2007-08-15
05:14:23
·
29 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
PSF11: Do I think Christians actually believe that? I don't know. That's why I'm asking.
Considering I've read Christians' answers to questions that include things like, "I wouldn't trust an atheist to watch my kids," I don't put anything past anyone anymore.
2007-08-15
05:28:45 ·
update #1
PSF11: I'm not "out of touch." I'm simply clarifying what I've heard and seen other people say about sex. I've had students write this in their essays. I've seen it here many times. I'm trying to establish some kind of foundation about Christian thinking to understand Christianity.
In other words, I'm not dumb. Just looking for foundation to understand a particular religion.
2007-08-15
06:16:04 ·
update #2
So what if I am an instigator (and, sometimes, I am)? Doesn't that just remind people of what they believe in? If I say I'm agnostic in public, I'm belittled. I don't see any reason why I can't ask questions that rile people up.
Despite that bit of information, this was not one of those questions. I've done that plenty in my other questions. You picked the wrong one.
2007-08-15
09:37:41 ·
update #3
Ah, PSF11, again, you assume I'm lacking knowledge about how the world works. I think all you'd have to do is look at, oh, ALL OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS to see that I call people out, and I expect them to call me out.
Again, this question was intended to be used for base information for a series of other questions. I have in fact met several people, Christian and nonChristian, who believe that sex is for procreation only. I work with approximately 100 college students per semester. I've been teaching for seven years. Put the math together, and that means I've worked with over 2,000 students. I've heard every opinion you could possibly imagine. And that's JUST from teaching.
Secondly, if getting people to think is instigating, I'm proud to be an instigator. Again, all you have to do is look at my answers and questions to see I'm not interested in spreading hate. Just thought for me and everyone else.
But you keep getting defensive and angry. More power to you.
2007-08-16
02:39:15 ·
update #4
One last thing, PSF11: In looking at your questions, I see you like to be provocative.
Why, exactly, are you calling me out like you have a problem with what I'm doing?
2007-08-16
02:41:05 ·
update #5
No.
What is the biblical purpose of sex?
The biblical purpose of sex is multifaceted. God has given sex to us as a means of glorifying Him as we fulfill its design for procreation, intimacy, comfort, and physical pleasure. It is a fulfillment of God's created order in marriage between a husband and wife.
Procreation
Gen. 1:28, "And God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'"
Intimacy
Song 1:13, "My beloved is to me a pouch of myrrh which lies all night between my breasts."
Song 2:3, "Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste."
Song 2:6, "Let his left hand be under my head and his right hand embrace me.”
Song 4:5, "Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, which feed among the lilies."
Companionship
Song 3:1, “On my bed night after night I sought him whom my soul loves..."
Physical Pleasure
Song 1:2, "May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine."
The sexual relation is only properly expressed in marriage between a husband and wife (1 Cor. 7:2-3). Any sexual contact between unmarried people is sinful since it violates God's design.
Sex is a wonderful blessing given to us by the Lord that serves to express intimacy to another. Some theologians believe that the sexual union is representative of the intimacy found in the Trinity. This is not to say that the members of the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, have sexual relations. That is absurd. But there is an incredible intimacy and communion between them. The three persons in the Godhead are, after all, one God. This is why Jesus said that He and the Father were one (John 10:30). Remember, God says when a man and woman get married, they become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). This expression of physical union which has a spiritual aspect to it ("the two become one flesh") and is why some theologians see the sexual relation as a sacred experience.
We don't know if such speculations are accurate, but sexuality is to remain pure nonetheless. This means that the marriage bed must not violate the commandments of God in deed or thought -- no adultery, no pornography, no voyeurism, no bestiality, incest, etc. The sexual union is God ordained and God given and must be experienced in a godly way within marriage. In this, the sexual union can bring glory to God as it is experienced in fulfillment of God's design and purpose to provide pleasure, companionship, intimacy, and a means of fulfilling the command of God to fill the earth.
So the purpose of sex is to glorify God, bring forth children, express intimacy, provide comfort, and bless the spouse.
2007-08-15 05:20:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Do you really think any Christian thinks that? I'll answer as if it's a serious question. The very controlling Catholic church once taught this. Only Catholics under its influence ever bought into it. It was never "Christian" thinking. I think it's obvious to most all Christians that sex is a gift from God.
++++++++EDIT++++++++++++++++1
I just find it hard to believe you're that out of touch with current thinking. I've never met *anyone*, even older people, in my life who thought that.
++++++++EDIT++++++++++++++++2
I'm not saying you're dumb-- I took you for an instigator-- like so many others in this forum. If you're truly just investigating this, I'm sorry I mistook you but I frankly still find it hard to swallow. I, as well, have heard a lot of ridiculous questions from non Christians about Christianity around here.
I don't see how this compares to ideas about who parents want watching their kids. It's perfectly reasonable that a parent would be leery of a babysitter that is diametrically opposed to their entire belief system. It's just as reasonable as an atheist who didn't want religions people watching their kids. Only a FOOLISH parent wouldn't consider things like that about babysitters. That's a ridiculous comparison.
++++++++EDIT++++++++++++++++3
You can be an instigator if you want-- but don't expect you shouldn't be called on it. This smelled like picking a fight. Don't expect people to be able to pick and choose which was meant for real investigation and which was just meant to start trouble-- especially in this forum. Live by the sword and die by it.
2007-08-15 05:22:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
With regard to what the person on the radio said: bull! There is nothing prohibiting Christians (except Catholics) from using birth control. As for the words "Be fruitful and multiply"... I have always considered those words not so much a commandment as a blessing. In the specific instances where God spoke it to certain of His people, He was speaking it as a blessing, a guarantee that their race would grow and continue no matter what.
2016-05-18 04:03:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is for procreation within marriage. It is also a sign of affection and intimacy between husband and wife. We also must remember that the most important aspect of marriage is communication. I feel the greatest reason behind the divorce rate is the lack of communication.
2007-08-15 05:23:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by LDS of Three and Loving It 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think that is it's first premise. But if you knew what child-bearing was like, you'd understand why it is so pleasurable. A person's got to have balance. I think that giving sex more power than is necessary brings society to the brink of chaos. Sex has its place, and we shouldn't elevate it.
2007-08-15 05:24:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by Shinigami 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's part of the reason for it but I believe it binds a couple together. That would a reason for the statement of becoming "one flesh" not just in a visual sense but also in a spiritual sense.
The other part is the fun part. Otherwise it wouldn't feel so good.
2007-08-15 05:23:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Emperor Insania Says Bye! 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think of this when the subject comes up:
1 Corinthians 7
4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
It's this mutual recognition of belonging to each other, even the body parts that I find arousing. Marriage seems to be more attractive in this way.
So no, sex isn't just for procreation, it's to experience each other, to bring the sense of sharing in a healthy way.
2007-08-15 05:22:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Christian Sinner 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
I am a Catholic.
It is my understanding that sex, in its purest form, is the mutual and total giving of self between spouses, resulting in a physical and spiritual bonding. God, the Creator and Author of life, blesses the sexual act with conception. The husband and wife participate with God in bringing new life.
2007-08-15 05:24:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
That is the primary purpose.
But it is also to express love and to enjoy the pleasure of your spouse. It is meant to be a shared experience in which each person gives themselves wholly to the other. It is to be open to life and in communion with God.
2007-08-15 05:22:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Misty 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
In a marriage, it isn't. Marriage is a partnership. Peter says it best. A man and a wife are heirs together of the grace of life. -1 Peter 3:7.
2007-08-15 05:19:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by great gig in the sky 7
·
5⤊
1⤋