Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. 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!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

modern christian view of sexuality not realistic

Walk by faith not by sight. At least contrary to walking in the flesh.

And the Bible? What does it describe of "walking in the Spirit"? How does doing so make it possible for a believer "not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh"? (Galatians 5:16)

What does it mean to "walk by faith, not by sight"? How is this the essence of walking in the Spirit, as your response above seems to imply?

If you're married with your partner, you're no longer two, but one, this one-body union with Christ is just a matter of fact.

You seem to think this oneness is a physical thing. Obviously, my wife and I - or any married couple - don't share a single body. We haven't melded into one physical being, parts of my wife and I forming its shape. So, then, what is it to be "one"?

What does it mean to be "one with Christ"? Scripture is really clear that the believer's union with him is a spiritual thing, not a physical one (Romans 6; Romans 8:9-16; Titus 3:5-7; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 1:3-14). Can you describe the nature of this union? It's not sexual in the slightest.

I emphasize on the "sexua" nature because, again, the topic of this thread is about sexuality. If you don't wanna talk about it, don't reply.

Again, you don't get to dictate to what I will, or will not, reply. I've already replied extensively to the OP. I'm only addressing you, as I've said, because your sexualizing of the spiritual union the believer has with God is badly in error and grotesque. If you don't want me commenting on your skewed notions of what it is to be "in Christ," just stop posting them (or conform your thinking to what God's word actually says).

Sir, you're making false accusations, what I said was the opposite - "there will be no marriage or giving into marriage in the resurrection like angels," angels are sexless, they don't reproduce, and neither will we in the kingdom. That's the eternal heavenly experience, it's DEsexualized.

You wrote:

"In modern Christian view, sex - from kissing, fondling, undressing, shower, foreplay to intercourse, the whole shebang - is a foretaste of our spiritual union with Jesus in heaven, like a trailer of a movie. Sex by God's design is the consumation of a loving relationship, it's about losing yourself and merging with your partner, transcending physical boundaries and feeling the presence of God when you hit climax."

Your statement here isn't at all "de-sexualized." Along with being very wrong and obscene, it's also so over-romanticized, it's silly. "Losing yourself," "transcending physical boundaries," "feeling the presence of God when you hit climax" - these are all the sorts of over-the-top things one might read in a Harlequin Romance novel. The last remark, though, about "feeling the presence of God when you hit climax" is pretty vile.

What I described is nothing but sanctified sex within wedlock. If you're really married and you believe that's what God intended, you wouldn't have disparaged human sexuality the way you do in your mean-spirited reply.

My reply isn't "mean-spirited" it simply strongly disagrees with some of your remarks. Do you believe your posts are above criticism and challenge?

And I'm not "disparaging human sexuality"; I'm pointing out that the believer's spiritual union with, and spiritual experience of, God has nothing to do with orgasm. Though this should be obvious to anyone who understands basic Christian living, it seems it isn't to you.

The Bible is very clear that the flesh and the spirit don't mix to good effect but are, actually, in opposition to one another.

Galatians 5:17
17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.


Romans 7:18
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.


Romans 8:5-9
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.


No sir, you seem to be offended by an honest, cathartic discussion about human sexuality, you're acting just like a typical prudish parent who perpetuates the stigmization of sex and suppresses any mention of sex because sex is taboo, a necessarily evil for reproduction.

I get that this silly characterization of my posts (and of me, personally) makes it easier for you to dismiss what I've pointed out, but its entirely wrong.

As a married guy, I don't need a "cathartic discussion about human sexuality." I'm not pent-up about sex as some may be. It's great! My wife and I enjoy very much what God has created for us in this regard. But this doesn't mean I ignore God's restrictions on the matter of human sexuality, or develop corrupt and obscene correlations between orgasm and experiencing God.

Hey I'm just giving you an honest report about my interaction with her about "need" and "self-centeredness". If you don't like it, leave it. I don't wanna cause any collateral damage.

Yes, you did want to "cause collateral damage." Why else would you have brought her into the discussion in such a disparaging and unnecessary way? If you don't want me saying so, don't write such things. And as far as being "honest" is concerned, well, you aren't the first to use "honesty" as a cloak for verbal abuse.

If you don't have a temporary, earthly experience of God, how can you begin to imagine such an eternal, heavenly experience of God? You and I are still living in our sinful earthly lives, nobody's ever been to heaven and come back except lord Jesus himself.

Nowhere in God's word is the believer's spiritual experience of Him ever equated to orgasm. Instead, when the New Testament offers from the marriage union a glimpse into what it is to walk with God, it never mentions anything sexual but things like the hierarchy of authority in marriage, self-sacrifice (Ephesians 5:22-29), purity (2 Corinthians 11:2), and the temporality of the marriage union (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25).

My daily experience of God is as the Bible describes: He convicts me, teaches me, strengthens me, comforts me and transforms me, filling me with the life and "fruit" of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16; Ephesians 3:16; Philippians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 5:22-23; 2 Corinthians 1:3-4). There is nothing at all sexual about this experience, certainly nothing orgasmic, which is exactly what I would expect given what God's word says about the oppositional nature of the flesh and Spirit. See above.

I don't, then, need to imagine what walking with God will be like in eternity, but can extrapolate - somewhat - from my experience of "walking in the Spirit" today to fellowship with God forever in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21-22). Doing so encourages me enormously, because as astonishing and powerful as God is in my life now; as faithful, gracious and patient as He is with me today; as wise, gentle and persistent with me as He always is, my unimpeded experience of Him in eternity will no longer be "through a mirror dimly" but in unobscured, glorious fullness!

One other thing: Over the years, I've discipled many guys who've struggled with pornography. All of them had "tells," things they did and said (and didn't say) that give away that they were looking often at porn. I'm getting in our interaction, the "flavor" of what I've often experienced in my discipleship of these guys. If you need help in this area, I'd urge you to check out my "Every Man's Battle" thread in the Bible Studies subforum on this site.
 
Last edited:
Actually God gave us physical experience to help us understand the spiritual.
To put them opposed to each other is to fall into the trap of the gnostics, an ancient heresy.

What did Paul say - that the husband/wife relationship (physical experience) was supposed to show the world Christ and the church. (spiritual experience)

I've never denied that we find in Scripture analogies to marriage, only that those analogies never camp on, or even hint at, the sexual dimension of marriage being reflective of the believer's relationship to, or experience of, God.
 
And I'm not "disparaging human sexuality"; I'm pointing out that the believer's spiritual union with, and spiritual experience of, God has nothing to do with orgasm. Though this should be obvious to anyone who understands basic Christian living, it seems it isn't to you.
Hi Tenchi

I always describe the 'oneness' that Jesus speaks of between him and his Father, and between believers and both him and the Father is the oneness that comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with any physical relationship that we might hold to here on the earth. It is a oneness that comes from our all being one in agreement, understanding and purpose of life, which we all get through agreement with what the Holy Spirit leads us to. It is by the Spirit that we find oneness with the Holiness of God.

God bless,
Ted
 
And the Bible? What does it describe of "walking in the Spirit"? How does doing so make it possible for a believer "not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh"? (Galatians 5:16)
You who have fulfilled your own “lusts of the flesh” in your marriage bed, asking me, who’ve never fulfilled that with anybody, and never will be?
What does it mean to "walk by faith, not by sight"? How is this the essence of walking in the Spirit, as your response above seems to imply?
Why don’t you tell me, sir? Show me how this is not just an empty talking point, or an emperor’s new clothes which is only visible to you?
You seem to think this oneness is a physical thing. Obviously, my wife and I - or any married couple - don't share a single body. We haven't melded into one physical being, parts of my wife and I forming its shape. So, then, what is it to be "one"?
What does it mean to be "one with Christ"? Scripture is really clear that the believer's union with him is a spiritual thing, not a physical one (Romans 6; Romans 8:9-16; Titus 3:5-7; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 1:3-14). Can you describe the nature of this union? It's not sexual in the slightest.
You are one physical being when you were in her in your marriage bed, you were connected, physically and spiritually. Haven’t you read that Jesus school the Pharisees on God’s original design of marriage? “Therefore they were no longer two, but one.” And I later particularly singled out Paul’s lecture in sexual immorality, if you have sex with a harlot you become one flesh with her (1 Cor. 6:16-17), what could be more physical and sexual than that?

The nature of this union with Christ is becoming one flesh, Christ being the head and we the church the body, as long as head and body are one, we and Christ are one.

Again, you don't get to dictate to what I will, or will not, reply. I've already replied extensively to the OP. I'm only addressing you, as I've said, because your sexualizing of the spiritual union the believer has with God is badly in error and grotesque. If you don't want me commenting on your skewed notions of what it is to be "in Christ," just stop posting them (or conform your thinking to what God's word actually says).
What are you, thought police? You’re twisting my words into something I never meant, I repeatedly quoted Matt. 22:30, in such a union with God we’ll be like angels without any sex, and I’ve been experiencing that like the 144,000 who were “not defiled by women”, while you had made such a union with your wife in a fleshly and sexual nature, and you have the audacity to accuse me of “sexualizing” spiritual union?
 
My reply isn't "mean-spirited" it simply strongly disagrees with some of your remarks. Do you believe your posts are above criticism and challenge?
My posts were an honest response to the OP, I’m willing and interested to have a deep dive on biblical sexuality, you’re not, you just go after me because I don’t conform to your thought pattern, that’s why I call you mean spirited.
And I'm not "disparaging human sexuality"; I'm pointing out that the believer's spiritual union with, and spiritual experience of, God has nothing to do with orgasm. Though this should be obvious to anyone who understands basic Christian living, it seems it isn't to you.
God had nothing to do with 0rgasm? Oh really? Then why did he create that little bud right above the cleft, filled with nerve endings and specifically designed for sexual pleasure? With no other apparent functions? If you don’t know what I’m talking about, go ask your wife.
Your statement here isn't at all "de-sexualized." Along with being very wrong and obscene, it's also so over-romanticized, it's silly. "Losing yourself," "transcending physical boundaries," "feeling the presence of God when you hit climax" - these are all the sorts of over-the-top things one might read in a Harlequin Romance novel. The last remark, though, about "feeling the presence of God when you hit climax" is pretty vile.
Again, you who probably have experienced all of that in your marriage bed, are accusing me of speaking it out? Don’t you know that the one kind of people Jesus hated the most was hypocrites?
 
The Bible is very clear that the flesh and the spirit don't mix to good effect but are, actually, in opposition to one another.
Then how is the body the temple of the spirit? How is Lord Jesus born of the spirit yet in the flesh? And you insist you're not promoting gnostism? You have a funny way of showing it - with this false dilemma. Spirit doesn't "walk" by itself, if you "walk", you walk with your flesh GUIDED by the spirit.
I get that this silly characterization of my posts (and of me, personally) makes it easier for you to dismiss what I've pointed out, but its entirely wrong.

As a married guy, I don't need a "cathartic discussion about human sexuality." I'm not pent-up about sex as some may be. It's great! My wife and I enjoy very much what God has created for us in this regard. But this doesn't mean I ignore God's restrictions on the matter of human sexuality, or develop corrupt and obscene correlations between orgasm and experiencing God.
Then why are you getting so mad at a supposedly friendly and benevolent discussion on human sexuality? Why are you being so sensitive a the topic as if it had greatly offended you? God's restriction doesn't inlcude censorship on any talk of human sexuality, otherwise, He was NOT shy about sex in the bible, the whole book of Song of Solomon was about a sexual relationship, and if my memory serves me right, it was you who pointed that out to me, right? Since you're boasting of your "great" sex, care to elaborate on that? Share some juicy details? Explain how is that a walk in the spirit, even though it was literally pounding of flesh? What's really "corrupt" and "obscene" is NOT the act, but the object, God's restriction is primarily concerning WHOM you ought to have sex with, not HOW you may have sex, can we at least agree on that? Oh, I guess not, 'cause you still think of you and your wife as two bodies, not one.

You act as though you can experience God and walk in the spirit by just reading and studying the bible without any real physical experience since you call it "abhorrent", and keep hammering me with the bible - "what did God's word say?" "The Bible is very clear", which I highly doubt. If that's the case, the religious elites wouldn't have rejected and crucified Jesus. Those were the most brilliant teachers of God's word who had devoted their who life studying the Torah.
Yes, you did want to "cause collateral damage." Why else would you have brought her into the discussion in such a disparaging and unnecessary way? If you don't want me saying so, don't write such things. And as far as being "honest" is concerned, well, you aren't the first to use "honesty" as a cloak for verbal abuse.
Oh great, now you're playing the chivalrous knight defending her honor? Why don't you ditch your condescendingly tone and get off your moral high horse for a moment? How about you stop being so antagonistic "in such a disparaging and unnecessary way"?
Nowhere in God's word is the believer's spiritual experience of Him ever equated to orgasm. Instead, when the New Testament offers from the marriage union a glimpse into what it is to walk with God, it never mentions anything sexual but things like the hierarchy of authority in marriage, self-sacrifice (Ephesians 5:22-29), purity (2 Corinthians 11:2), and the temporality of the marriage union (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25).
Again, sir, why are you acting so offended and "triggered" on the mere mention of this O word? Why did God create this tiny part of the body specifically for the purpose of experiencing that? Most other Christians, including some members on this forum understand that sex - which inevitably including the O - is sacred, there's a spiritual component in it, a sexual sin is a sin against one's own body, why don't you? And since you agree that marriage union is temporary, why are you so relentlessly hitting me on that? I pointed out the exact same thing at the beginning of my post, using movie trailer as an analogy, I never said that was the entirety of any spiritual union with God. If you get a good impression of the movie from the trailer, good for you, but others who've never seen the trailer can enjoy the movie as much as those who have.
My daily experience of God is as the Bible describes: He convicts me, teaches me, strengthens me, comforts me and transforms me, filling me with the life and "fruit" of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16; Ephesians 3:16; Philippians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 5:22-23; 2 Corinthians 1:3-4). There is nothing at all sexual about this experience, certainly nothing orgasmic, which is exactly what I would expect given what God's word says about the oppositional nature of the flesh and Spirit. See above.
God did the same things to me, He didn't lead me to a marriage bed and make me a hypocrite about it, condemning sexual experience, shooting the messenger, while boasting of your own "great" sexual experience.
 
I don't, then, need to imagine what walking with God will be like in eternity, but can extrapolate - somewhat - from my experience of "walking in the Spirit" today to fellowship with God forever in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21-22). Doing so encourages me enormously, because as astonishing and powerful as God is in my life now; as faithful, gracious and patient as He is with me today; as wise, gentle and persistent with me as He always is, my unimpeded experience of Him in eternity will no longer be "through a mirror dimly" but in unobscured, glorious fullness!
No sir, all of these are nothing but your vain imagination, or in your word, "extrapolation". You're not Lazarus, you didn't come back from the grave, and you've never been to New Jerusalem, you're not John the Revelator, you've never seen what he'd seen, you're just quoting him. And just so you know, sir, as long as you read an English bible, you're looking "through a mirror dimly", because clear vision is lost in translation, no English version is perfect, inlcuding KJV.
One other thing: Over the years, I've discipled many guys who've struggled with pornography. All of them had "tells," things they did and said (and didn't say) that give away that they were looking often at porn. I'm getting in our interaction, the "flavor" of what I've often experienced in my discipleship of these guys. If you need help in this area, I'd urge you to check out my "Every Man's Battle" thread in the Bible Studies subforum on this site.
Great, now you ended it with a shameless plug! What makes you think that I'm struggling with porn? How would I dare to break the taboo and discuss biblical view of sexuality with intricate details which seem to have so offended you? I did have my season of such struggle, I'd give you that, but God has delivered me from that, His Spirit has set my eyes on our Lord and Savior, He has led me to new pursuits and passions in life; He sent me precious and adequate resources - other than yours - for my benefit; he has exposed the darkness and evil of porn behind the screen, educated me on the nature of human sexuality, opened my eyes to his original design and purpose of sex - instead of just shielding my eyes from it and training my willpower, is that what you do with your pet program? Just good old purity culture, abstinence only sex ed and censorship? And selling marriage as a license to sex?

I can testify, sir, believe it or not, porn has no power over me, pornographic images have no appeal to me, I don't need to sit on my moral high horse and make judgement, I don't need to mentally flog myself. I don't lock myself in a vacuum, I accidentally catch sights of such images and materials, but when that happens, I just dismiss it as a waste of time, a distraction that lures me away from the works God has assigned me to do. I'm heeding Paul's advice - FLEE from sexial immorality, instead of fighting it.
 
I've never denied that we find in Scripture analogies to marriage, only that those analogies never camp on, or even hint at, the sexual dimension of marriage being reflective of the believer's relationship to, or experience of, God.
Then what's the purpose of human sexuality? What does "one flesh" means to you, which you denied regarding your relationship with your wife and bothered not to answer? Is sex a sacred union or just a primal animalistic instinct?
And believe it or not, sir, in mediaval period, when a noble couple got married, they often had a priest in their bedchamber to witness the consumation of their marriage on their wedding night, that priest was literally considered God's presence, and you're telling me God has nothing to do with sex? What I described was not from some lame bodice ripper romance novel, sir, that was real history, if you don't believe me go do some research on that by yourself.
 
You who have fulfilled your own “lusts of the flesh” in your marriage bed, asking me, who’ve never fulfilled that with anybody, and never will be?

Obviously, the fleshly impulses we have - the impulse to eat, or drink, or rest, or reproduce, etc. - are given to us by God and, as such, are not intrinsically evil. Satisfying these impulses, then, is not evil, either; doing so is simply to act according to God's design. But when we aren't under God's control, we rapidly migrate into destructive excess and perversion of fleshly impulses in reflection of the corrupt nature of rebellious, sinful Self.

In any case, sex within marriage is God's design and as such it is entirely morally good, spiritually wholesome and properly natural. And since sexual pleasure is designed by God, too, it turns out that, within marriage, it is best enjoyed by doing as God instructs and, instead of acting in mad satisfaction of heedless lust, "give preference to one another in honor" (Romans 12:10). In doing so, it's discovered that sex is best enjoyed in the midst of selflessness, by putting the pleasure of one's mate above one's own pleasure.

Your characterization above of love-making says a lot about how little you understand of all of this. This should, it seems to me, have given you serious pause in venturing to offer an opinion in this area.

Why don’t you tell me, sir? Show me how this is not just an empty talking point, or an emperor’s new clothes which is only visible to you?

I don't think you're correct, so I'm not going to instruct you on your mistaken view of "walking in the Spirit." "Walking by faith, not by sight" is vital to all of Christian living, but the business of "walking in the Spirit" revolves more particularly around something else. Paul indicates what this "something else" is only a couple of verses after Galatians 5:16. I'd urge you to read verse 18 and Romans 8:13-14, Romans 6:13-22, Romans 12:1 and James 4:6-10 for a fuller explanation of the heart of what it is to "walk in the Spirit."

By the way, you might consider dialing back your rhetoric a bit. You seem...overwrought in your remarks:

"...if you're really married..."
"...mean-spirited reply..."
"...empty talking point..."
"...emperor's new clothes, which is only visible to you."
"What are you, thought-police?"
"...a hypocrite about it, condemning sexual experience, shooting the messenger, while boasting of your own "great" sexual experience."

And so on. Are you just terribly bored, stirring up some excitement for yourself by writing so obnoxiously?

You are one physical being when you were in her in your marriage bed, you were connected, physically and spiritually.

Obviously, "connected" is not the same as "being one flesh." No married couple ever actually melds together, literally physically becoming a single living being. Yes, they are briefly connected physically, but the very fact that this connection occurs again and again throughout marriage demonstrates that they aren't literally "one flesh." One doesn't have to connect to something with which one has become a single, physical entity.

Anyway, Jesus explained that being "one flesh" simply means forsaking even the most important family relationships and "cleaving to one's spouse" (Matthew 19:5-6; Mark 10:6-9; Ephesians 5:31), making one's relationship to one's spouse one's chief relationship. It is particularly the inseparableness of the marriage relationship that Bible passages emphasize when mentioning the "one flesh" of marriage. The apostle Paul indicated that "one flesh" in marriage encompasses sexual intimacy (1 Corinthians 6:16) but he didn't isolate this fact as the primary feature of the "oneness" of marriage. When, in his letter to the Ephesian believers, Paul went into detail about what it is for a husband and wife to be "one flesh," this is what he described:

Ephesians 5:25-33
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,
30 because we are members of his body.
31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.


The nature of this union with Christ is becoming one flesh, Christ being the head and we the church the body, as long as head and body are one, we and Christ are one.

No, as Paul has explained in the passage above, being "one flesh" with one's spouse is far more than mere physical sexual connection. It is living in sacrifice of oneself for the sake of one's spouse; it is "nourishing and cherishing" one's spouse before and above oneself and all other human relationships; it is attending to one's spouse with the same care and interest with which one attends to oneself; it is doing so day-in and day-out for all of the time God grants to one's marriage to one's spouse. As any person married for more than a decade can tell you, this is the stuff that occupies (or should occupy) the vast majority of one's marriage, sex only just sprinkled throughout all of the "nourishing and cherishing" and self-sacrificial loving that is the core of being "one flesh" with someone in marriage.

And so, being united with Christ has nothing to do, really, with the repeated but comparatively brief physical "connection" of sexual intercourse in marriage. Our union with Jesus is entirely a spiritual thing, having to do with each of God's children being indwelt by the Holy Spirit who unites all of them together in himself, who is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19)

What are you, thought police? You’re twisting my words into something I never meant, I repeatedly quoted Matt. 22:30, in such a union with God we’ll be like angels without any sex, and I’ve been experiencing that like the 144,000 who were “not defiled by women”, while you had made such a union with your wife in a fleshly and sexual nature, and you have the audacity to accuse me of “sexualizing” spiritual union?

Audacity? No. It requires no audaciousness to quote, and comment on, your own words:

"In modern Christian view, sex - from kissing, fondling, undressing, shower, foreplay to intercourse, the whole shebang - is a foretaste of our spiritual union with Jesus in heaven, like a trailer of a movie. Sex by God's design is the consumation of a loving relationship, it's about losing yourself and merging with your partner, transcending physical boundaries and feeling the presence of God when you hit climax."


My posts were an honest response to the OP, I’m willing and interested to have a deep dive on biblical sexuality, you’re not, you just go after me because I don’t conform to your thought pattern, that’s why I call you mean spirited.

But its not merely my own "thought pattern" but the standard of God's word to which I've held your views. And against that standard, your remarks - especially the one above that began our exchange - are exposed not just as faulty but highly grotesque.

God had nothing to do with 0rgasm? Oh really?

This isn't what I wrote.

"...I'm pointing out that the believer's spiritual union with, and spiritual experience of, God has nothing to do with orgasm."

Your slippery out-of-context quotation of my words is definitely of a kind with your handling of God's word.

Then why did he create that little bud right above the cleft, filled with nerve endings and specifically designed for sexual pleasure?

Did you enjoy writing this? Did it give you a small thrill, perhaps, to describe private female anatomy in a public Christian forum? I wonder...

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, go ask your wife.

??? Does it make you feel good to write such obnoxious things?

Of the two of us, you being single and myself married, I have a far better understanding of what you've very inappropriately described than you do.

Again, you who probably have experienced all of that in your marriage bed, are accusing me of speaking it out? Don’t you know that the one kind of people Jesus hated the most was hypocrites?

??? See all of the above.
 
Back
Top