to leave and to go to another man was to participate in marital theft; taking the husband's property (herself, her presence, her abilities, her house keeping, cooking etc...) and giving it to another man. Because she was an accomplice to this theft, she was as guilty as the second husband and they both were to be executed. Adultery was, and is, breaking marriage, destroying the marriage bond. When a man abuses his wife physically, mentally, emotionally or financially, has he "broken covenant" with her and is an "adulterer." Has their covenant not been adulterated?
Matt. 5:32-
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, exept for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery..."
Why is she considered an adultress? She is the innocent party, yet she is refered to as an adultress, why? It is not possible that the mere act of divorcing her has made her guilty of having sex with another man. It's because she is being forced to break the marriage covenant! Sex has nothing to do with it.
Comitt adultery- Greek word- moixeuthenai (aorist tense, passive voice). The form of this word is intresting in that the passive voice puts the woman, not in the posistion of doing something, but of something being done to her. What is said here is that the woman in this case has been forcibly made a participant, not in a sex act, but in "marriage breaking." Beck's translation says, "makes her a partner in adultery." Tyndale's translation says, "causeth her to break matrimony." This makes the matter plain. Adultery is "the act of breaking marriage." The Matt. 5:32 case forces the woman against her will, to become a party in the marriage breaking. And any man that marries her is also forced to participate in "marriage breaking." Neither of them are guilty of illicit sex. The situation of unjustifiable divorce has broken marriage illegitimately, and this is what God considers "adultery."
God never voiced displeasure with multiple wives or concubines. God did however, demand that when a man married a woman that he remain married to her. He is commanded to rejoice in the wife of his youth (Prov. 5:18). It does not exclude other wives. It does mean that he is not to get rid of her in order to marry other wives. Which is the subject of the next passage.
Matt. 19:9-
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The context of this passage is clearly divorce. Jesus was commenting on the practice of men disgarding their wives for erroneous reasons. If the man leaves his wife and marries another, but does not have sex with her, has he committed adultery? Of course, [b}he has broken the marriage covenant. Sex may or not be part of the equation.[/b]
This passage is akin to Malachi 2:14, "...because you have broken faith with her, though she is you partner, the wife of your marriage covenant." This applied to a monogomous man or a polygamist man..the principle is the same. You can't ditch one wife to marry another.
Is it any secret that men were divorcing there wives for erroneous reasons? Jesus put a stop to this. It was never God's intention. The marriage covenant was a lifetime comittment "from the beginning".
If sex outside of marriage is illegal then why weren't the patriarchs of our faith ever charged over the thousands of supposed transgressions? It wasn't cultural right?...sin doesn't change with culture.
Abraham- polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
Jacob- polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
Gideon-polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
Samson-polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
David-polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
Solomon-polygamist and concubinist-no divine sensure anywhere.
And a host of others.....
All of this occured under a law that mandated the death penalty for those invovled in adultery. These very men are held up as heroes of faith in the NT (Heb.11) Their sexual proclivilties were never called into question, except when they strayed out of the boundaries that God set for them (adultery, women that would lead them into idol worship etc...)
Notice-
King Abimelech takes Abraham's wife, Sarah, to enjoy sex with her, (Gen. 20:1-18). In a dream God warns him 'she is married." (vs.3). Abimelech's defense is that, "he said she was my sister," (vs. 45). God grants Abimelech "integrity" in taking Sarah thinking she is single, (vs. 6,7). Yet Abimelech is married, (vs. 17,18) Abimelech has integrity before God because he knows "sin" is involved in taking the sexual property of another man, (vs. 9) & He is careful to avoid sin in sexual matters.
Notice-
The 7th commandment prohibiting adultery, is in proximity to that of theft, (Ex. 20:14.14). One is forbidden to covet his neighbor's house or wife or servant or ass or other property, (Ex. 20:17). Adultery refers to a man taking, or desiring to take, a married woman from her husband. We moderns understand that adultery to be sexual activity outside the marriage by either spouse. But OT teaching proves a woman who was another man's property must not violate his property rights, yet that same man could have sex with a single woman, a prostitute, another wife, a concubine, a slave, a divorced woman or widow, without committing adultery. This fact proves beyond doubt that the sex act alone does not breach maritial status and is not adultery.
Scripture teaches adultery is theft of another man's property, or rebellion against covenant committment. This is when God is speaking metaphorically or in human actuality. The consistency between the OT and the NT is crystal clear.
Blessings,
Eph. 3:20
Upvote
0
I believe that it is sinful to have sex outside of marriage. It is also wrong to do anything with your wife sexually that she doesn't like, or to hurt her when having sex. That is not showing respect to your wife.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
