Chastity

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3365
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 262 times
Been thanked: 934 times

Chastity

Post #1

Post by Miles »


.

The Bible says people shouldn't have sexual intercourse (sex) before marriage, and, in fact, deems sex so distasteful, even immoral, that god had to invent marriage to legitimize it.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

So, for whatever reason, god finds sex pretty reprehensible, for which he provides only a single remedy, and one not fitting everybody. However, according to the most recent statistics I could find, of never-married 18-22 year-olds, on average 74% of Christian females and Christian males have had premarital sex.


Image
source


Now, considering god's stand on premarital sex, to me them's pretty daunting statistics. Chastity be damned, as it were. Stats I would think to be more fitting the non-religious.

In fact, as of five months ago "half of U.S. Christians say casual sex between consenting adults is sometimes or always acceptable."
source (My emphasis)



So, what do you think about chastity and sex before marriage? In time will chastity no longer be a concern of Christianity?

And what group do you fall into? O:)


.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3365
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 262 times
Been thanked: 934 times

Re: Chastity

Post #31

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:24 am
Miles wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:20 pmObviously god doesn't like sexual intercourse among humans because he says, "It is well for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1).
God doesn't say that. Paul is quoting someone who wrote to him. That person said "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." Paul disagrees with him. Paul tells spouses to not deprive each other of sex. Paul says some people should get married, while some should remain unmarried. The Biblical God is not against sex, He is against sex that damages us and others, whether that sex is within a marriage or outside of it. From the very beginning God said for people to be fruitful. That requires them to have sex. He said all that he created, including that command was very good.
"Paul received news from Corinth by the household of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11). Several factions had appeared in the fellowship of the church, and they were menacing its life and ministry. Subsequently, the Corinthians themselves wrote Paul a letter and requested his advice on a number of problems (1 Cor. 7:1). Paul responded to the news brought by the household of Chloe and to the questions sent by the church with the letter we know as First Corinthians."
source

And it doesn't make sense that the Corinthian Christians would make an unequivocal pronouncement such as "It is well for a man not to touch a woman," telling Paul what the bottom line is, when what they wrote to him for was his advice. After all it was he who led in the establishment of the church in Corinth and would have been its arbiter. So it's far more credible that Paul was answering an issue the Bible simply doesn't bother to state.



.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Chastity

Post #32

Post by The Tanager »

Miles wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:58 pmAnd it doesn't make sense that the Corinthian Christians would make an unequivocal pronouncement such as "It is well for a man not to touch a woman," telling Paul what the bottom line is, when what they wrote to him for was his advice. After all it was he who led in the establishment of the church in Corinth and would have been its arbiter. So it's far more credible that Paul was answering an issue the Bible simply doesn't bother to state.
That they asked Paul's advice about having sex shows there was uncertainty. The part you quoted isn't God's answer. It's Paul bringing up the next issue they asked his advice on. The wording of Paul shows that some in the Corinthian churches clearly thought they should not be having sex. Paul answers that. Paul says married couples should keep having sex except for a mutually agreed upon limited time. Then, distinguishing his next thought from being a command (v. 6), Paul gives his view that celibacy is better than being married and being married is better than "burning with passion." But then (v. 10) Paul once again distinguishes what he just shared (his opinion) with God's charges about divorce. Nowhere in there is God showing dislike for sexual intercourse, but misuses of sex.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3365
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 262 times
Been thanked: 934 times

Re: Chastity

Post #33

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 9:16 am
Miles wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:58 pmAnd it doesn't make sense that the Corinthian Christians would make an unequivocal pronouncement such as "It is well for a man not to touch a woman," telling Paul what the bottom line is, when what they wrote to him for was his advice. After all it was he who led in the establishment of the church in Corinth and would have been its arbiter. So it's far more credible that Paul was answering an issue the Bible simply doesn't bother to state.
That they asked Paul's advice about having sex shows there was uncertainty. The part you quoted isn't God's answer.
"Isn't god's answer"? Then one can only wonder about what is said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)

"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

And just so there's no question what "god-breathed" means, in the NLT version and others 2 Timothy 3:16-17 reads:


16 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. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.


So whatever Paul says has, at the very least, the blessing of god as being true and correct. But, of course, we know it's more than just a blessing. They're words inspired by god. It's what god wants Paul to say.

It's Paul bringing up the next issue they asked his advice on.
Yup, As I said "Paul was answering an issue the Bible simply doesn't bother to state." The god-inspired answer being: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman,"


.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Chastity

Post #34

Post by The Tanager »

Miles wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:28 pm
That they asked Paul's advice about having sex shows there was uncertainty. The part you quoted isn't God's answer.
"Isn't god's answer"? Then one can only wonder about what is said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)
Yes, not everything the Bible records is "Gods answer." God's answers would be pointless without the questions being raised to which God provides answers for. It's useful for teaching to have the questions and answers.
Miles wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:28 pmYup, As I said "Paul was answering an issue the Bible simply doesn't bother to state." The god-inspired answer being: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman,"
The next verses say spouses should have sex with each other. If God doesn't like sexual intercourse, then why would God through Paul tell married people to have sex?

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3365
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 262 times
Been thanked: 934 times

Re: Chastity

Post #35

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:16 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:28 pmYup, As I said "Paul was answering an issue the Bible simply doesn't bother to state." The god-inspired answer being: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman,"
The next verses say spouses should have sex with each other. If God doesn't like sexual intercourse, then why would God through Paul tell married people to have sex?
To be complete, the next two verses following "It is well for a man not to touch a woman," are:

2 "But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband."

Which gives reason to verse 3

"3 The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs."

So, although a man should not touch a woman, because such immorality is rampant and uncontrollable something has to be done. Therefore, God, recognizing the futility in ordering people not to engage in sexual behavior---it just won't work---he lays down the circumstance in which he would tolerate it: Marriage. And to insure such a solution works be directs husbands and wives to fulfill each other's "needs."


.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Re: Chastity

Post #36

Post by nobspeople »

Miles wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:34 pm
The Tanager wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:16 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:28 pmYup, As I said "Paul was answering an issue the Bible simply doesn't bother to state." The god-inspired answer being: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman,"
The next verses say spouses should have sex with each other. If God doesn't like sexual intercourse, then why would God through Paul tell married people to have sex?
To be complete, the next two verses following "It is well for a man not to touch a woman," are:

2 "But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband."

Which gives reason to verse 3

"3 The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs."

So, although a man should not touch a woman, because such immorality is rampant and uncontrollable something has to be done. Therefore, God, recognizing the futility in ordering people not to engage in sexual behavior---it just won't work---he lays down the circumstance in which he would tolerate it: Marriage. And to insure such a solution works be directs husbands and wives to fulfill each other's "needs."


.
So, the bolded section: does this mean marriage isn't some wonderful gift from God (as some claim), but a way he's trying to reduce immorality IYO?
A band-aid, as it were?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3365
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 262 times
Been thanked: 934 times

Re: Chastity

Post #37

Post by Miles »

nobspeople wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:47 am
Miles wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:34 pm
The Tanager wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:16 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:28 pmYup, As I said "Paul was answering an issue the Bible simply doesn't bother to state." The god-inspired answer being: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman,"
The next verses say spouses should have sex with each other. If God doesn't like sexual intercourse, then why would God through Paul tell married people to have sex?
To be complete, the next two verses following "It is well for a man not to touch a woman," are:

2 "But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband."

Which gives reason to verse 3

"3 The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs."

So, although a man should not touch a woman, because such immorality is rampant and uncontrollable something has to be done. Therefore, God, recognizing the futility in ordering people not to engage in sexual behavior---it just won't work---he lays down the circumstance in which he would tolerate it: Marriage. And to insure such a solution works be directs husbands and wives to fulfill each other's "needs."


.
So, the bolded section: does this mean marriage isn't some wonderful gift from God (as some claim), but a way he's trying to reduce immorality IYO?
A band-aid, as it were?
I certainly don't see it as a gift, but rather a qualified concession. Now if someone want's to regard a concession with limits---"Ya, you can engage in A, B, and C, but ONLY if you do X, Y, and Z--- as a wonderful gift, so be it. And yes, I do see it as god's way to reduce what he regards as immoral behavior. But wouldn't it have been nice to know why he doesn't like the very thing he left us with: sexual desire? Obviously, this was another one of his Oops!.



.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Chastity

Post #38

Post by The Tanager »

Miles wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:34 pmTo be complete, the next two verses following "It is well for a man not to touch a woman," are:

2 "But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband."

Which gives reason to verse 3

"3 The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs."

So, although a man should not touch a woman, because such immorality is rampant and uncontrollable something has to be done. Therefore, God, recognizing the futility in ordering people not to engage in sexual behavior---it just won't work---he lays down the circumstance in which he would tolerate it: Marriage. And to insure such a solution works be directs husbands and wives to fulfill each other's "needs."
If that was the whole context, sure, but it's not. My interpretation, that some in Corinth were thinking they should give up sex and Paul is addressing those concerns, still seems to me to make better sense. Verse 2 is telling them to stick with their spouses or else they will be more liable to commit sexual immorality. Sexual immorality, itself, tells us that Paul sees not all sex as bad. Paul encourages them to have plenty of sex, only taking limited breaks. In v. 6 Paul makes a "concession" to what he just said but says it isn't a command. He seems to be agreeing with the ones who were saying that it isn't good for man to have sex with a woman in the sense that he views celibacy as the higher calling. But, in v. 7, he clearly says celibacy and having a sexual partner within marriage are equally gifts of God. That sex is a gift of God to some people and that God simply tolerates sex because of sexual immorality contradicts. The toleration view also directly contradicts Genesis (which Paul accepted as scripture). In Genesis God makes humans, which includes giving them sexual drives, talks about them becoming one flesh, tells them to multiply, and calls all that very good. God doesn't create marriage there as a way to reduce immorality. At that point they had not sinned. Proverbs 5:18-19 talks about letting your wife's breasts fill you with delight. Romans 1:26 has Paul calling certain sexual relations natural. Then there is the whole book of the Song of Songs.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3365
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 262 times
Been thanked: 934 times

Re: Chastity

Post #39

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:44 am Paul encourages them to have plenty of sex, only taking limited breaks.
None of the versions I read say or even imply "plenty," or any amount of sex for that matter.

In v. 6 Paul makes a "concession" to what he just said but says it isn't a command. He seems to be agreeing with the ones who were saying that it isn't good for man to have sex with a woman in the sense that he views celibacy as the higher calling.
But in post 31 I established to my satisfaction that it was god who said through Paul, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” So I don't go along with your claim that it was "the ones who were saying 'It is good for a man . . . .'"

But, in v. 7, he clearly says celibacy and having a sexual partner within marriage are equally gifts of God. That sex is a gift of God to some people and that God simply tolerates sex because of sexual immorality contradicts.
Can't equate sex with marriage here: That because marriage is the gift, so too must sex be the gift, because that's not what it says. For whatever reason god doesn't consider the desire for sexual intercourse he implanted in just about everyone to be any kind of gift at all, but rather its objectionable outcome to be something he is willing to tolerate. . . . . under one special circumstance.

The toleration view also directly contradicts Genesis (which Paul accepted as scripture).
It certainly does.
In Genesis God makes humans, which includes giving them sexual drives, talks about them becoming one flesh, tells them to multiply, and calls all that very good. God doesn't create marriage there as a way to reduce immorality. At that point they had not sinned. Proverbs 5:18-19 talks about letting your wife's breasts fill you with delight. Romans 1:26 has Paul calling certain sexual relations natural. Then there is the whole book of the Song of Songs."
Yet in 1 Corinthians 7:1 through Paul he says: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” Kind of like other contradictions scattered throughout the bible:


“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30

“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
______________________________________________

“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20

“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
______________________________________________

“Honor thy father and thy mother…”– Exodus 20:12

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke 14:26
______________________________________________

“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4

“… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10


Go figure.

My interpretation, that some in Corinth were thinking they should give up sex and Paul is addressing those concerns, still seems to me to make better sense.
Very possibly. The unstated question, to which god gives his reply in 1 Corinthians 7:1, and his solution in 1 Corinthians 7:2


.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18075
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 660 times
Contact:

Re: Chastity

Post #40

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Miles wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:50 pm
That because marriage is the gift, so too must sex be the gift, because that's not what it says.
Yes, but that is what we can reasonably conclude. A gift can be defined as "something given willingly to someone without payment". Since nobody could force an omipotent God to give anything, if God gave us sex, orgasm and sexual pleasure, it was because he wanted to. He wasn't forced to and he certainly didnt need the money, so what do we conclude? That SEX was a gift.

JAMES 1:17

Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, coming down from the Father of the celestial lights.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply