It Is Good For A Man Not To Have Sexual Relations With A Woman.”

[Skwim]

Sigh. It's also rendered "it's okay not to have relations," as Paul is saying celibacy is for some, by careful choice, in the passage, not mandatory for leaders (Rome).

And it also says.

"It’s good for men not to get married."

"it is good to abstain from sexual relations."

"It is good for a man not to use a woman for sex."

"It’s good for a man not to have sex with a woman."

"It is good if a man has nothing to do with a woman."

"It is better for a man to abstain from having sex with his wife.”

"“It is good for a man not to have sexual contact with a woman."

" It is a good principle for a man to have no physical contact with women"

​

So ya got yer pick. For myself, I'll stick with "It Is Good For A Man Not To Have Sexual Relations With A Woman.”"

For the last time, get your mind out of the gutter, stop obsessing on the sex lives of Christians. Take a break from the Bible. It's messing with your mind!

That's what I figured; to you sex is a gutter subject, and I suspect it's one of those Sour Grapes things as well.

You have my sympathies, BB.

.

 

[columbus]

..

1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.​

Anyone care to explain god's (speaking through Paul) rather odd declaration here?

.

I believe that this is because Paul and the rest of the early Church were expecting Jesus's Return to happen as described. During the resultant chaos and upheaval it would be better not to be responsible for a family.

As decades passed and Jesus failed to appear, people started reinterpreting the admonishments and predictions. They kinda had to, or lose all credibility.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does one accurately state that the theory of evolution, then, is both "fact and theory?"

By using the same standard of "proof" as a legal trial. By using the same standard of "proof" as one uses to call gravity both a fact and a theory. There are different usages of terms. As long as one is consistent and makes that use clear that is fine. If one makes the claim that "science does not prove anything" that would mean that one is using the term in the mathematical sense. By that standard only mathematical claims can be proven.

Do you think that anyone has ever been "proven" guilty of a crime? Then by that standard evolution, and gravity as well, is both a theory and a fact.

 

[Niblo]

Is this the answer?:

'Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!'

 

[Shadow Wolf]

However, it was fulfilled to the point where it was no longer a requirement listed as a Christian obligation.

That claim is not supported in the Bible.

 

[Kenny]

..

1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.​

Anyone care to explain god's (speaking through Paul) rather odd declaration here?

.

You might try quoting the whole of the scripture rather than just picking out one sentence for starters.

It would be like me saying:

1:1 Skwim is a pretty cool guy, but when he is having a fun time posting he looks like
1:2 He is missing some screws in his head
1:3 even if he really is pretty intelligent.

And then I simply quote one part of the passage here and ask:
.

In Skwim 1:2 He (Skwim) is missing some screws in his head
.

Anyone care to explain Ken's rather odd declaration here?

or maybe,......... I should omit 1 & 3

 

[Skwim]

You might try quoting the whole of the scripture rather than just picking out one sentence for starters.

Then just how does the whole scripture change anything; that god feels "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman"?

.

 

[columbus]

Take a break from the Bible. It's messing with your mind!

Skwim isn't the only one who would benefit from taking this advice.
Tom

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How does one accurately state that the theory of evolution, then, is both "fact and theory?"

The FACT is the observed phenomena of evolution: We can observe it taking place right before our very eyes.

Fly species are some of the best to observe this, as some species have generations every 28 days or less. This permits multiple generations a year in studies. It is also why they are so often studied with respect to mutagenic agents: you get your results in months, instead of years or decades.

But there is also DNA evidence-- the strongest FACT of evolution we have so far. Take human chromosome #2: it's a FACT that this used to be two separate chromosomes. There is evidence aplenty confirming this observation. And that neatly solves the issue of humans having fewer chromosomes than our nearest cousins: at some point, a mutation in the past, caused an offspring to be born with fused #2 and #2a.

The THEORY of evolution purports to explain the FACT of observed evolution.

Moreover? It is the single most supported (with FACT) theory in modern science. More than the theory of gravity. More than the theory of light. Thousands of hours of research confirming the THEORY of evolution.

Which is why it's also FACT: A literal mountain of fact, in fact.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And it also says.

"It’s good for men not to get married."

"it is good to abstain from sexual relations."

" It is good for a man not to use a woman for sex."

"It’s good for a man not to have sex with a woman."

"It is good if a man has nothing to do with a woman."

"It is better for a man to abstain from having sex with his wife.”

"“It is good for a man not to have sexual contact with a woman."

" It is a good principle for a man to have no physical contact with women"

​

So ya got yer pick. For myself, I'll stick with "It Is Good For A Man Not To Have Sexual Relations With A Woman.”"


That's what I figured; to you sex is a gutter subject, and I suspect it's one of those Sour Grapes things..

You have my sympathies, BB.

.

I expect a lot has to do with Paul preferring the company of ... men.

 

[JoshuaTree]

But god doesn't present any qualification such as, it's alright to be boppin' babes "if someone can handle it." Nope, he just says it aint good to be messin' around with women. Period. However, he does go on to say how to avoid fornication. In essence; in order to avoid having sex without being married, get married. Kind of a no-brainer if one thinks about it, but that's god for ya.

.

I wonder if sex after marriage was any different back in the day lol.

 

[JoshuaTree]

This is an example of the importance of knowing who the Bible was written to and the significance of the time it was written. God told Adam and Eve to multiply, but by the time Paul came on the scene, thousands of years later, multiplying and filling the earth had been accomplished. It wasn't a Christian concern.

That there were no children in the garden suggests the fall of man had came earlier than expected.

 

[Kenny]

Then just how does the whole scripture change anything, that god feels "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman"?

.

Vs 3

. 3 A husband has the responsibility of meeting the sexual needs of his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband.

So... does that change anything?

 

[Skwim]

Vs 3

. 3 A husband has the responsibility of meeting the sexual needs of his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband.

So... does that change anything?

Well, evidently this "meeting the sexual needs of one's wife" is a good thing. So you tell me which verse is right

V 1. It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.​

or

V 3. A husband has the responsibility of meeting the sexual needs of his wife.
​

They both can't be right. Unless . . . . . . . this responsibility rests on preforming a "not good" act. It's not good that one have sexual relations with one's wife, but because god has deemed it a responsibility ya gotta do it anyway.


.

 

[Kenny]

Well, evidently this "meeting the sexual needs of one's wife" is a good thing. So you tell me which verse is right

V 1. It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.​

or

V 3. A husband has the responsibility of meeting the sexual needs of his wife.
​

They both can't be right. Unless . . . . . . . this responsibility rests on preforming a "not good" act. It's not good that one have sexual relations with one's wife, but because god has deemed it a responsibility ya gotta do it anyway.


.

EXACTLY! Thus the REST of the versus are important. You have just discovered that you just can't take one line and make a statement about it. You have to read versus before and after to get the meaning... otherwise:

The verse:
SKWIM 1:2 He is missing some screws in his head
.

would be misinterpreted

Now, if you would just go further and get what the author is trying to say, you will find that he is absolutely OK with intimate relationships.

17 May all believers continue to live the wonderful lives God has called them to live, according to what he assigns for each person, for this is what I teach to believers everywhere.

I'm married and have a wonderful life with my wife.

If you need personal counsel, please PM me

 

[Shadow Wolf]

EXACTLY! Thus the REST of the versus are important. You have just discovered that you just can't take one line and make a statement about it. You have to read versus before and after to get the meaning... otherwise:

Ok, then let's look at not just the passage Skwim posted, but the one that comes after and even passages from earlier in the Bible.
Paul said it's good for men to not have sex with women, and with the following passage basically added a qualifier of "BUT," it helps to have to a wife/husband to avoid fornication. This isn't much different than when the Quran frowns upon masturbation, but permits it if it will keep you from fornicating. This is Paul's take on it.
When we look at what Jehovah said, on numerous occasions he said be fruitful and multiple. Not once did he say sex isn't good, that it isn't good for a man and woman to have sex, though he did prohibit sex outside of marriage. He also mentioned of man and woman being joined as one flesh, that they would be intimate, and have children. Not once did he say it's not good for men and women to have sex. Rather he didn't mind when those such as Abraham had sex with their wife's slaves just so there would be offspring.
Taken in the entire and full context, Paul contradicts god when he said it's good for a man to not have sex with a woman.

 

[Kenny]

Ok, then let's look at not just the passage Skwim posted, but the one that comes after and even passages from earlier in the Bible.
Paul said it's good for men to not have sex with women, and with the following passage basically added a qualifier of "BUT," it helps to have to a wife/husband to avoid fornication. This isn't much different than when the Quran frowns upon masturbation, but permits it if it will keep you from fornicating. This is Paul's take on it.
When we look at what Jehovah said, on numerous occasions he said be fruitful and multiple. Not once did he say sex isn't good, that it isn't good for a man and woman to have sex, though he did prohibit sex outside of marriage. He also mentioned of man and woman being joined as one flesh, that they would be intimate, and have children. Not once did he say it's not good for men and women to have sex. Rather he didn't mind when those such as Abraham had sex with their wife's slaves just so there would be offspring.
Taken in the entire and full context, Paul contradicts god when he said it's good for a man to not have sex with a woman.

Close but no cigar.

Paul said in Eph 5:32 Marriage is the beautiful design of the Almighty, a great and sacred mystery—meant to be a vivid example of Christ and his church.

As well as 1 Cor 7: 3 A husband has the responsibility of meeting the sexual needs of his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband

So, we will have to dig deeper into 1 Corinthians 7 if you want to get the meaning of what he is trying to say. Thus, as I mentioned to Skwim, you have to read the whole of the chapter versus plucking up one verse to get the meaning. Additional books written by him also help.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Close but no cigar.

Paul said in Eph 5:32 Marriage is the beautiful design of the Almighty, a great and sacred mystery—meant to be a vivid example of Christ and his church.

As well as 1 Cor 7: 3 A husband has the responsibility of meeting the sexual needs of his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband

So, we will have to dig deeper into 1 Corinthians 7 if you want to get the meaning of what he is trying to say. Thus, as I mentioned to Skwim, you have to read the whole of the chapter versus plucking up one verse to get the meaning. Additional books written by him also help.

He still said it is good for a man to not have sex with a woman. That doesn't magically disappear or become void because of his "but" statements, which includes "it's good to not have sex, but get married because that is better than fornication." He basically placed his own genophobia above what god had already established while qualifying that the next best thing is marriage.

 

[Kenny]

He still said it is good for a man to not have sex with a woman. That doesn't magically disappear or become void because of his "but" statements, which includes "it's good to not have sex, but get married because that is better than fornication." He basically placed his own genophobia above what god had already established while qualifying that the next best thing is marriage.

No... that is not digging deeper. That is just continuing the rant that doesn't even explain why he said

Eph 5:Marriage is the beautiful design of the Almighty, a great and sacred mystery—meant to be a vivid example of Christ and his church.

1 Cor 7: 3 A husband has the responsibility of meeting the sexual needs of his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband

What we have here, Shadow, is that you really aren't wanting an answer.

 

[Earthling]

That there were no children in the garden suggests the fall of man had came earlier than expected.

It's possible, I suppose, but I couldn't agree or disagree with that suggestion. There isn't anything that would support it in the Bible, that I know of. I don't think that it was expected, either sooner or later.