Sexual immorality (Gospel, believers, dogma, sin)

[Tia 914]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

According to the scriptures the marriage bed is not defiled, I take this to mean any sexual activity between husband and wife is fine so long as it is consentual and not forced.

but... while it says 'isn't,' that doesn't mean 'cannot be,' does it?
I mean I've always taken it to mean it is 'the only situation in which it is right,' but doesn't necessarily mean all kinds of actions within it are right/acceptable


(I hope that came out in plain English, didn't get much sleep last night, sorry!)

[RobinD69]

Originally Posted by gatitosmommy

but... while it says 'isn't,' that doesn't mean 'cannot be,' does it?
I mean I've always taken it to mean it is 'the only situation in which it is right,' but doesn't necessarily mean all kinds of actions within it are right/acceptable


(I hope that came out in plain English, didn't get much sleep last night, sorry!)

Again a very good point, I will have to look into it further, thank you for pointing it out.

[RobinD69]

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. " (1Corinthians 7:1-5, NKJV)

Well from what I can tell this just goes to add to the proper roles within marriage as well as the proper definition of man and wife. It would also appear that nothing is really prohibited within the marriage bed except for fasting and menstration preventing sexual activity at certain times. We are not our own but belong to the one we are joined to.

[Tia 914]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. " (1Corinthians 7:1-5, NKJV)

Well from what I can tell this just goes to add to the proper roles within marriage as well as the proper definition of man and wife. It would also appear that nothing is really prohibited within the marriage bed except for fasting and menstration preventing sexual activity at certain times. We are not our own but belong to the one we are joined to.

I still don't think it means God would condone perversions etc. simply because they were "within the marriage bed, and consensual"

[aquila]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

I can see where you are coming from, but is there a single instance in the Bible where God condoned someone having more than one spouse or even having concubines. He never did, but He did share with us the problems associated with such situations.

Okay, I'll concede on this point. You're right.

Originally Posted by RobinD69

What you are missing is that both men were already married and this was specifically addressing friendship and not romance.

Whether they were already married or not is irrelevant.

Bear in mind I said nothing about Jonathan and David sharing a sexual relationship. In fact, I don't believe they did. And I said nothing about romance. But it's impossible to deny that what they did share was a love that was every bit as strong as the love between men and women. It's clear in the Scriptures. I can point out the chapter and verse if you'd like me to. I simply brought it up because as far as I'M concerned, what David and Jonathan shared together was just as strong as a marriage. Their very souls were knit together. That goes far beyond mere friendship. When a man and woman get married, they become "one flesh". But it sounds like what David and Jonathan had was even deeper than that. David said the love he felt from Jonathan SURPASSED the love of women. It was very sweet to him. If you can't deal with that, take it up with God. I have no problem with it.

Originally Posted by RobinD69

Now as for sex making a marriage there is one area of the Bible that implies such and could imply so much more. 1 Corinthians 6:14-17 would express this. Sexual immorality culminates numerous sins and is a great insult to the Lord.

Don't misread my words. I didn't say sex made a marriage. I indicated that what Jonathan and David had sounds like a form of marriage....unless marriage is strictly defined as involving sexual behavior. And if such is the case...that sex is requisite for a bond to be called a marriage...then would you deny marriage to invalids?

Marriage, I think you will agree, is about more than sex. It's about a heart-to-heart connection...a union of souls in love. And Jonathan and David's souls were knit together. There's no way to get around that for as much as you might want to tiptoe through the tulips.

As far as what it says in 1 Corinthians, am I disagreeing with that?

[RobinD69]

Originally Posted by gatitosmommy

I still don't think it means God would condone perversions etc. simply because they were "within the marriage bed, and consensual"

I do not wish to get graphic on the subject, but what would be considered perversions when it comes to the marriage bed? This is a confusing aspect of sexualality. I mean I have been married for over 21 years and I do not consider anything we have done as perversion. I mean there is no violence or torture, no extra partners, no toys, no anal, so how would we know what was considered perversion in the marriage bed besides menstration?

Sorry I forgot your name here Ceetee, I am used to silverrose.

[ptsum]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

Okay this is a thread on sexual immorality now we know that pretty much anything goes in the marriage bed so long as it is mutual and not forced. We also know, according to Jesus Himself, that marriage is between a man and a woman. We also know that any sexual activity outside the proper bonds of marriage is sin. This mean no premarital sex, shacking up, rape, incest, pedophilia, polygamy, prostitution, brothels, and of course homosexuality.

Now lets not make this a thread on homosexulaity. Instead lets focus on what constitutes sexual sin or sexual immorality. I know we may touch on some verses that deal with what many believe to be homosexuality but that is not our focus.

I have shared before that my oldest son is in a sexually immoral relationship. I cannot condone his relationship and neither does he.

Read the original post.

[RobinD69]

Originally Posted by aquila

Okay, I'll concede on this point. You're right.



Whether they were already married or not is irrelevant.

But it is relevent considering you can only be married to one person at a time.

Bear in mind I said nothing about Jonathan and David sharing a sexual relationship. In fact, I don't believe they did. And I said nothing about romance. But it's impossible to deny that what they did share was a love that was every bit as strong as the love between men and women. It's clear in the Scriptures. I can point out the chapter and verse if you'd like me to. I simply brought it up because as far as I'M concerned, what David and Jonathan shared together was just as strong as a marriage. Their very souls were knit together. That goes far beyond mere friendship. When a man and woman get married, they become "one flesh". But it sounds like what David and Jonathan had was even deeper than that. David said the love he felt from Jonathan SURPASSED the love of women. It was very sweet to him. If you can't deal with that, take it up with God. I have no problem with it.

The point is their relationship had nothing to do with marriage no matter how much someone would like to think it did. This was an entirely different love than that of marriage and I believe that is the point being made by the passages.

Don't misread my words. I didn't say sex made a marriage. I indicated that what Jonathan and David had sounds like a form of marriage....unless marriage is strictly defined as involving sexual behavior. And if such is the case...that sex is requisite for a bond to be called a marriage...then would you deny marriage to invalids?

You are forgetting the romance invalids can share, marriage is a much deeper relationship than the shallowness we humans like to place upon it and that is what we are looking in the marriage thread, but this is the sexual immorality thread and has nothing to do with David and Jonathan.

Marriage, I think you will agree, is about more than sex. It's about a heart-to-heart connection...a union of souls in love. And Jonathan and David's souls were knit together. There's no way to get around that for as much as you might want to tiptoe through the tulips.

But was sexual immorality involved? No, therefore their story is irrelevant to our discussion.

As far as what it says in 1 Corinthians, am I disagreeing with that?

I dont think you have even addressed it.

[Ilene Wright]

Originally Posted by DayoftheLord

Hey SM....just a note to say in your quote of Carolina Guy's post it shows me as the poster. It happens sometimes, not your fault but I just wanted to note that you were actually quoting C_g and not me.

Edit to add: It just happened to me!! It showed Robin in the quote instead of you, but I fixed it.

Originally Posted by carolina_guy

lol...where am I in this thread?

LOL is right!! Dang, I was trying to reduce confusion and I just caused more!! SuperMom was quoting ROBIN, not Carolina Guy, but within her quote it showed me as the poster when it was actually Robin....but instead of saying ROBIN I said C_g.

Sorry C_g......you musta been on my mind!!

Ok Robin.....proceed.

[Make me a believer]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

We also know that any sexual activity outside the proper bonds of marriage is sin.

Can you please point me to the section or sections in the bible where it says this? I am a little confused. I was dating a christian woman not long ago, and this was not a belief of hers. She was seeing people other than me which I was not comfortable with and our sexual relationship ended. From what I gather, from speaking with people both religious and non-religious, everyone speaks from personal beliefs of immorality rather than divine law.

I have started reading the bible and the only refrence I have come across so far is in the ten commandments laid down in exodus. The one in particular "thou shall not commit adultery." If adultery by dictionary definition is an act of voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse, then doesn't that mean, if you are not married you are free to have as many sexual partners as you like, provided they too are not married? This is not a personal belief of mine as I have monogamous beliefs but I see the belief of polygamy practiced by christians and non-christians alike.