searching for a wife on yahoo

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



red g jacks
any takers?

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-.qtJYXA8eqhltjrW6Xuq.KvKoh4OE6UF

my favorite excerpt

CaptainStoic
You my friend have leaned on your own understanding, and in turn got it wrong. The bible says that you should "not" have sex with your spouse to the point of saturation, you should meditate on the lord more than you are given to have sex.... why? Because you defile your relationship with not just your spouse, but with God as well, and in doing so you open the door for lust to creep into your beautiful camp, sometimes abstinence is the best policy even in marriage. When the doorway to lust is opened in your relationship, oftentimes it lures strangers into it as well.

Going off topic a little... most women are the more sexual of the two, and not to seem sexist, but it is the mans job to get control of himself, and not give in to the temptation of sleeping with is wife seven days per week.... men should try their best to go without, and will therefore be more appreciated, because a woman can say that she wants to have sex, but often when she gets what she wants... well let's just say that the thrill is gone.

You should reread the bible and if you are confused about something, you should bring it up with someone that knows better.

The bible also clearly states that a whore can be both a man or a women.... it says that a whore is a person that has left their first estate for the notion of something better. This could also be an organization IE a church that has fallen away from it's first love, for the notion or idea of something better this is what the bible considers to be a whore.

Choose your words carefully, because sometimes ignorance is not bliss.

Biff Tannen
I can see why his ex divorced him.

jaden101
haha..that's brilliant...i like how he's all prim and proper until the bit about bondage and sadomasichism

shiv
HO HO HO

sithsaber408
roll eyes (sarcastic)

That first part is right about giving yourselves to each other and not withholding out of spite or to accomplish something.

But the second part is horsecrap. The bible is clear in many places that a man shouldn't have an affair/commit adultery. If he does, it's sin and his fault. "Beware the adulterous woman, do not go into her house. That way leads to death." (paraprahsed)


The guy who wrote that little rant has no game. stick out tongue

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
roll eyes (sarcastic)

That first part is right about giving yourselves to each other and not withholding out of spite or to accomplish something.

But the second part is horsecrap. The bible is clear in many places that a man shouldn't have an affair/commit adultery. If he does, it's sin and his fault. "Beware the adulterous woman, do not go into her house. That way leads to death." (paraprahsed)


The guy who wrote that little rant has no game. stick out tongue

You realize...the impact church is a schismatic sect and in a grave state of sin?

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
roll eyes (sarcastic)

That first part is right about giving yourselves to each other and not withholding out of spite or to accomplish something.


I'm sorry....

you are of the opinion that a woman who is not interested in sex MUST give herself to her husband if he wants it?

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry....

you are of the opinion that a woman who is not interested in sex MUST give herself to her husband if he wants it?

For any Christian, they should see rape as spitting in the face of God.

inimalist
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
For any Christian, they should see rape as spitting in the face of God.

I'd hope so, hence why I asked for clarification before asserting he was proposing institutional rape

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry....

you are of the opinion that a woman who is not interested in sex MUST give herself to her husband if he wants it?

That wouldn't be out of spite. That would be a genuine, "I'm really just not in the mood" and so it wouldn't fall inside what he was suggesting.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry....

you are of the opinion that a woman who is not interested in sex MUST give herself to her husband if he wants it?

Yeah. And vice-versa.

It's a whole concept about being "one flesh" that isn't apparent in secular marriages.

Your finances, your home, your descisions, your bodies,...you are one. You don't have ownership over yourself anymore, you joined with another person. (and they don't have ownership overthemselves anymore)

Note: if the woman is sick or tired or has a headache or whatever, that's understandable. I'm not talking about that.

But if she's good, and he's good, and he wants to have sex, it's her place to do it.

Same thing, if the guy came home from a long day at work and is tired and the wife wants it (or maybe oral sex, something that women love as well)...well, the guy better get himself cleaned up and ready to go.

Unless, as stated by the first posters quote, it's mutually agreed upon for a time to get closer to God.Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You realize...the impact church is a schismatic sect and in a grave state of sin? O Rly?

We believe in the Bible, in God the Father and Creator, in Jesus His Son the saviour, and in the Holy Spirit. Everything we believe comes straight from scripture.

Probably a convo for PM or the religion forum, but why do you say that?

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
O Rly?

We believe in the Bible, in God the Father and Creator, in Jesus His Son the saviour, and in the Holy Spirit. Everything we believe comes straight from scripture.

Probably a convo for PM or the religion forum, but why do you say that?

Just to wind you up, anyway giving lip service is one thing...

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That wouldn't be out of spite. That would be a genuine, "I'm really just not in the mood" and so it wouldn't fall inside what he was suggesting.

that doesn't come through very clearly in this:



I guess sith does just refer to spite, though he does say this part is correct. again, why I asked for a clarification before saying he is proposing rape

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But if she's good, and he's good, and he wants to have sex, it's her place to do it.

so, if the only reason a woman has for not wanting sex is that she, lets say, is pissed of at her husband and doesn't want to out of spite, she HAS to?

sithsaber408
Originally posted by inimalist
that doesn't come through very clearly in this:



I guess sith does just refer to spite, though he does say this part is correct. again, why I asked for a clarification before saying he is proposing rape

Well, yes and no.

I'm referring to spite, but to me it's spite if the woman is feeling okay (not sick or headache or anything), has nothing pressing to do and is just hanging around the house that night, and the husband wants to have sex and she says no.

She needs to GET herself in the mood. It's part of being a wife.

Note: it is the wise husband who is romantic enough to make dinner, bring flowers, give a massage or a bath, engage in foreplay, etc... to make his wife more open to having sex.

But even if he doesn't, if she can and won't, that's spite.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
that doesn't come through very clearly in this:

Yeah that's pretty damned creepy. However, I would point it seems to be a result of that manner of "marriage contract" not a general rule for interaction between men a women (voluntary contracts like that do exist, many of them even more explicitly in favor of one side). But it's possible I'm looking for positive in what's written there, if it supposed to mean that a woman (or man) must be totally subservient in order to be a good spouse it's pretty sick.

Bardock42
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yeah. And vice-versa.

It's a whole concept about being "one flesh" that isn't apparent in secular marriages.

Your finances, your home, your descisions, your bodies,...you are one. You don't have ownership over yourself anymore, you joined with another person. (and they don't have ownership overthemselves anymore)

Note: if the woman is sick or tired or has a headache or whatever, that's understandable. I'm not talking about that.

But if she's good, and he's good, and he wants to have sex, it's her place to do it.

Same thing, if the guy came home from a long day at work and is tired and the wife wants it (or maybe oral sex, something that women love as well)...well, the guy better get himself cleaned up and ready to go.

Unless, as stated by the first posters quote, it's mutually agreed upon for a time to get closer to God.

Ridiculous. Why is only the desire to have sex, but not the wish not to have it at the time to be considered under your idiotic rules?

Did you somehow not think that one through at all?

What if your wife wanted to shit in your mouth, but you didn't. Whose "want" wins? And why? Randomly, or does God have exact rules written down somewhere.

****, you fundies are so delusionally insane and stupid, I can't get over it.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd hope so, hence why I asked for clarification before asserting he was proposing institutional rape

I would think, in terms of Christian theology, that Rape should be seen as one of the worse forms of assault. In the sense that it totally ignores rules on marriage and defies the apparent design of male/female unity...

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
She needs to GET herself in the mood. It's part of being a wife.

so, does this qualify as proof of the emancipation of women by religious dogma?

inimalist
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I would think, in terms of Christian theology, that Rape should be seen as one of the worse forms of assault. In the sense that it totally ignores rules on marriage and defies the apparent design of male/female unity...

indeed

I'm finding this hard to reconcile with the "has to get herself in the mood" mentality however

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But even if he doesn't, if she can and won't, that's spite.

so, in your opinion, is it that a) consent is not needed for sex with your wife or b) someone who isn't consenting for reasons you don't approve of is actually consenting?

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by inimalist
indeed

I'm finding this hard to reconcile with the "has to get herself in the mood" mentality however
I have no idea what hes talking about...what passages of the Bible is he using to support this view?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I have no idea what hes talking about...what passages of the Bible is he using to support this view?

"Goeth forteth and rapeth your wifeth", maybe.

inimalist
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I have no idea what hes talking about...what passages of the Bible is he using to support this view?

pffffft... asking the wrong person that one

I got to the begats and put the bible down with frustration

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ridiculous. Why is only the desire to have sex, but not the wish not to have it at the time to be considered under your idiotic rules?

Did you somehow not think that one through at all?

What if your wife wanted to shit in your mouth, but you didn't. Whose "want" wins? And why? Randomly, or does God have exact rules written down somewhere.

****, you fundies are so delusionally insane and stupid, I can't get over it.

I'm going by what the Bible says, that's all.

It does say that we BOTH aren't to refuse each other. We are one flesh now, we don't just do whatever we want, when we want. We consider our marriage partner. (or NOT do what we don't want)

Just because I may have had a long day at work as a construction worker, tired and in the sun, and want nothing more than to eat and sleep, doesn't mean that I deny my wife if she's in the mood.

I have to prefer her over myself.

I don't expect you to agree, but that's the point. We're talking about what the bible says about marriage, not what the world thinks.

It also gives WAY more time and verses to saying that the man is to be like Christ and his love for the church: giving up everything, to the point of death if necessary, for his wife.

The man is to provide for her, make her happy, be a security for her and a support, love her unconditionally, be patient, kind, (all the nine qualities of love expressed in the New Testament) and be willing to love her more than his own body.

If the husband is fulfilling his role and not some jerk who comes home and plops his feet on the table asking for his dinner then wanting sex, why would a woman want to refuse him in the first place?


Men have alot to do in this area, by actually living as the bible instructs them to as husbands, then they create a much better atmosphere for sex with their wives.

But the point remains: if you're really going to live your life according to the Bible, then sex in marriage is what you do. Unless sick or in the middle of some very important matters that have to be dealt with, you don't have the right to deny your spouse (husband or wife), for the reason of "I just don't want to."

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Bardock42
"Goeth forteth and rapeth your wifeth", maybe.

Ahh, a popular verse in the Evangelical Foundation.

sithsaber408

Bardock42
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm going by what the Bible says, that's all.

Couldn't you choose a wiser and more moral book, instead?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It does say that we BOTH aren't to refuse each other. We are one flesh now, we don't just do whatever we want, when we want. We consider our marriage partner. (or NOT do what we don't want)

Dude, you moron, not wanting and wanting is pretty much the same. So, you want to have sex, but your wife wants to sit on the couch and watch TV, which want wins? Why? One flesh you say, why just one flesh when you want to bang your wife?


Originally posted by sithsaber408
Just because I may have had a long day at work as a construction worker, tired and in the sun, and want nothing more than to eat and sleep, doesn't mean that I deny my wife if she's in the mood.

See, you want to eat and to sleep. Your wife wants sex. Why does sex take precedent. If you are "one flesh", she must be quite hungry and tired as well.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I have to prefer her over myself.

And she has to prefer you, over herself, doesn't she? So you are going to eat and sleep, not have sex, right?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I don't expect you to agree, but that's the point. We're talking about what the bible says about marriage, not what the world thinks.

No, we are talking about your stupidity involving that book you like so much. What you said can be applied to anything, you just apply it to sex though. Probably because you can't reason beyond anything your pastor told you.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It also gives WAY more time and verses to saying that the man is to be like Christ and his love for the church: giving up everything, to the point of death if necessary, for his wife.

Also giving up sex? In case the partner doesn't want it?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
The man is to provide for her, make her happy, be a security for her and a support, love her unconditionally, be patient, kind, (all the nine qualities of love expressed in the New Testament) and be willing to love her more than his own body.

You are always talking about the wife wanting the sex, is that some little trick you learn in brainwashing school? Look, the scenario is, you want to **** your wife, she wants to do something else instead. What happens? Why?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
If the husband is fulfilling his role and not some jerk who comes home and plops his feet on the table asking for his dinner then wanting sex, why would a woman want to refuse him in the first place?

Thousands of reasons. But are you saying that if the guy is some jerk she may refuse him?

Originally posted by sithsaber408

Men have alot to do in this area, by actually living as the bible instructs them to as husbands, then they create a much better atmosphere for sex with their wives.

Blah, blah.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
But the point remains: if you're really going to live your life according to the Bible, then sex in marriage is what you do. Unless sick or in the middle of some very important matters that have to be dealt with, you don't have the right to deny your spouse (husband or wife), for the reason of "I just don't want to."

Where's the list of what matters are more important than sex? Please give me the complete list, signed by God.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Again, it's the bible and I dont' expect people with a secular viewpoint to agree. But that's how a person would live their marriage out if they were truly trying to follow the biblical guidelines.

6 I say those things to you as my advice, not as a command. 7 I wish all of you were like me. But you each have your own gift from God. One has this gift. Another has that.

He is talking to the Corinthians about how to avoid sexual sins- i.e. sleeping with another man or woman.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
6 I say those things to you as my advice, not as a command. 7 I wish all of you were like me. But you each have your own gift from God. One has this gift. Another has that.

He is talking to the Corinthians about how to avoid sexual sins- i.e. sleeping with another man or woman. I start to like you, you insane fundamentalist pig.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Bardock42
I start to like you, you insane fundamentalist pig.

Im a fundamentalist?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Im a fundamentalist?

Catholic - fundamentalist, all looks the same from the outside.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
6 I say those things to you as my advice, not as a command. 7 I wish all of you were like me. But you each have your own gift from God. One has this gift. Another has that.

He is talking to the Corinthians about how to avoid sexual sins- i.e. sleeping with another man or woman.

Indeed he is. And in wanting to have good, healthy marriages that are avoiding sexual sins (or temptations), we follow the advice of the apostle Paul and fulfill each others needs and give authority of ourselves over to each other.

The scripture doesn't say, "Oh, and this word is only for these Corinthians in this place, at this time."

Rather, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

inimalist
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
6 I say those things to you as my advice, not as a command. 7 I wish all of you were like me. But you each have your own gift from God. One has this gift. Another has that.

He is talking to the Corinthians about how to avoid sexual sins- i.e. sleeping with another man or woman.

lol

that sounds a little better...

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Bardock42
Catholic - fundamentalist, all looks the same from the outside.

Haha, fair enough.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Indeed he is. And in wanting to have good, healthy marriages that are avoiding sexual sins (or temptations), we follow the advice of the apostle Paul and fulfill each others needs and give authority of ourselves over to each other.

The scripture doesn't say, "Oh, and this word is only for these Corinthians in this place, at this time."

Rather, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Oh really...well this is interesting...Paul said he was just giving them advice not a command...he then advises that it would be better for man to be celibate than engage in marriage...so, have any male members of your congregation tried celibacy?

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Indeed he is. And in wanting to have good, healthy marriages that are avoiding sexual sins (or temptations), we follow the advice of the apostle Paul and fulfill each others needs and give authority of ourselves over to each other.


does a man need consent from his wife before having sex with her?

are their invalid reasons for not giving consent?

if a woman gives an invalid reason for not giving consent, can the man then force her to?

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Haha, fair enough.



Oh really...well this is interesting...Paul said he was just giving them advice not a command...he then advises that it would be better for man to be celibate than engage in marriage...so, have any male members of your congregation tried celibacy?

Nope. (well, the teens do until they're in their early-mid 20's and get married)

Paul also acknowledges at the beginning of the passage that:

"Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. 2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband."

And the very next words he writes are about fulfilling each other and giving each other authority over our bodies.

So we haven't got any celibate people, just ones that are in loving, committed marriages that avoid sexual dissatisfaction and temptation because they are full of sex!

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by inimalist
does a man need consent from his wife before having sex with her?

are their invalid reasons for not giving consent?

if a woman gives an invalid reason for not giving consent, can the man then force her to?

From what Saint Paul says, he does- he says, in my interpretation, that sex is an act of deepest love and unity that the man and woman should always be willing to share with each other- he is also saying that they should utilize this love to protect their other half from falling into sin, by say going off to sleep with another person.

However, that doesn't mean that they should therefore always submit to each other- infact it says they MUST agree.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by inimalist
does a man need consent from his wife before having sex with her?

are their invalid reasons for not giving consent?

if a woman gives an invalid reason for not giving consent, can the man then force her to?

1.) Yes, of course

2.) Yup. "I don't feel like it" is an invalid one, if you take that scripture at face value. Sickness, caring for a child or some other important obligation (stuck late at work) would be valid reasons.

3.) No. He should prefer her over his own body and deal with it.

Listen, I'm not advocating rape here. What I would say is that she's not being a caring and considerate wife if she can have sex, is feeling great, and just won't.

She certainly isn't living according to the Bible and if a Christian in a Christian marriage, should have the issue looked at in counseling.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Nope. (well, the teens do until they're in their early-mid 20's and get married)

Paul also acknowledges at the beginning of the passage that:

"Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. 2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband."

And the very next words he writes are about fulfilling each other and giving each other authority over our bodies.

So we haven't got any celibate people, just ones that are in loving, committed marriages that avoid sexual dissatisfaction and temptation because they are full of sex!

He also says, "I wish all of you were like me. But you each have your own gift from God. One has this gift. Another has that." Surely someone in your congregation has the same gife? Or is at least willing to try?

inimalist
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
From what Saint Paul says, he does- he says, in my interpretation, that sex is an act of deepest love and unity that the man and woman should always be willing to share with each other- he is also saying that they should utilize this love to protect their other half from falling into sin, by say going off to sleep with another person.

However, that doesn't mean that they should therefore always submit to each other- infact it says they MUST agree.

I can't say I agree, as my interpretation of scripture is worthless and my personal views on sexuality aren't those of the bible, I understand and respect that view in the highest. From the passage, I can see how a non-literal, or even a literal, interpretation can be, in fact, a potentially beautiful statement about the commitment of a man and a woman to each other. Especially given the polygamy of the time (I'm assuming), this can be seen in a very pro-woman light.

However, I can also see how, if one selectively takes just the lines 3-5, it can be used as justification for rape. I'm really interested in SS's take on how consent works in that passage, because it appears that he is saying it is irrelevant, unless the wife has a darn good reason for it.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
From what Saint Paul says, he does- he says, in my interpretation, that sex is an act of deepest love and unity that the man and woman should always be willing to share with each other- he is also saying that they should utilize this love to protect their other half from falling into sin, by say going off to sleep with another person.

However, that doesn't mean that they should therefore always submit to each other- infact it says they MUST agree.

He says that they MUST agree to withold from each other. So if the man isn't in agreement then she's wrong to withold. I didn't read anything in that scripture about them having to be in agreement about having sex, rather that they shouldn't deny each other but fulfill each other.Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
He also says, "I wish all of you were like me. But you each have your own gift from God. One has this gift. Another has that." Surely someone in your congregation has the same gife? Or is at least willing to try? Maybe so.

That's a good point.

It doesn't change what Paul said about marriage and sex though.

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
1.) Yes, of course

2.) Yup. "I don't feel like it" is an invalid one, if you take that scripture at face value. Sickness, caring for a child or some other important obligation (stuck late at work) would be valid reasons.

3.) No. He should prefer her over his own body and deal with it.

Listen, I'm not advocating rape here. What I would say is that she's not being a caring and considerate wife if she can have sex, is feeling great, and just won't.

She certainly isn't living according to the Bible and if a Christian in a Christian marriage, should have the issue looked at in counseling.

so if the woman does not allow her husband sex at any time she is physically able and has no other time commitments, she is committing sin?

excuse me for the questions, as to me, the whole "when is ok to have sex with someone" is not nearly this complex.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by inimalist
I can't say I agree, as my interpretation of scripture is worthless and my personal views on sexuality aren't those of the bible, I understand and respect that view in the highest. From the passage, I can see how a non-literal, or even a literal, interpretation can be, in fact, a potentially beautiful statement about the commitment of a man and a woman to each other. Especially given the polygamy of the time (I'm assuming), this can be seen in a very pro-woman light.

However, I can also see how, if one selectively takes just the lines 3-5, it can be used as justification for rape. I'm really interested in SS's take on how consent works in that passage, because it appears that he is saying it is irrelevant, unless the wife has a darn good reason for it.

Yes, you have identified one of the biggest problems with the bible- interpretation and selective referencing. However, there is nothing we can really do about it.

I want to know why he isn't going to give Celibacy a chance...since Paul clearly holds it in high regard and as SS said: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
He says that they MUST agree to withold from each other. So if the man isn't in agreement then she's wrong to withold. I didn't read anything in that scripture about them having to be in agreement about having sex, rather that they shouldn't deny each other but fulfill each other. Maybe so.

It works both ways- it is about total unity of love and the need to protect each other from sin. However, if the woman doesn't want to have sex and the man is lusting- then HE is the one in the graver state of sin. Remember what Christ had to say about lust?

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
so if the woman does not allow her husband sex at any time she is physically able and has no other time commitments, she is committing sin?

excuse me for the questions, as to me, the whole "when is ok to have sex with someone" is not nearly this complex.

I also still don't have the exact list of reasons sex is not necessary to perform in a given situation. I get the "I just don't want it" one is apparently not good enough, and the "I am sick" one is. What about the "I really want to see this on TV", the "I got to cook dinner" or the "My vagina hurts a bit at the moment" ones? And where could I read it up when in doubt?

sithsaber408
Originally posted by inimalist
so if the woman does not allow her husband sex at any time she is physically able and has no other time commitments, she is committing sin?

excuse me for the questions, as to me, the whole "when is ok to have sex with someone" is not nearly this complex.

If she feels fine physically and isn't busy with things and "wont allow" her husband to have sex?

Well, she's not being a good wife. Is that a sin?

He's not being a good husband by being kind, gentle, and getting her in the mood either. Is that a sin?

I'd say that both are.

And husbands and wives wrong each other all the time.

Look, there are times when my wife and I don't have sex because she's tired and not in the mood. And I do my part by being understanding, preferring her over myself, and loving her more than I love my own body.

There are other times where she's tired and not in the mood but will allow me to romance her and she becomes turned on and gets in the mood.

If my interpretation of the scripture to fullfill one another and not deny one another but give authority of your body over to the other is correct, then the second way is best.

But it's never right or ok to be perfectly fine, not tired, not busy, and just refuse to have sex with each other, "just because."

At least not according to the bible.

(luckily for me, my wife and I have yet to feel that way about each other. )

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
(luckily for me, my wife and I have yet to feel that way about each other. )

Do you love your wife more than Jesus?

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well, she's not being a good wife. Is that a sin?

He's not being a good husband by being kind, gentle, and getting her in the mood either. Is that a sin?


thats actually what I'm asking you...

So, let me ask this in another way. Pretend me and my girlfriend are married Christians.

Now, say I'm in the mood, and she isn't. I do all the things I know that normally turn her on, like a good husband would, and she still isn't feeling it. You are telling me, that she is, I don't know, pissing off God in some way by not having sex? God requires of her to sleep with me if I perform seduction techniques A, B and C, because thats what God requires of a man when he is horny?

Like, i would be justified in calling my wife a "bad wife" for not sleeping with me in that scenario. Pretend I'm trying really hard to turn her on too.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Do you love your wife more than Jesus?

No. I love her more than myself, which is the SAME as Jesus loved the church.

It goes like this:

1.) God (Jesus)

2.) Family (wife/kids)

3.) Ministry

4.) community

5.) SelfOriginally posted by Bardock42
I also still don't have the exact list of reasons sex is not necessary to perform in a given situation. I get the "I just don't want it" one is apparently not good enough, and the "I am sick" one is. What about the "I really want to see this on TV", the "I got to cook dinner" or the "My vagina hurts a bit at the moment" ones? And where could I read it up when in doubt? I don't have an exact list but use your common sense. When would you say that you "deny" somebody?

When you're sick? No. When you have really pressing business that has to be done? No. When you want to watch TV? YES. When you have to cook? No. (but after the meal is done if there's nothing going on then yes) If you have vaginal pains? Obviously not. That's not denial, it's common sense.

Does that help at all?Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav



It works both ways- it is about total unity of love and the need to protect each other from sin. However, if the woman doesn't want to have sex and the man is lusting- then HE is the one in the graver state of sin. Remember what Christ had to say about lust? One thing: I agree about paul saying there is unity of love and protecting each other from sin. He goes further in the book to say that love is patient, love is kind, long suffering, keeps no record of wrongs, etc..

But you still didn't show me anywhere in the scripture where it says that husband and wife MUST agree to have sex together. All I read is that they MUST be in agreement to abstain. And that if not, they are not to deny each other.

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
When you're sick? No. When you have really pressing business that has to be done? No. When you want to watch TV? YES. When you have to cook? No. (but after the meal is done if there's nothing going on then yes) If you have vaginal pains? Obviously not. That's not denial, it's common sense.


im sorry, no, these crazy regulations do not get to be passed off as common sense

you know what is common sense? having consent.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
No. I love her more than myself, which is the SAME as Jesus loved the church.

It goes like this:

1.) God (Jesus)

2.) Family (wife/kids)

3.) Ministry

4.) community

5.) Self

So, why don't you give celibacy a try?


Originally posted by sithsaber408
But you still didn't show me anywhere in the scripture where it says that husband and wife MUST agree to have sex together. All I read is that they MUST be in agreement to abstain. And that if not, they are not to deny each other.

Its logical- if one of them says they are not having sex the other can either kick up a fuss about it and say they have a right to sex or they can put into practice that love Paul was talking about and agree not to have sex. Remember when Paul said they should protect each other from sin? If the husband wants to stay true to that he will agree with his wife whenever she does not want to have sex.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by inimalist
thats actually what I'm asking you...

So, let me ask this in another way. Pretend me and my girlfriend are married Christians.

Now, say I'm in the mood, and she isn't. I do all the things I know that normally turn her on, like a good husband would, and she still isn't feeling it. You are telling me, that she is, I don't know, pissing off God in some way by not having sex? God requires of her to sleep with me if I perform seduction techniques A, B and C, because thats what God requires of a man when he is horny?

Like, i would be justified in calling my wife a "bad wife" for not sleeping with me in that scenario. Pretend I'm trying really hard to turn her on too.

And that scenario does happen.

Yes, she's sinning. Should you stone her for it?

Uhhhh.....no. It's not any bigger of a sin than you cursing if you stub your toe on a rock. It's all equal in God's eyes. And he's forgiven you anyway.

I know that most people don't live it out all time. But the point that I was making is that the opening post was right and wrong.

Right in that it's true husbands and wives are to give of themselves to each other and not deny sex.

Wrong that if the man has an affair it's her fault. That's where choice comes in. He chooses to go out an have an affair if he wants to.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So, why don't you give celibacy a try?




Its logical- if one of them says they are not having sex the other can either kick up a fuss about it and say they have a right to sex or they can put into practice that love Paul was talking about and agree not to have sex. Remember when Paul said they should protect each other from sin? If the husband wants to stay true to that he will agree with his wife whenever she does not want to have sex.
1.) Because I'm already married. I now have a duty to my wife not to deny her.


2.) That may be "logical" but it's not scriptural. The one of them can't just decide to not have sex, they both have to agree to it. It's not the other partners "choice" to get mad or agree. If they are going to abstain, it's a mutual, agreed upon choice. Otherwise they are not to deny each other, as they don't have authority over their own bodies anymore. THAT'S what's in the Word.

Be careful that you are not adding to the Word.

"5 Every word of God proves true. He is a shield to all who come to him for protection.6 Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you and expose you as a liar." Prov. 30: 5-6

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
1.) Because I'm already married. I now have a duty to my wife not to deny her.


2.) That may be "logical" but it's not scriptural. The one of them can't just decide to not have sex, they both have to agree to it. It's not the other partners "choice" to get mad or agree. If they are going to abstain, it's a mutual, agreed upon choice. Otherwise they are not to deny each other, as they don't have authority over their own bodies anymore. THAT'S what's in the Word.

Be careful that you are not adding to the Word.

"5 Every word of God proves true. He is a shield to all who come to him for protection.6 Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you and expose you as a liar." Prov. 30: 5-6

Don't quote scripture to me- you through the right to do so when chopped Matthew 16 our your theology.

Its basic-
Wife doesn't want to have sex.
Man does want to have sex.
Man and Wife must protect each other from sin.
Wife is in state of sin for not wanting sex.
Man must agree to not have sex.

Its soo simple and straight forward and also totally irrelevant, because it is ADVICE not a command.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Don't quote scripture to me- you through the right to do so when chopped Matthew 16 our your theology.

Its basic-
Wife doesn't want to have sex.
Man does want to have sex.
Man and Wife must protect each other from sin.
Wife is in state of sin for not wanting sex.
Man must agree to not have sex.

Its soo simple and straight forward and also totally irrelevant, because it is ADVICE not a command.

Okay Matt 16 is about Pharisees demanding a sign, the yeast of the pharisees, Jesus declaring peter is the rock of the church, and Jesus predicting his death. Not that I have the whole chapter memorized word for word, but what are you talking about?

So according to you, the wife is in sin for not wanting sex, and the husband should join her?

Again, where is that in the Bible?

And it may be advice, but it's the Bible. It's breathed by the Spirit of God and ALL of it is good for teaching, reproof, or correction.

You know it's truth.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Okay Matt 16 is about Pharisees demanding a sign, the yeast of the pharisees, Jesus declaring peter is the rock of the church, and Jesus predicting his death. Not that I have the whole chapter memorized word for word, but what are you talking about?

So according to you, the wife is in sin for not wanting sex, and the husband should join her?

Again, where is that in the Bible?

And it may be advice, but it's the Bible. It's breathed by the Spirit of God and ALL of it is good for teaching, reproof, or correction.

You know it's truth.

You say the wife is in sin if she does not want sex when the husband does want sex- the only way to stop that from being a sin is for the husband to restrain himself and agree.

In that case, why aren't you reccomending celibacy?

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You say the wife is in sin if she does not want sex when the husband does want sex- the only way to stop that from being a sin is for the husband to restrain himself and agree.





Again, where is that in the scripture?

The other way to stop that from being sin is to obey the scripture and not deny each other.

See, they both work, but mine is from the Bible whereas yours is a good idea. Good ideas are not always "God ideas."

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Again, where is that in the scripture?

The other way to stop that from being sin is to obey the scripture and not deny each other.

See, they both work, but mine is from the Bible whereas yours is a good idea. Good ideas are not always "God ideas."

Read Corinthians again. Paul clearly says they should get married to avoid sin. He then says they shouldn't deny each other sex- to avoid sin. Therefore if they are going to avoid sin, the husband would be better to agree to the wife's wish to not have sex.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Read Corinthians again. Paul clearly says they should get married to avoid sin. He then says they shouldn't deny each other sex- to avoid sin. Therefore if they are going to avoid sin, the wife would be better to agree to the husband's wish to have sex.

Fixed. stick out tongue

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Fixed. stick out tongue

But, if she isn't going to, then the husband should concede.

I also think that it only refers to stopping a man going off and having an affair.

sithsaber408
You're interpetation isn't based on what's there. You are saying:

1.) Get married to avoid sin.

2.) Don't deny to avoid sin.

3.) Wife wants to deny (sin), so husband should go along with it.

The bible doesn't say that. YOU are saying that and implying that it's what Paul meant.

All I get from paul is "Your bodies are not under your authority anymore."

Not, "well, if she's in sin you should give her the authority of her body back and give in."


Note: In the end, of course the man is to give in and prefer his wife over himself, and love her more than he does his own body. But that isn't living according to the Bible nor being a good spouse, according to the bible. (on the part of the wife)

In fact, it would be a direct contradiction of it, wheras the husband would be living in accordance with the Word by preferring her.

I think this is often how the situation resolves itself. stick out tongue

My point was that "technically", the opening poster was right (in the first part) that it's sin if the woman is denying him sex for no good reason, or is using it as leverage to achieve some goal.

I did enjoy talking with you about this, and hope you know that I'm not trying to brow-beat you or put you down. I'm only interested at getting to the heart of what the truest, most literal application of the Word is.

Cheers!

Grand_Moff_Gav
I still think that if the woman isn't going to have sex the man should therefore agree- her from sin.

To be really honest, I don't think it is sinful for a woman to deny her husband sex, there is something in the back of my mind about this passage but I can't remember what...

Anyway, you didn't answer the question about Celibacy.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I still think that if the woman isn't going to have sex the man should therefore agree- her from sin.

To be really honest, I don't think it is sinful for a woman to deny her husband sex, there is something in the back of my mind about this passage but I can't remember what...

Anyway, you didn't answer the question about Celibacy.

1.) Well, yeah that's what usually ends up happening if the woman refuses. The man shouldn't force her. My point is that it's wrong for her to do that even she's feeling good and has no reason not to.

2.) To be really honest, the Bible disagrees with what you "think" or what "is in the back of your mind". The Word is clear that wives (and husbands) are not to deny each other unless they both agree to it and that each other gives up authority over their own body when they get married. Again, people still go against this, but it is sinful.

3.) Celibacy is great and I agree 100% that it will bring you closer to God than being married. I also agree with Paul that it's better to marry than to burn with lust and that celibacy (like prophecy or tongues) is a gift and not everybody has it. I certainly don't, and it's a rare person indeed who posesses that gift in a way that they aren't consumed with lust but rather live a deeper, fuller life in relationship with God and not with a spouse.

Cheers!

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by sithsaber408
1.) Well, yeah that's what usually ends up happening if the woman refuses. The man shouldn't force her. My point is that it's wrong for her to do that even she's feeling good and has no reason not to.
Well, what qualifies a good reason? Surely if a woman says she doesn't feel like having sex the man should respect that and agree to not have sex? "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,"

Just out of interest, does your Church permit the use of condoms?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
2.) To be really honest, the Bible disagrees with what you "think" or what "is in the back of your mind". The Word is clear that wives (and husbands) are not to deny each other unless they both agree to it and that each other gives up authority over their own body when they get married. Again, people still go against this, but it is sinful.

I don't really care if your interpretation disagrees with me. Also, despite the Bible asking women to stay with their husbands and be submissive- it is permissible for them to live apart. Again, what Paul says here only applys should a man be ready to submit to sexual desires and have an affair.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
3.) Celibacy is great and I agree 100% that it will bring you closer to God than being married. I also agree with Paul that it's better to marry than to burn with lust and that celibacy (like prophecy or tongues) is a gift and not everybody has it. I certainly don't, and it's a rare person indeed who posesses that gift in a way that they aren't consumed with lust but rather live a deeper, fuller life in relationship with God and not with a spouse.

Cheers!

So, will you tell your children that they should really be celibate, but if they can't hack it they should get married?

red g jacks
Originally posted by sithsaber408

The guy who wrote that little rant has no game. stick out tongue what are you talking about? he has his relationship game down to an exact science.

Deja~vu
Didn't Jesus say "Love your wife like he loves the church?" Doesn't that mean that put another before yourself? Sacrifice?

Yet we could go into the OT where someone did naughty things......lol

Sleeping with their father in law........She disguised herself as a harlot...........and the father in law slept with her and it was A-OKAY WITH GOD.

BruceSkywalker
double lolz

Blax_Hydralisk
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well, yes and no.

I'm referring to spite, but to me it's spite if the woman is feeling okay (not sick or headache or anything), has nothing pressing to do and is just hanging around the house that night, and the husband wants to have sex and she says no.

She needs to GET herself in the mood. It's part of being a wife.


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f122/blaxican_templar/facepalm.jpg


It's ideas like this that make people hate Christians so much.

You're really not making my job any easier. no expression

sithsaber408
It's simply good marriage counseling.

If you feel good and healthy, and don't have alot of stress/activities going on, and your spouse wants to have sex with you (be you the husband or the wife, it doesn't matter), then you should do it.

It creates frustration and resentment among marriage partners if the other won't have sex, "just because."

And in some cases, you do have what the opening poster referred to where a woman won't have sex with her husband until she gets this or that. Or he agrees to something she wants to do (repaint the house, I don't know.)

That's wrong.

The idea that the Bible is talking about (preferring one another, giving authority of yourself over to the other, not denying each other) is a good idea.

It's based on the idea that a marriage is a joining together of 2 people to become 1 flesh. And that means that you lose a bit of your individuality/selfishness for the other person.

It's centered around a mindset of "What am I doing for this person to love and support them?", rather than a mindset of "What is this person doing to make me happy?".

By all means, the husband should relent, and prefer his wife over his own body (like the bible says) so that he's not being a sinner. And I said that.

But also by all means, the wife should relent and not deny her husband, so that she's not being a sinner.

It goes both ways and there is give and take.

But in a "BIBLICAL LY BASED" marriage, it's wrong for either partner to deny each other "just cuz I don't feel like it."

And not everybody lives according to the Bible, I get that.

But if I'm "making your job harder", perhaps you should examine your job. If you reach people for Christ (I'm assuming that's what you mean) and they get saved, what are you going to tell them when it's time to apply the Bible to their marriage?

Oh, well you can ignore that part. (FAIL. Then they think the whole thing is full of it.)

Oh, well you have to follow these guidelines for marriage now that I kept from you earlier to convert you more easily. (FAIL. Then they think that YOU are full of it.)

Make sense?

Deja~vu
God god said it's okay to sleep with your father in law. I guess god likes to keep things in the family......... blink

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Deja~vu
God god said it's okay to sleep with your father in law. I guess god likes to keep things in the family......... blink

He said nothing of the sort. Stop misrepresenting things.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by sithsaber408
He said nothing of the sort. Stop misrepresenting things. He did too.

Want to place a bet on it?

sithsaber408
Yeah. You are tottally taking that passage and putting your own assumptions on it.

Deja~vu
"13 When Tamar was told, "Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep," 14 she took off her widow's clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself, and then sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that, though Shelah had now grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife.

15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, "Come now, let me sleep with you."
"And what will you give me to sleep with you?" she asked. ..."Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand," she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. ."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genesis 38


And god said "Blessed be, happy me ." eek!

sithsaber408

Deja~vu
And Judah felt it was okay to sleep with a prostitute too..........lol

And she had his baby!! Whoa.

So what does that baby call the daddy? Daddy or Grandpa?

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Deja~vu
And Judah felt it was okay to sleep with a prostitute too..........lol

And she had his baby!! Whoa.

So what does that baby call the daddy? Daddy or Grandpa?

Aye, and have you read all that happens to Judah?

See how you are putting your own spin on things?

Like with Tamar, you figured that it meant Judah was cool with and so was God, though it doesn't say anything like that.

Judah was in the wrong and he knew it.

Deja~vu
Blessed be Isral! Goes chosen people.

sithsaber408
laughing out loud

Well, I'm gonna exit this thread, as nobody wants to hear me preach.

My only point: Was that the blog the opening poster showed us (while stupid for suggesting an affair is a woman's fault if she doesn't sleep with her husband) was correct on the point that biblically it's true men and women are supposed to give of themselves to each other and not withold/deny for no good reason.

Cheers!

Bardock42
Originally posted by sithsaber408

When you're sick? No. When you have really pressing business that has to be done? No. When you want to watch TV? YES. When you have to cook? No. (but after the meal is done if there's nothing going on then yes) If you have vaginal pains? Obviously not. That's not denial, it's common sense.

Does that help at all?

Not really, but your God is not known for being helpful, so I guess it is okay.

I just think the total lack of any rules just proves more that you are full of shit, so I'm satisfied.

dadudemon
Well, in my religion, "love" is supposed to happen quite often between a husband and wife, and just for pleasure, too.

Paul's advice was just that, his own advice. He called it a "gift" but I want to call it a sexual dysfunction. Maybe he was blessed for dedicating himself "to the work" because of a covenant he made, but I don't remember reading about it.



Regardless, lots of nasty, all the time. thumb up

If you have problems with "the nasty" because you think it's just that (nasty), then you should seek sexual counseling. You're mocking God if you think the desire to "mate" is evil. The exception would be bestiality, homosexuality, etc.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.