Marriage and family

[Aaron]

A couple of statements were made in another thread that deserve a response.

4His_glory said:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
If you can't afford children, don't get married.

But really, the truth is, it's all about priorities.Marriage is much more than just having children. There are many other reasons for a couple to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (NKJV)</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it's better to marry than to burn, but it does not follow that marriage has no other purpose. In fact, if self control doesn't blossom soon, you will destroy your marriage. Self control is a fruit of the Spirit, and one of the eight callings of a Christian in 2 Pet. 1:6.

It also does not follow that Paul was advocating one's neglect or thwarting of the other responsibilities and purposes of marriage when he advised those with no self control to marry.


TexasSky said:
Aaron -

If a man believes he has the right to engage in sex whenever he feels and he also feels it is sinful for his wife to use a birth control method of any form, then the man is advocating numerous pregnancies with disregard for the health of the mother or the children.What lout thinks he has the right to engage in sex whenever he feels?

{post edited to remove imho, offensive language}

[ July 27, 2005, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

[Su Wei]

Aaron said: God says lots of children are a blessing.

Pastor Larry said: Really? Where?? That isn't in my Bible that I know of.

Just taking most of the verses that have the word multiply and blessing in it, my bible says:

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Genesis 17:1-2 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

Genesis 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

Genesis 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

God to Isaac:
Genesis 26:24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake.

Genesis 48:3-4 And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.

Deuteronomy 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:
Deuteronomy 7:13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

Deuteronomy 8:1 All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.

Deuteronomy 28:63 And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Deuteronomy 30:5-6 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Jeremiah 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.

Hebrews 6:13-14 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

Psalms 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

smile.gif

[TexasSky]

I think we all agree that children are blessings - but "too much of anything" ceases to be a blessing.

The question, if I understand it, is "are children the only purpose of marriage?"

[Songbird]

TexasSky--I hope not! I was 39 and my dh was 40 when we got married. We're not able to have children. But our life is just as fulfilled--b/c we live it to serve the Lord.

And--the most important human relationship (besides our relationship w/God)is husband and wife IMHO--b/c it was the first relationship introduced between humans. It's also the example that's used when descibing Christ and the Church.

We'd love to be blessed w/our own children but it may not be in God's plan for us.

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB] A couple of statements were made in another thread that deserve a response.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />4His_glory said:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
If you can't afford children, don't get married.

But really, the truth is, it's all about priorities.Marriage is much more than just having children. There are many other reasons for a couple to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (NKJV)</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it's better to marry than to burn, but it does not follow that marriage has no other purpose. In fact, if self control doesn't blossom soon, you will destroy your marriage. Self control is a fruit of the Spirit, and one of the eight callings of a Christian in 2 Pet. 1:6.

It also does not follow that Paul was advocating one's neglect or thwarting of the other responsibilities and purposes of marriage when he advised those with no self control to marry. </font>[/QUOTE]Did I say that one should not exercise self control? No I did not so don't put words in my mouth. Paul did say though:

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. 1Cor 7:2-5 (NKJV)

It would seem then that a husband and wife ought to satisfy the desires of each other as often as they can and not deny one another. It is true though that to make harsh demands of ones spouse is unloving and wrong.

Also I did not deny that one of the purposes of marriage is to have children, I was simply pointing out that this is not the sole purpose, in fact it is not the primary purpose of marriage.

[ July 27, 2005, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

[Aaron]

But it is the primary purpose of sex.

[Karen]

Originally posted by Aaron:
But it is the primary purpose of sex. That would be A primary purpose. Otherwise, when a married couple in their 70's engages in it, what would be the purpose? Or if a couple knows they will not be able to have children.
Many other purposes, I would think.

Karen

[Frogman]

Paul also speaks of definite trouble in the flesh for those who do marry.

This is a valid Scriptural topic. Please give careful consideration as to how your posts and replies are worded. Otherwise this thread will have to be closed.

Discuss the topic Scripturally and refrain from the use of slang descriptors.

Bro. Dallas

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by Aaron:
But it is the primary purpose of sex. Can you prove that from Scritpure?

I would say it is A purpose not THE priamary purpose. God created it for married couples to enjoy and love each other with, and when this is done it glorifies Him.

[TexasSky]

I thought the primary reason was so that Adam would not be alone.

Genesis: Chapter Two.

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

By the strictest rules of reading the English language, this passage says that sex is a RESULT of marriage, not the REASON for marriage. The REASON is companionship.

[4His_glory]

Right on Texas.

[Aaron]

Frogman, you changed the meaning in my post. Could you kindly change "but it does not follow that marriage has no other purpose" to say, "but it doesn't mean marriage is there for you to indulge your lusts."

Note to all, the term I used was not obscene. I might concede it was profane, but I didn't use the term flippantly. To use one's wife simply for the fulfillment of his lusts is to profane the act, and I couldn't think of a more apt description. graemlins/type.gif

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
But it is the primary purpose of sex. Can you prove that from Scritpure?

I would say it is A purpose not THE priamary purpose. God created it for married couples to enjoy and love each other with, and when this is done it glorifies Him. </font>[/QUOTE]You've got to be kidding! :eek: Open your eyes. How do you know when you're on the downhill side of the act?

In fact, were the act interrupted on the uphill side, before you reached the—uh—crest, wouldn't you think yourself rather ill used? You'd be very frustrated at the very least. It's just not complete without the little event at the top of the hill where we leave something behind.

God gave a name to that something left at the top of the hill, and it wasn't "The Lovin' Spoonfull".
He called it, "seed".

There you have it. God's Word about the primary purpose of sex.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
By the strictest rules of reading the English language, this passage says that sex is a RESULT of marriage, not the REASON for marriage. The REASON is companionship. Yes, the primary reason for marriage is society, not sex. You're right.

[TaterTot]

Aaorn,

So a man who doesnt have "active" seed should not have sex?

[Helen]

I think perhaps when a marriage is young, the physical part of sex looms pretty big. But as you get older, there is something else which begins to become predominant. They physical fulfillment is still big, but what becomes bigger is the one-ness, a sort of spiritual thing, that happens with the physical expression of love. It is that one-ness which God seems to have given as the primary reason for marriage in Genesis 2:24.

Children are major. There is no doubt about it. And they are totally a blessing from the Lord, even if they do give us gray hairs and wrinkles and high blood pressure! Then they grow out of their teens .... grin....

But marriage is far more than 'family.' It is the physical representation of our spiritual relationship to Christ, as His bride. So it is ever so much more than having children or even being the foundation of a stable society. It is a picture of a spiritual reality. That is, perhaps, why the marriage union is under so much attack from the 'other side.'

Sex is the only physical expression God has given us of what happens when Christ enters a willing heart: a new life is conceived and born and grows to maturity.

Marriage and sex are holy. Children are one result that happens sometimes. And that is a blessing from God. But both marriage and sex are ever so much more than that.

[Aaron]

You are absolutely right, Helen. graemlins/thumbs.gif All things were made by Him and for Him.

[superdave]

Just taking most of the verses that have the word multiply and blessing in it, my bible says:....I noticed one particular feature of those verses, they all seem to be directed at very specific individuals.

For instance, God Promised that from Abraham's seed a great nation would be made. Can I claim that promise and blessing? Will the Davidites be God's New chosen people? Should I follow in the footsteps of Joe Smith and dig up a golden Bible to "reveal" the truth about the blessed future of my progeny?

If children are indeed a blessing in the sense you are using it, I could also claim many other promises in the OT that even you might agree are a stretch.

Children are a blessing, and they are clearly from God, but thare is no direct application of those verses to my christian walk. Having children does not make me more or less spiritual, or more or less blessed. Neither do they imply or command that children are a primary purpose for the act of marriage.

[4His_glory]

You've got to be kidding! Open your eyes. How do you know when you're on the downhill side of the act?

In fact, were the act interrupted on the uphill side, before you reached the—uh—crest, wouldn't you think yourself rather ill used? You'd be very frustrated at the very least. It's just not complete without the little event at the top of the hill where we leave something behind.

God gave a name to that something left at the top of the hill, and it wasn't "The Lovin' Spoonfull".
He called it, "seed".

There you have it. God's Word about the primary purpose of sex. I did not see anything in that post from God's Word, all I saw was "Aaron's word". In fact what said shows your ignorance of God's Word and was rather vulgar.

[Aaron]

Doth not even nature itself teach you? I described the nature of the act, the completion of it, and used God's terminology for it.

It can't be made much more plain.

[TaterTot]

Aaron,

You didnt answer my question about someone with "inactive" seed. Are they disqualified from the act?

[Aaron]

I didn't answer your question because it's irrelevant and I found it very difficult to abstain from commenting on the reasoning behind it. I've already been edited once in this thread.

[TaterTot]

I didnt think it was irrelevant, when earlier you said that the seed was the reason for the act. I know many people who dont have seed and I just wondered how that fit in. SEnd it in PM if ya want.

[dianetavegia]

Aaron, then you are going against scripture if you claim a person who is sterile is not to engage in marital relations because they have no seed.

Lance Armstrong had his 'seed' preserved before his cancer treatments. Many young boys are undergoing cancer treatments and their parents opt for 'seed' removal and preservation so that child can father a child as an adult.

If God sees fit to make a woman barren and, being a virgin, she had no idea before marriage, is her husband never to engage in relations with her?

The BIBLE says..........
1 Corinthians 7:5 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.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

[Su Wei]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Aaron, then you are going against scripture if you claim a person who is sterile is not to engage in marital relations because they have no seed.
when did he say that??? :confused:

[Su Wei]

superdave, you're carrying the argument further than i intended to go: ie. big families = more spiritual.

I was merely supporting the statement from Aaron that God says lots of children are a blessing, from the scripture.

God multiplying the seed of Abraham was in His sight, a blessing. that's that. We should not impose our twentieth century mindset on what He thinks is a blessing.

graemlins/wave.gif

[dianetavegia]

Originally posted by Su Wei:
when did he say that??? :confused: His thread was edited.

[Songbird]

This is ludicrous. When I read Song of Solomon I am not thinking that they are in the baby-making mode. I am thinking they are enjoying themselves and an expression of intimacy that has been blessed by God. And sex is an expression of intimacy--not the only expression, but an expression nevertheless.

If I was thin-skinned I would be offended. As posted before, my dh and I (unless God intervenes w/a miracle), will not have biological children of our own. But that is not going to stop us from doing what God has ordained for married couples. Children are a result of sex, but not the sole purpose.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Su Wei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Aaron, then you are going against scripture if you claim a person who is sterile is not to engage in marital relations because they have no seed.
when did he say that??? :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]Never. Never even implied it. Diane, I'm surprised at you. The edited portion was edited for a slang phrase meaning sex.

Oh well, you folks will condemn me if I do, and condemn me if I don't. So...

Tot's question is irrelevant. A man's physical defect or injury is in no way indicative of God's purposes and will in the creation and use of a certain system. Would we say that God's primary purpose in creating the eye was something other than sight simply because some men are born blind?

The question is also leading. She was headed in the direction of an attempt to justify sterilization, an inference that cannot be drawn from the facts submitted, and a direction that will effectively highjack the thread.

Were Sarah, Hannah, or the wife of Manoah, exempted from the rights of marriage because of their defects? Of course not. And neither can one point at them and say, "See there? God's okay with sterilization."

I wanted also to say it was a dumb question, but I think it would get edited if I did. graemlins/type.gif

[4His_glory]

Aaron, the act of marriage involves a whole lot more than the function of certain system. You can not compare it to the eye.

God created it for the enjoyment for husband and wife. That is pretty clear. As has been mentioned Song of Solomon is not about making children, but the relationship between a man and his wife, and their enjoyment of each other.

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Songbird:
When I read Song of Solomon I am not thinking that they are in the baby-making mode. I am thinking they are enjoying themselves and an expression of intimacy that has been blessed by God. And sex is an expression of intimacy--not the only expression, but an expression nevertheless.
Excellent point. And SoS goes so far as to discuss, uhhh, certain sexual acts which, hmmm, how shall I say it, don't involve "Tab A and Slot B". You know, the kind we know associate with Bill Clinton.

Now, if the primary purpose of sex was procreation, why is SoS discussing such a non-procreative act is some detail? There appears to be no condemnation of that act in scripture at all.
As posted before, my dh and I (unless God intervenes w/a miracle), will not have biological children of our own. But that is not going to stop us from doing what God has ordained for married couples. Children are a result of sex, but not the sole purpose. Same here. I have children from a previous marriage. My current wife does not want children, and, since I had a vasectomy years ago, we have no plans whatsoever to have children.

[Pastor Larry]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Su Wei:
Aaron said: God says lots of children are a blessing.

Pastor Larry said: Really? Where?? That isn't in my Bible that I know of.

Just taking most of the verses that have the word multiply and blessing in it, my bible says:[/qutoe]None of those verses specify a number of children that are a blessing, nor does it require any particular amount. As someone pointed out, almost all (if not all) are directed to an individual with specific promises, not to people at large.

This is still quite a reach.

[TaterTot]

Aaron said "Tot's question is irrelevant... The question is also leading. She was headed in the direction of an attempt to justify sterilization, an inference that cannot be drawn from the facts submitted, and a direction that will effectively highjack the thread."


Now, Aaron, thats fine if you see my question as irrelevant. I disagree, but we can do that. But I wasnt trying to justify sterilization. My husband and I have not chosen that route in our marriage. If it was a leading question, then I would not have said you could PM if you'd rather. Dont be so defensive. Either we can discuss stuff or we cant.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Aaron, the act of marriage involves a whole lot more than the function of certain system. You can not compare it to the eye.I didn't compare marriage to an eye. Guys, you have to read these things a little more carefully. I will summarize the argument thus far.

4His: Bearing children isn't the primary purpose of marriage.

Aaron: It is the primary purpose of sex.

4His: Prove it.

Aaron: Posts a sex ed 101 lesson in the form of a metaphor contrasting man's and God's descriptors.

4His: Yeew! Gross!

Then Tot began a digression about what the implications of that understanding might be if one had a certain physical defect.

And that's the usual objection to things like what I said about sex. The concern isn't so much for the Scriptures as it is for the implications. If I'm right about sex, then the Scriptural and natural evidence should support it, and it does—eminently. God calls it seed. Who sows seed without the hope of fruit?

Seed is also a metaphor for the word of God, implying fruitfulness. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:11.

Helen hit the nail on the head when she said the act figures Christ entering into one's heart, and we see the fruitfulness of Christ, Behold I and the children which God hath given me, Hebrews 2:13. I'm reminded of one of the most poignant lines of poety ever written of Christ outside the Song of Solomon:

Take me to you, imprison me, for I
Except you'[enslave] me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chast[e], except you ravish me. (John Donne, Holy Sonnets)

God created it for the enjoyment for husband and wife. That is pretty clear. As has been mentioned Song of Solomon is not about making children, but the relationship between a man and his wife, and their enjoyment of each other. The Song of Solomon does not undo what God has said elsewhere, and, as someone pointed out, is lacking any mention of copulation. Is sex enjoyable? Sure, just like eating honey. (You may like this comparison a little better than the eye. Food and sex are related in the sense that they're both lusts of the flesh.) Did God make honey sweet? Sure did. Did he intend for us to enjoy the taste of honey? Quite so. But is that his primary purpose for honey? No. He created it for food, to nourish and strengthen not only bees, but us as well. Those who eat merely for the pleasure of it are abusing it. Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness! Ecclesiastes 10:17.

I hope I didn't ruin that term of endearment for anyone. "C'mere, Honey." graemlins/type.gif

[Aaron]

Originally posted by TaterTot:
Now, Aaron, thats fine if you see my question as irrelevant. I disagree, but we can do that. But I wasnt trying to justify sterilization.Okay. I spoke unadvisedly. However, I am so used to questions like the one you asked and the non sequiturs they usually lead to, that I simply assumed you were headed in that direction. I apologize.

My husband and I have not chosen that route in our marriage.That's fine too, and I wasn't trying to imply that you did. What you and your husband do and don't do is not my concern especially with this subject matter. There's no reason any individual's practices should come up at all in this debate.

All I'm concerned with is, "Thus saith the Lord."

[4His_glory]

Aaron,

The Bible does not call the act of marriage "seed", but rather that which comes from the man. Sex involves a whole lot more than a man giving a women his seed. Thats only part of it. No makeing babies is not the primary purpose, it is A purpose, but not THE purpose.

[Pastor Larry]

All I'm concerned with is, "Thus saith the Lord."For such a limited concern, you certainly have added a lot to it.

[Su Wei]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Su Wei:
when did he say that??? :confused: His thread was edited. </font>[/QUOTE]Diane, the part that was edited came before Tater's question... so.... redface.gif

[Aaron]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Aaron,

The Bible does not call the act of marriage "seed", but rather that which comes from the man.You seem to be confusing marriage with sex. When I say something about sex, you argue about marriage, and when I say something about marriage you argue about sex.

Would you clarify your position please?

Sex involves a whole lot more than a man giving a women his seed.Agreed, but what event is considered the climax? In fact, it's pretty much over once you've crested the hill. Didn't you read your lesson?

[4His_glory]

Aaron you are the one that is confusing. I said the primary purpose of marriage is not to have children, to which you responded that it is the primary purpose of sex. So I challenged you do prove that from Scripture,and all you came up with was an implied response concerning "seed".

Read back over what you said before you accuse me of confusing things.

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sex involves a whole lot more than a man giving a women his seed.Agreed, but what event is considered the climax? In fact, it's pretty much over once you've crested the hill. Didn't you read your lesson? </font>[/QUOTE]All of this sounds rather boring for her!

[Petrel]

Oh, and it seems to me that if God meant the key purpose of sex to be reproduction, he would have made women go through estrus like every single other primate except the bonobo.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Aaron you are the one that is confusing. I said the primary purpose of marriage is not to have children, to which you responded that it is the primary purpose of sex.Would I have been less confusing to you had I said, "Agreed. Procreation is not the primary purpose of marriage, but it is the primary purpose of sex,"?

So I challenged you do prove that from Scripture,and all you came up with was an implied response concerning "seed".That's all I needed to come up with. The point is proven. God gave it the name that pleased Him, and our thoughts concerning a thing should be guided by His thoughts concerning it. If He thinks of it as seed, that settles the argument. You are no longer arguing with Aaron. You're arguing with God.

What is your strongest evidence for the proper mode of baptism? Isn't the name that God gave it? He called it immersion. Doesn't that pretty much settle the issue?

[4His_glory]

Aaron,

Yes God called what comes from the man seed, but He does not call the act of marraige seed, so if you are claiming that the man giving his seed to the woman is what the act of marriage is all about, then you are implying somthing that is not there.

[dianetavegia]

Scripture says a man is to leave his parents cleave ONLY unto her (his wife). I am not a scholar but did look up the English definition of cleave. It struck me as odd.

To split with or as if with a sharp instrument. See synonyms at tear.

To make or accomplish by or as if by cutting: cleave a path through the ice.

To pierce or penetrate: The wings cleaved the foggy air.

Chemistry. To split (a complex molecule) into simpler molecules.

To adhere, cling, or stick fast.

To be faithful: cleave to one's principles.

To hold fast: adhere, bond, cling, cohere, stick. See connect.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Aaron,

Yes God called what comes from the man seed, but He does not call the act of marraige seed, so if you are claiming that the man giving his seed to the woman is what the act of marriage is all about, then you are implying somthing that is not there. Where did I even come close to claiming such a thing?

[Pastor Larry]

On what basis do you claim that the primary purpose of sex is procreation?

[Magnetic Poles]

If sex was merely for procreation, why the emotional bond that it helps form? Why do people kiss. If procreation is all there is, why not be like lower animals who just get straight down to business and "git 'er done"?

I think viewing sex as a mere biological imperative lessens the entirety of the experience. It is an important emotional, physical and spiritual bonding between the wife and husband; part of a complete marriage.

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:

I think viewing sex as a mere biological imperative lessens the entirety of the experience. It is an important emotional, physical and spiritual bonding between the wife and husband; part of a complete marriage. I agree completely graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Karen]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Aaron,

Yes God called what comes from the man seed, but He does not call the act of marraige seed, so if you are claiming that the man giving his seed to the woman is what the act of marriage is all about, then you are implying somthing that is not there. Where did I even come close to claiming such a thing? </font>[/QUOTE]When you said that the primary purpose of sex is procreation?
I guess I'm not following your argument here.

Karen

[superdave]

We should not impose our twentieth century mindset on what He thinks is a blessing. This actually is my point. In the 20th Century, its a totally different matter from Abraham's time, I would argue it has been different since about the 1st Century.

In the OT economy, the blessings were also tied to the land, yet we don't view the spiritual blessings of God as a literal promised land for the Church? There are many things listed as blessings to the OT saints, and as promises that were specifically given to those who were promised.

The Bible does have literal historical context that you have to embrace to determine the principle taught in a passage, and most narratives are just that, narrative, a description of what happened.

I do agree that Children are a blessing from God, I would also say that my two children make me as blessed by God as a person who has eight (some would say more so ;) ) The Words of scripture do not quantify the blessing, nor the size of a full quiver (the only verse that comes close to quantifying it) and I can fully agree that children are a heritage from God, but none of the scriptures used in this thread have anything whatsoever to do with Birth Control of any kind.

BTW, no one ever answered my question from the first thread. Those who claim chemical or mechanical means of birth control is unbiblical within the context of marriage, do you also believe that it is unbiblical to follow the so-called "rythym method" (aka "Pregnant") Be careful with your answers, and you might want to consult the scriptures first.

[just-want-peace]

If sex were PRIMARILY for additions to the people pool, satan would not have the where-with to make it (sex) such a pitfall for mankind.

And, like someone has already mentioned, if babies were the MAIN goal, why not have periods of genetic celebicy followed by periods of mad passion? That would certainly be more effective in the conception rate than the system in use now.

Nope, I believe God planned this aspect of humanity to fulfill two main goals;
1) Reproduction, but equally important, and maybe more so after the world was "populated",
2) PURE PLEASURE, and the bonding of two souls spiritually!!!!

I feel this last point is why satan is so successful in ruining so many lives with sex. If there were no "bonding", why do so many feel guilty and betrayed when "it's over", after an illicit relationship?

[dianetavegia]

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

[Frogman]

didn't God say it is not good for the man to be alone?

Thus, God created man and woman being from man, as social creatures.

portion of my 2 1/2 cents
Bro. Dallas

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
If sex was merely for procreation, why the emotional bond that it helps form? Why do people kiss. If procreation is all there is, why not be like lower animals who just get straight down to business and "git 'er done"?

I think viewing sex as a mere biological imperative lessens the entirety of the experience. It is an important emotional, physical and spiritual bonding between the wife and husband; part of a complete marriage. Mag, opinion noted, but who are you arguing with in this thread? So far, no one I've seen has reduced sex to this level.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
If sex were PRIMARILY for additions to the people pool, satan would not have the where-with to make it (sex) such a pitfall for mankind.How does that follow? Would you say food and wine are primarily for pleasure too, since many find them just as addictive?

And, like someone has already mentioned, if babies were the MAIN goal, why not have periods of genetic celebicy followed by periods of mad passion? That would certainly be more effective in the conception rate than the system in use now.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that men are not animals. Whatever we do we're to do for the increase of God's kingdom. A brute beast only does what it feels like doing. Men are to do things because they're the right thing to do, not because they feel like it.

Nope, I believe God planned this aspect of humanity to fulfill two main goals;
1) Reproduction, but equally important, and maybe more so after the world was "populated",
2) PURE PLEASURE, and the bonding of two souls spiritually!!!!

Sex doesn't create true and spiritual intimacy. Consider David and Jonathan:

1 Samuel 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

1 Samuel 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

2 Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

Besides, what happens when one gets too sick, too old or is injured and cannot perform?

I feel this last point is why satan is so successful in ruining so many lives with sex. If there were no "bonding", why do so many feel guilty and betrayed when "it's over", after an illicit relationship?

How could any man or woman feel more betrayed than Christ felt after the betrayal of Judas? Could anyone feel more guilty or despair of hope any more than Judas did?

It isn't the sex that makes one feel guilty or betrayed, it's the disloyalty.

There is only one need you've listed for sex that cannot be supplied by another means, and that is procreation. In fact, so imminent is the conception of a life, that one must go through great pains to prevent it. It's primary purpose is procreation.

[ August 01, 2005, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[Petrel]

Ok, let's see. You say that sex is a chore we do because we know it's the right thing to do, not because we want to. You say it's essentially over once the man ejaculates. And you say that sex is an inferior method to platonic methods for bonding with one's spouse.

I rather think we're talking about different things! graemlins/laugh.gif

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Petrel:
Ok, let's see. You say that sex is a chore we do because we know it's the right thing to do, not because we want to.A chore? Do you not delight to do God's will? Psalm 40:8. Besides, you know very well that's not what I said. Animals are slaves to their apetites. So are unspiritual men. Trying to determine God's will for sex between men and women by comparing them to animals betrays a sensual focus.

You say it's essentially over once the man ejaculates.

Well maybe not for you, you machine you! :rolleyes: At the very least you're on the downhill side, and the ride is a lot shorter than it was on the way up. You can't deny it. It's not called the climax for nothing.

And you say that sex is an inferior method to platonic methods for bonding with one's spouse.

Absolutely, and anyone who is truly one with his spouse will affirm this. They did not become true friends by having sex.

I rather think we're talking about different things! graemlins/laugh.gif

Yes, we are. I'm talking about people, you're talking about animals.

[Petrel]

Not at all, the comparison to animals was to show that we are different from them (with the exception of bonobos). Most primates have an estrus cycle, and the female is only receptive when she is ovulating, and this is the only time that the male will show interest in her. The fact that humans are sexually receptive throughout the cycle indicates that sex is not intended merely for reproduction, since most of the time conception is impossible.

You say it's essentially over once the man ejaculates.This was to point out that if sex is just about procreation, there is no need for the woman to orgasm at all. So, yeah, if that's what it's about, then it's over then. Often, though, women take more time than men, so it's not over if that's not what it's all about!

Absolutely, and anyone who is truly one with his spouse will affirm this. They did not become true friends by having sex.Sexual relations provide an entirely different dimension to the relationship that is not there in a platonic relationship. Eliminating or disrupting it will definitely affect the relationship. It's not called "making love" for no reason.

Yes, we are. I'm talking about people, you're talking about animals.To me it seems that I'm talking about love and you're talking about work! graemlins/laugh.gif

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Petrel:
This was to point out that if sex is just about procreation...Who made that argument?

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Petrel:
This was to point out that if sex is just about procreation...Who made that argument? </font>[/QUOTE]Umm, YOU. graemlins/laugh.gif I think you need to get in contact with your alternate personality and make sure you're both following the same line of thought. ;)

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Also I did not deny that one of the purposes of marriage is to have children, I was simply pointing out that this is not the sole purpose, in fact it is not the primary purpose of marriage. Originally posted by Aaron:
But it is the primary purpose of sex.

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by Aaron:
There is only one need you've listed for sex that cannot be supplied by another means, and that is procreation. In fact, so imminent is the conception of a life, that one must go through great pains to prevent it. It's primary purpose is procreation. How sad to have such a negative view of one of the most intimate expressions of love one can share.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Petrel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Petrel:
This was to point out that if sex is just about procreation...Who made that argument? </font>[/QUOTE]Umm, YOU. graemlins/laugh.gif I think you need to get in contact with your alternate personality and make sure you're both following the same line of thought. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]**Edit by Blackbird** tongue.gif

You need to consult a dictionary for the definition of the word primary, then compare and contrast it with the definition of the word sole.

And I ask again, who argued that the sole purpose of sex was procreation?

[ August 02, 2005, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

[Petrel]

Well, your point of view seems to be that it's pretty useless for anything else.

I've reported your post for rudeness. No one on this thread has been rude to you, yet you seem to find it necessary to insult all of us. Sad.

[Frogman]

This topic has just about run its course. Either discontinue the rude comments along with what imho, is vulgarity or I will delete the thread or request it being deleted.

If this topic can only be discussed in this manner it is dishonoring to God and proves that depraved nature we are of even in comparison to animals. Whose appetites are no where near insatiable as that of man.

This is the second warning I have given on this thread, there will not be a third.

Bro. Dallas

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
On what basis do you claim that the primary purpose of sex is procreation? Any answers yet?

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Frogman:
This topic has just about run its course. Either discontinue the rude comments along with what imho, is vulgarity or I will delete the thread or request it being deleted.Yeah, What he said!

[ August 03, 2005, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
On what basis do you claim that the primary purpose of sex is procreation? Any answers yet? </font>[/QUOTE]This was asked and answered at the beginning of the thread.

[Frogman]

Aaron,
I edited your previous post because my original post was and remains in reference to this entire thread. I am not singling out any individual.

Bro. Dallas

[Aaron]

oops! okay graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Aaron]

I think I'm done anyway. Tried to get us past the procreation hang up, but was unsuccessful.

[Aaron]

Maybe the comparisons with food are losing some folks. Let's try this, and I am treading cautiously.

What is the primary purpose of women's breasts? They are given her as an ornament Ez. 16:7, and The Shepherd King in The Song of Solomon comments on their beauty, but what is their primary purpose?

Maybe that will help people get over this obstacle about thinking of the primary purpose of sex.

[Aaron]

Well, obviously, their primary purpose is to nurse infants. When one considers their design and placement, they are perfect for the job. But that isn't to say they aren't ornamental.

But their ornamental quality is only secondary and, frankly, quite fleeting. The ornament that is of great price in the sight of God, and in the sight of noble men, is the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit. When Lemuel's mother taught him what to look for in a woman, the entire description was of inward qualities with this conclusion:

[Charm] is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

"Beauty is vain." It is empty, and impotent. No man will love a woman because of her outward beauty. As her beauty fades, so will his interest in her. The only beauty that is imperishable is the beauty of holiness. And only a holy man can appreciate it.

Now most people will jump right on board with this view of beauty, especially a woman because she can feel most accutely the violation when one has simply used her to satisfy his lusts.

It's the same with sex. All the sensual qualities we so highly esteem are only secondary, fleeting and vain. They are powerless to generate any real oneness, intimacy or to express any kind of true love, but we tend to ascribe that power to it, I think, to justify our inordinate sexual apetites (apetites no doubt awakened by our immersion in an increasingly sensual and debauched society). We even use Paul's words in 1 Cor. 7 to coerce our partners to yield to our sexual desires on demand.

It's an unfortunate situation we find ourselves in really, and until we can learn to put sex in its proper perspective, we will never have a healthy view of marriage and the family.

Do you want to know what my wife considers the most intimate expression of my love for her? It wasn't, "Hubba, hubba!" It was when I expressed my true and deep desire to give her my heart and to be her friend in the full sense of the word. Tears welled in her eyes, and she said, "Let's be friends."