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

[Skwim]

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:

So that's the answer?

"The 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."

? ​

All along leaving intact the fact that It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. Do you realize how goofy this is? That a reasonable god would suggest people do something he considers to be bad (not good). Does this really make sense to you? But thinking about it . . considering that god creates evil maybe this isn't so far fetched after all.

1) God creates humans with a desire for sexual intercourse.
2) Yet he deems sexual intercourse is not good.
3) However, so as to meet the needs of one's wife god says, do this thing I've deemed not good.


​

And all this makes sense to you.

.

​

.

 

[robocop (actually)]

..

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?

.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 1Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

Obviously this is concerning sex without marriage.

 

[Kenny]

So that's the answer?

"The 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."

? ​

All along leaving intact the fact that It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. Do you realize how goofy this is? That a reasonable god would suggest people do something he considers to be bad (not good). Does this really make sense to you? But thinking about it . . considering that god creates evil maybe this isn't so far fetched after all.

1) God creates humans with a desire for sexual intercourse.
2) Yet he deems sexual intercourse is not good.
3) However, so as to meet the needs of one's wife god says, do this thing I've deemed not good.


​

And all this makes sense to you.



.

Nope!

So, you couldn't reconcile the vs 3 and Ephesians 5... do I have that correct?

 

[Skwim]

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 1Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

Obviously this is concerning sex without marriage.

God doesn't qualify his remark in any way or give any hints that it should be, yet you think you can read his mind. Hmmm, . . . I don't think so.

.

 

[Skwim]

Nope!

Then why agree with it?

So, you couldn't reconcile the vs 3 and Ephesians 5... do I have that correct?

Never took a look at Ephesians 5, but now that I have, you're going to have to be far more specific.

.

 

[Kenny]

Then why agree with it?


Never took a look at Ephesians 5, but now that I have, you're going to have to be far more specific.

.

Well... assuming you agree that you just took one verse, which was different from vs 3 and certainly different from

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.

which means there are two scriptures that support marriage by Paul

and assuming you actually are seeking an answer, let's start with vs 1

"7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

Did you notice that it says "things whereof you wrote unto me"? Do we really know all the nuances that "they wrote unto me"?

 

[Skwim]

Well... assuming you agree that you just took one verse, which was different from vs 3 and certainly different from
which means there are two scriptures that support marriage by Paul

and assuming you actually are seeking an answer, let's start with vs 1

"7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

Did you notice that it says "things whereof you wrote unto me"? Do we really know all the nuances that "they wrote unto me"?

Completely irrelevant.

.

 

[robocop (actually)]

God doesn't qualify his remark in any way or give any hints that it should be, yet you think you can read his mind. Hmmm, . . . I don't think so.

Nope... it's clarified in the second verse... just get a good translation.

robocop (actually) said: ↑
1 Corinthians 7:1-2 1Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

It's funny that you post 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 as the reference, then you only quote the first verse.

 

[Kenny]

Completely irrelevant.

.

Why? If you don't know what it was in reference to... how can you apply it to ALL marriages?

Or is it you aren't interested?

And why do you think that he also penned that marriages are made by God and it is a beautiful design?

\Or do you think that 1 For 5:It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

has nothing to do with it?

 

[Deeje]

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

Actually, when Adam and his wife were brought together as husband and wife, as perfect humans their first thought was not to have sex straight away. Lust was not part of the human psyche until sin entered the picture. They had to get to know one another as individuals first because they had no courtship before marriage. (Some people who enter arranged marriages even today do not have sex with their spouse until that one feels ready to commit to them that way. That is done out of respect.)

You might recall that the first thing sin brought to mind for these "married" individuals in Eden was shame at their nakedness. New and impure thoughts now came flooding in that made them feel bad about their reproductive parts and so they covered them up. God went even further and made long garments of skin to cover them completely. God's idea of modesty is different to human's apparently.

Children came along after their eviction from Eden. The children were born with the same sinful tendencies as their parents, and an obsession with sex continues to this day.

Even the genderless rebel angels in heaven became obsessed with sex and in Noah's day they materialized human flesh so as to engage in it. They remain obsessed with it as the world demonstrates every day that depravity remains among us...becoming a 'norm'. Illicit sex is almost always accompanied by a love of violence...two of the hallmarks of demonic inspiration in this world. (1 John 5:19)

Adam and his wife carried out the mandate to "fill the earth" with their "kind" but they did not get to "subdue it"....in their defective state, they have all but ruined it...proving that humans operating independently of their Creator will never succeed in life because of sin. Only God can remove it and Jesus' sacrifice has facilitated it. The best is yet to come when God's kingdom "comes" to get rid of the rot and re-establish God's rulership over the earth. This is what I believe....and is what I look forward to.

 

[Deeje]

Nope... it's clarified in the second verse... just get a good translation.

robocop (actually) said: ↑
1 Corinthians 7:1-2 1Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

It's funny that you post 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 as the reference, then you only quote the first verse.

Good point. It also helps to read several different translations. If you go to Strongs, it highlights some interesting points....

The NASB says..."Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch G681 a woman."

The meaning of this word "háptō" rendered "touch" (not "have sexual relations") is....

"a primary verb; properly, to fasten to, i.e. (specially) to set on fire:—kindle, light."

This is not just "touching a woman" in a neutral sense, but to touch a woman so as to "kindle a fire" in her.

And the next verse confirms that the only woman to be "touched" in such a way was to be a man's wife.

@Skwim...this is yet another thread in which your ignorance of scripture and your need to find fault with the Bible is obvious. Don't you get tired of it? Do you have any idea how many of your threads pertain to sex.....?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Good point. It also helps to read several different translations. If you go to Strongs, it highlights some interesting points....

The NASB says..."Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch G681 a woman."

The meaning of this word "háptō" rendered "touch" (not "have sexual relations") is....

"a primary verb; properly, to fasten to, i.e. (specially) to set on fire:—kindle, light."

This is not just "touching a woman" in a neutral sense, but to touch a woman so as to "kindle a fire" in her.

And the next verse confirms that the only woman to be "touched" in such a way was to be a man's wife.

@Skwim...this is yet another thread in which your ignorance of scripture and your need to find fault with the Bible is obvious. Don't you get tired of it? Do you have any idea how many of your threads pertain to sex.....?

Thanks... Jehovah's Witnesses devote a great amount of time to scripture study. I don't mock Skwim for making sexual topics all the time though; that's his business and we have the right to reply just as he has the right to post.

 

[Deeje]

Thanks... Jehovah's Witnesses devote a great amount of time to scripture study.

There is no point in being a Christian if you don't understand the Bible. This book is to guide us through the trials of this life, so no misunderstanding or twisting of what is written is going to benefit us.

Personally, I love to study.....but not everyone does. I find it very rewarding because it fills in details about so many things that aren't obvious in a cursory reading. Like this OP for example.

I don't mock Skwim for making sexual topics all the time though; that's his business and we have the right to reply just as he has the right to post.

True....but sometimes an obsession is not obvious to someone until you point it out. I wasn't mocking him...just stating the obvious I thought.

 

[Jumi]

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.​

​

It's often interpreted to mean that if you don't want to get married then don't. If you do, you have duties to fulfill. This really isn't one of the crazy parts of the Bible...

 

[Earthling]

By using the same standard of "proof" as a legal trial.

That isn't saying much. A jury trial? 12 people listen to evidence and then decide if a person is guilty. So evolution is true if people say it's true?

By using the same standard of "proof" as one uses to call gravity both a fact and a theory.

Again, not saying much. It's subject to change.

There are different usages of terms.

I would imagine.

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.

I doubt it very much. I've seen pictures of ape skulls with human skulls being touted as evidence for evolution. The skulls are somewhat similar in appearance. There's no evidence of anything other than that there are apes and there are humans and they have skulls. You see this over and over. No evidence of evolution being called evolution. It's laughable. It's like me showing you a picture of trees and grass and squirrels and saying, these are evidence of creation. They were created.

It's a fact that these skulls are evidence for evolution doesn't make evolution a fact. It's a fact that this man was convicted of a crime doesn't make it a fact that he was guilty. Only that he had been found guilty by his peers. In an extremely faulty legal system. It's a fact that these trees are part of something we call creation, it isn't a fact that they were created.

 

[Marcion]

..

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?

.

The original epistles of Paul were probably written by members of a School of Gnostic Christians.
In mysticism in general the retention of semen is seen as a means to save the loss of vital energy which helps to maintain a healthy vigourous body and helps in performing spiritual practices.
It also helps the mind from getting polluted by animal type of ideations which disturb or hinder maintaining the proper spiritual ideation.

So the ideal male mystic reduces the amount of semen loss by remaining celebate, avoiding masturbation, controlling his thoughts and if married reducing the frequency of intercourse with his wife.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That isn't saying much. A jury trial? 12 people listen to evidence and then decide if a person is guilty. So evolution is true if people say it's true?



Again, not saying much. It's subject to change.



I would imagine.



I doubt it very much. I've seen pictures of ape skulls with human skulls being touted as evidence for evolution. The skulls are somewhat similar in appearance. There's no evidence of anything other than that there are apes and there are humans and they have skulls. You see this over and over. No evidence of evolution being called evolution. It's laughable. It's like me showing you a picture of trees and grass and squirrels and saying, these are evidence of creation. They were created.

It's a fact that these skulls are evidence for evolution doesn't make evolution a fact. It's a fact that this man was convicted of a crime doesn't make it a fact that he was guilty. Only that he had been found guilty by his peers. In an extremely faulty legal system. It's a fact that these trees are part of something we call creation, it isn't a fact that they were created.

I see that ignorance abounds in your world. Sadly you are probably uneducable. There is no scientific evidence for your myths and mountains of scientific evidence for evolution. If you truly believed what you claim you do and were consistent you would not use the tools that were made possible by what you deny.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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 as well.

You have my sympathies, BB.

.

Yes, if a man or a woman devotes themselves fully to church work, without the entanglement of family and etc. they can accomplish a lot for God. I've also known church staffers to do this on a temporary basis, giving fully to God for some time of years before marrying.

The problem is that these explanations lie in the surrounding verses. However, you are stuck in sex gear. When I see a skeptic take one verse out of context, I know the truth, they found the verse on an atheist website, not from actually reading the Bible or talking to the author! I suggest you do as I did and ask God for extraordinary proof.

 

[Earthling]

I see that ignorance abounds in your world. Sadly you are probably uneducable. There is no scientific evidence for your myths and mountains of scientific evidence for evolution. If you truly believed what you claim you do and were consistent you would not use the tools that were made possible by what you deny.

Like I said. Evidence is meaningless. If I decide that trees are evidence of creation then I have more evidence for that than I do for evolution. Saying you have evidence for something is meaningless. You used a trial of law as an example of how science works. That was pretty stupid. If you have a trial of law the prosecution as well as the defense have evidence. One of them will loose based upon either what a judge or jury decides.

For you to say that there is no scientific evidence for my myths is also pretty stupid. I have a copy on a shelf and hundreds of copies available online. There's one linked to on this very forum. There's tons of archaeological evidence supporting it.

What you have is a relatively small group of people who are biased but informed on the subject dictating to you conjecture, speculation, imagination, and it being widely accepted because people are foolish enough to think that it is the intellectually superior explanation of, not how life began, but what happened to life once it began.

That's why when each of your poorly constructed arguments are swept aside for the nonsense they really are you resort to claiming your opposition is ignorant, uneducated and dishonest. Like a broken record. Ignorant, uneducated and dishonest. Ignorant, uneducated and dishonest. Ignorant, uneducated and dishonest.

Like a political television advertisement.

So. Not only are you woefully incompetent to criticize the Bible you are really an amateurish debater.

 

[Woberts]

That's why when each of your poorly constructed arguments are swept aside for the nonsense they really are

That's funny, because that hasn't happened.
They're not nonsense.
Whether you want to believe actual science or the nonsense found in the Bible is up to you.

I think I already know which one you'll choose.
R'amen!