What's new
Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Online forum for sale. Please send Stovebolts PM for details. https://meetchristians.net
  • Guest Just a reminder that we don't discuss politics on this site. We believe that politics are of Man and not God. They are extremely devisive and involve lots of judgemental attitude. Enter Here
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

Are You, Did You? I'm Repented!

Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,607
Gender
Male
I think he is referring to how God designed sex between a man and a woman back in the garden which is within the context of marriage and procreation.

Speaking of Lot and his daughters, consider this. Noah was alive when Lot was a kid. No doubt he and Abram heard the account of the flood first hand from Noah. Imagine for a moment God destroys an entire city and only three people are left. I don't believe it's a stretch to think Lots daughters believed they were the last three people on earth. Just as 8 people populated the earth, why not 3? After all, Lot did offer his daughters to the mob.

When we look at Tamar, the situation wasn't ideal, but similar to Lots daughters, it was for procreation, not pleasure or monetary gain.
I suppose if Lot chose to not tell his daughters that he had asked God to let him escape to the little town of Zoar, and God had agreed so that it was clear God wasn't destroying the whole of mankind save them. And allowed his daughters to have this horrible feeling that everyone else was gone though he knew that wasn't true. Lot feared going to Zoar, though he was the one to ask God to allow it.

So what passages of scripture actually say that in odd cases like this that God recognizes marriages of people who really didn't have the true commitment and acceptable right to one another His word describes?
 
Last edited:

StoveBolts

Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
15,886
Gender
Male
Just a question, a rhetorical question, "Why the more vulgar sounding use of had sex instead of a kinder sounding statement such as they came together?" Please think and let's not offend the gentler and younger Christians that may or may not read these forums and remember, the question is Rhetorical... for your head alone and not for further Public Discourse.
Hi Taylor,
I think that our society as a whole has been saturated with images of sexuality and other pleasures that the idea of "coming together' is being lost. Its not so much anymore about two becoming one, but rather its become more about what can my partner do to pleasure me.

I think as a society, sex is being detached from the idea of two becoming one which speaks of a shared intimacy, harmony and oneness.

Just my thoughts, but I agree with the jist and spirit of your posts in this topic.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,607
Gender
Male
Am I mistaken that it was posited that two people are married in God's eyes on the basis of their having had sexual relations?
 

StoveBolts

Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
15,886
Gender
Male
Am I mistaken that it was posited that two people are married in God's eyes on the basis of their having had sexual relations?
I did not read it that way in a legalistic since. The way I read it was that God intended sexual relations within the context of marriage.

Imagine for a moment you designed something with a specific purpose in mind. Suddenly, your design is being misused for unintended purposes. Does this mean you no longer remember your intended purpose?

Job 40:15 “Behold, Behemoth,[c]
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
16 Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.

Verse 17 can be read more accurately as a males anatomy. It can be used for good, or it can be used to destroy homes.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,607
Gender
Male
I did not read it that way in a legalistic since. The way I read it was that God intended sexual relations within the context of marriage.

Imagine for a moment you designed something with a specific purpose in mind. Suddenly, your design is being misused for unintended purposes. Does this mean you no longer remember your intended purpose?

Job 40:15 “Behold, Behemoth,[c]
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
16 Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.

Verse 17 can be read more accurately as a males anatomy. It can be used for good, or it can be used to destroy homes.
Actually the first post includes:

"Because of Drive-In Movies and the Back Seat of the modern day mode of travel and the Intentional Ignorance of the Scriptures many are the young men and young ladies that have Scripturally married and without any decree, divorced."

That is a statement by the poster that people have "married" unknowingly by simply having sex in the back seat of a car. If it were to be true that this is the case the writer is saying that scripturally they are married and therefore God regards it that way.
That is something I most definitely disagree with.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,607
Gender
Male
And the first poster wrote:
"From my studies of the Scriptures of the Jewish/Christian Bible I do understand that when a male and a female human join with one another, YHWH sees a life long commitment."

And I disagree with that. I think perhaps that would have been an ideal in an unfallen world. I don't think in a fallen world God sees a lifetime commitment simply because two people had intimacy.
 

StoveBolts

Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
15,886
Gender
Male
Actually the first post includes:

"Because of Drive-In Movies and the Back Seat of the modern day mode of travel and the Intentional Ignorance of the Scriptures many are the young men and young ladies that have Scripturally married and without any decree, divorced."

That is a statement by the poster that people have "married" unknowingly by simply having sex in the back seat of a car. If it were to be true that this is the case the writer is saying that scripturally they are married and therefore God regards it that way.
That is something I most definitely disagree with.
Sure, I understand what your saying.
Here is how I see it. Scripturally, marriage consists of more than sex. Its about commitment, unity and harmony and this culminates in the sexual experience between a man and woman within the confines of a biblical marriage.

Sex was designed by God to be shared within a marriage between a husband and wife. Saying this, when sexual encounters are outside of marriage, it destroys the fundamental core of what a marriage is supposed to be. As a result, it tears the very fabric of Gods design for a union between a man and woman.

When sex outside of marriage occurs, the Bible calls that prostitution. Its an abomination against marriage, and so far, I think you agree.

Technically, sex in the backseat by raging teen hormones or whatever other reason wants to assert is prostitution, not marriage. But it is linked to marriage and has a profound impact on marriage in the traditional since.

If we look at the story of Hosea, he marries Gomer, the prostitute. This parallels the story of God who pursues Israel. Although Israel prostitutes herself, God honors the marriage as he reclaims what marriage is to be. In essence, the story holds firm that prostitution does not nullify Gods design for marriage.
 

for_his_glory

Light in darkness
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
15,759
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
The "vulgar" word was used by at least one other. Did you mean to write them a post about it too but forgot?
There is a difference of having sex as being an ugly lustful act unpleasing to the Father as a better word would be the union as in the context of marriage and procreation for having children within a marriage as StoveBolts was saying in post #14.

A concern was raised by th1b.taylor as using the word sex as being vulgar in that of being a tasteless or a crass word that means an unholy union between a man and a woman. The word can be offensive to others in how it is used today to express that of what a man and woman, (whatever the age) do outside the bonds of marriage which is lust.

It was a Rhetorical question for your head alone and not for further Public Discourse so this discussion ends here.
 

for_his_glory

Light in darkness
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
15,759
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
I been single for so many years I finally decided to tell someone from the female species that she looks beautiful like a angel. Why not. She is beautiful inside and out. Females like compliments.
And there is nothing wrong with that when it is meant as a compliment.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,607
Gender
Male
There is a difference of having sex as being an ugly lustful act unpleasing to the Father as a better word would be the union as in the context of marriage and procreation for having children within a marriage as StoveBolts was saying in post #14.

A concern was raised by th1b.taylor as using the word sex as being vulgar in that of being a tasteless or a crass word that means an unholy union between a man and a woman. The word can be offensive to others in how it is used today to express that of what a man and woman, (whatever the age) do outside the bonds of marriage which is lust.

It was a Rhetorical question for your head alone and not for further Public Discourse so this discussion ends here.
Would it therefore be a rule in the forum that any person can direct something negative to any other member and tack on what is in effect a requirement that they can't respond? Because that is what happened.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,607
Gender
Male
There is a difference of having sex as being an ugly lustful act unpleasing to the Father as a better word would be the union as in the context of marriage and procreation for having children within a marriage as StoveBolts was saying in post #14.

A concern was raised by th1b.taylor as using the word sex as being vulgar in that of being a tasteless or a crass word that means an unholy union between a man and a woman. The word can be offensive to others in how it is used today to express that of what a man and woman, (whatever the age) do outside the bonds of marriage which is lust.

It was a Rhetorical question for your head alone and not for further Public Discourse so this discussion ends here.
I used the word to state that Joseph and Mary did not have sex until after Jesus was born.
Sure, I understand what your saying.
Here is how I see it. Scripturally, marriage consists of more than sex. Its about commitment, unity and harmony and this culminates in the sexual experience between a man and woman within the confines of a biblical marriage.

Sex was designed by God to be shared within a marriage between a husband and wife. Saying this, when sexual encounters are outside of marriage, it destroys the fundamental core of what a marriage is supposed to be. As a result, it tears the very fabric of Gods design for a union between a man and woman.

When sex outside of marriage occurs, the Bible calls that prostitution. Its an abomination against marriage, and so far, I think you agree.

Technically, sex in the backseat by raging teen hormones or whatever other reason wants to assert is prostitution, not marriage. But it is linked to marriage and has a profound impact on marriage in the traditional since.

If we look at the story of Hosea, he marries Gomer, the prostitute. This parallels the story of God who pursues Israel. Although Israel prostitutes herself, God honors the marriage as he reclaims what marriage is to be. In essence, the story holds firm that prostitution does not nullify Gods design for marriage.
I agree with that. The original post did not.
Somehow I am in trouble for using the word "sex", frankly I think because the poster was looking for an issue, and his original post about the back of a car is the actual potentially crude mental picture.
But that's okay.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,607
Gender
Male
There is a difference of having sex as being an ugly lustful act unpleasing to the Father as a better word would be the union as in the context of marriage and procreation for having children within a marriage as StoveBolts was saying in post #14.

A concern was raised by th1b.taylor as using the word sex as being vulgar in that of being a tasteless or a crass word that means an unholy union between a man and a woman. The word can be offensive to others in how it is used today to express that of what a man and woman, (whatever the age) do outside the bonds of marriage which is lust.

It was a Rhetorical question for your head alone and not for further Public Discourse so this discussion ends here.
And I disagree strongly that stating that Mary and Joseph did not have sex until after the birth of Christ is introducing anything remotely crude.
I would think the more sensitive people would not like the idea of talking about it happening between unbelievers in the back of a car.
It's not a dirty word in the context I used it. Let's be reasonable.
 

StoveBolts

Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
15,886
Gender
Male
I used the word to state that Joseph and Mary did not have sex until after Jesus was born.

I agree with that. The original post did not.
Somehow I am in trouble for using the word "sex", frankly I think because the poster was looking for an issue, and his original post about the back of a car is the actual potentially crude mental picture.
But that's okay.
I really try my best not to assume what another is thinking. It gets me in trouble on occasion when I do because often I've put words in the mouth of another that they never intended.

If I sit back and try to digest the OP, it appears to me that Taylor is associating sex as something done in the back seat of a car or other illicit places. It conjures the thought of no commitment or regard to marriage.

When we speak of Joseph and the beloved Mother of our Savior, should we use the word sex between them when the word can so easily be associated with the rampant porn and sexual immorality that's readily available to most teens, or, should we try to show dignity and honor to Joseph and Mary when speaking of their sexuality and use terms such as 'came together' which is how scripture explains it in Matthew 1:18.

I understand how you meant it, and I'm ok with that. But not everyone understands sex as something sacred between husband and wife. Its no longer the norm.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,607
Gender
Male
I really try my best not to assume what another is thinking. It gets me in trouble on occasion when I do because often I've put words in the mouth of another that they never intended.

If I sit back and try to digest the OP, it appears to me that Taylor is associating sex as something done in the back seat of a car or other illicit places. It conjures the thought of no commitment or regard to marriage.

When we speak of Joseph and the beloved Mother of our Savior, should we use the word sex between them when the word can so easily be associated with the rampant porn and sexual immorality that's readily available to most teens, or, should we try to show dignity and honor to Joseph and Mary when speaking of their sexuality and use terms such as 'came together' which is how scripture explains it in Matthew 1:18.

I understand how you meant it, and I'm ok with that. But not everyone understands sex as something sacred between husband and wife. Its no longer the norm.
I know it as something good God created for a couple purposes. I don't think the word itself is wrong, though like much of Gods created things can be corrupted and made ugly. That is not the word's fault.
 

for_his_glory

Light in darkness
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
15,759
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
Would it therefore be a rule in the forum that any person can direct something negative to any other member and tack on what is in effect a requirement that they can't respond? Because that is what happened.
It is all in regards of respecting th1b.taylor post #16 of him asking a rhetorical question to you and how he felt about using the word sex and asking no further reply to that. You should have respected that and not have replied which has led us where we are right now. You could have taken it to PM with him. There will be no more discussion on this matter.
 

for_his_glory

Light in darkness
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
15,759
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
From the OP th1b.taylor said: From my studies of the Scriptures of the Jewish/Christian Bible I do understand that when a male and a female human join with one another, YHWH sees a life long commitment.

My answer to this is what God has joined together let no man put usunder. What God has joined together should be a life long commitment. Jesus explains the bonds of marriage as being one flesh as what God created in the beginning, Genesis 2:21-25; Matthew 19:3-6. It's not a marriage license that joins two as one flesh as that was incorporated by man into the laws.

Fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, whoremongers before marriage is considered sinful immortality, or as some call it sexual immortality like the woman at the well in John 4:18. These scriptures below explain immortality outside the bonds of God's union of a man and a woman becoming one in the eyes of God.

Song of Solomon 2: 7 I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.

Colossians 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: 6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: 7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

Hebrews 13: 4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,607
Gender
Male
S
It is all in regards of respecting th1b.taylor post #16 of him asking a rhetorical question to you and how he felt about using the word sex and asking no further reply to that. You should have respected that and not have replied which has led us where we are right now. You could have taken it to PM with him. There will be no more discussion on this matter.
I naturally don't like unfairly and unjustified applied controls.
But I will regard this ploy of rhetorical ploy thing where I question how someone says something that I make up a reason not to like and say so but tell them because I used the word "rhetorical" I can insist they can't reply. It's a great tool to stick in the old tool belt!
 

for_his_glory

Light in darkness
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
15,759
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
There will be no more discussion of using the word sex inappropriately per ones original reason why it may offend others. Please respect that. If this continues those who do will be removed from this thread.

Do not reply to this warning.
 

Help support cf.net

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Top