The sin of refusing sex

[SoulWeaver]

The title is certain to get people riled up, and then a Bible verse is dropped without any context. That's what makes me wonder if this thread is designed to rile people up and draw attention.

As if people are going to change how they live with their spouse because of a provocative one liner.
If the OP was serious, it should've been a proper sermon and focus on self centeredness because that's the only sin that can occur in that area.
And it can come from EITHER the spouse that is ignoring the other to the point of making them suffer and feel undesirable, or the spouse that is demanding and burdening the other.
People can be very mismatched in their needs and if you lived chastely until marriage, you won't know if that's the case until you marry.
I wonder why is there a continual accent on only one kind of self centeredness (neglect) but the other (excessive demand) is never highlighted?
There are also realities of depression and various medications and illnesses, that can seriously affect the biology of the person in that area. What wasn't excessive once might become too much, to the person whose hormones aren't working correctly.
The spouse that feels ignored is here goaded to turn against their husband or wife and be offended, instead of first examining if maybe there's a physiological or hormonal cause, and discuss openly with their spouse how to approach and remedy the situation, instead of accusing or otherwise allowing it to undermine their relationship.

 

[kaylagrl]

The OP didn't post any context relating to any sort of marital issue. No context about his life or why he put that verse out there. It's just a verse out of context on a subject that riles people up.

It's not about his life that I can see. He's making a point that witholding intimacy is wrong and he backs that up with Scripture. It's not out of context. It apparently riles you up, and for what reason I do not know. Your information says you're not married, so why are you so invested in a convo that has nothing to do with you?

 

[TravelerInTheWilderness]

It's not about his life that I can see. He's making a point that witholding intimacy is wrong and he backs that up with Scripture. It's not out of context. It apparently riles you up, and for what reason I do not know. Your information says you're not married, so why are you so invested in a convo that has nothing to do with you?

I'm not riled up. I just read the original post my first thought is, "Geez, this isn't going to end well." I know what the scripture says, but I didn't get the feeling this thread was originally intended as a discussion on the topic.

This is an open forum, and I have every right to participate in a topic, whether I am married or not.

 

[ev4989]

I certainly don't believe that one should continuously deny their partner. Come on now. My point is that, I do not believe that refusing sex is a sin.

What you are saying Is the truth Kim. Being addicted to sex is. I fought this battle all my life
This was my Idea of love when I was younger. It always led to disaster in my life. Sex was never the answer.

 

[TravelerInTheWilderness]

As if people are going to change how they live with their spouse because of a provocative one liner.
If the OP was serious, it should've been a proper sermon and focus on self centeredness because that's the only sin that can occur in that area.
And it can come from EITHER the spouse that is ignoring the other to the point of making them suffer and feel undesirable, or the spouse that is demanding and burdening the other.
People can be very mismatched in their needs and if you lived chastely until marriage, you won't know if that's the case until you marry.
I wonder why is there a continual accent on only one kind of self centeredness (neglect) but the other (excessive demand) is never highlighted?
There are also realities of depression and various medications and illnesses, that can seriously affect the biology of the person in that area. What wasn't excessive once might become too much, to the person whose hormones aren't working correctly.
The spouse that feels ignored is here goaded to turn against their husband or wife and be offended, instead of first examining if maybe there's a physiological or hormonal cause, and discuss openly with their spouse how to approach and remedy the situation, instead of accusing or otherwise allowing it to undermine their relationship.

I agree. It's easy to talk about neglect, but there's another extreme of being excessively demanding. I've seen a lot of relationships fall apart because people walk in with unrealistic expectations of another.

 

[presidente]

The OP didn't post any context relating to any sort of marital issue. No context about his life or why he put that verse out there. It's just a verse out of context on a subject that riles people up.

If a Bible verse riles people up, what does that say about the people who get riled up by the verse?

 

[TravelerInTheWilderness]

If a Bible verse riles people up, what does that say about the people who get riled up by the verse?

Bible verses can be abused and taken out of context.

 

[soggykitten]

I Corinthians 7:5
Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Different time, different culture.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 7&version=ASV

 

[soggykitten]

If a Bible verse riles people up, what does that say about the people who get riled up by the verse?

What does it say about someone who posts a scripture out of context and to rile people up?

 

[presidente]

As if people are going to change how they live with their spouse because of a provocative one liner.
If the OP was serious, it should've been a proper sermon and focus on self centeredness because that's the only sin that can occur in that area.

One can be serious and post a serious post quoting scripture without preaching a whole sermon. The posters in the thread have posted several sermons worth of material.

I wonder why is there a continual accent on only one kind of self centeredness (neglect) but the other (excessive demand) is never highlighted?

Do you mean in this thread? In my experience it is rare for preachers to touch Paul's teaching on sex in marriage. If you will notice, the scripture passage warns against the neglect side-- defrauding one's spouse-- but doesn't address 'excessive demand.' It does recommend times of fasting with mutual consent.

]

 

[presidente]

And I have no worries. I know that if I should get married, my husband will accept me just the way I am. I certainly do not want a man who has sex as his number one priority. No thanks.

You could also share your thoughts and attitudes on the topic with a potential husband before he proposes, to make sure he is on the same page.

 

[presidente]

What does it say about someone who posts a scripture out of context and to rile people up?

Are you trying to rile people up? You can't read my mind. I posted the verse to make people aware of it. I thought it might also generate discussion on an oft-ignored topic. It seems likely that people get riled up just from reading a scripture like this if their thinking does not align with scripture. It's their problem, really. Their getting riled up exposes the issue.

 

[soggykitten]

OMG. Since when refusing sexual relations is a sins? Totally rubbish.

Agreed. While reading the part dedicated to married couples in chapter 7 it appears Paul is saying, sex your spouse so they don't commit the sin of adultery.
Then there are those parts wherein we're told the woman belongs to her husband and vice versa. Different time, different culture. Did Paul think he would be advising people living in the 21st century?

 

[presidente]

Agreed. While reading the part dedicated to married couples in chapter 7 it appears Paul is saying, sex your spouse so they don't commit the sin of adultery.
Then there are those parts wherein we're told the woman belongs to her husband and vice versa. Different time, different culture. Did Paul think he would be advising people living in the 21st century?

Are you one of those people who thinks the teachings of scripture against sexual immorality do not apply because they were written in a different time?

One could also apply that type of reasoning to murder and argue that all the teachings against murder were addressed to people who lived in the first century AD or before it, and because that was in a different time and culture, that murder is okay now. That's the same sort of reasoning, but it doesn't make murder okay. Nor does the fact that scripture was written a long time ago from our perspective mean that God's standard of morality has changed.

 

[soggykitten]

Are you trying to rile people up? You can't read my mind. I posted the verse to make people aware of it. I thought it might also generate discussion on an oft-ignored topic. It seems likely that people get riled up just from reading a scripture like this if their thinking does not align with scripture. It's their problem, really. Their getting riled up exposes the issue.

Now you're attempting to be the mind reader? It seems likely that people get riled up just from reading a scripture like this if their thinking does not align with scripture.
And again when you state it is their problem, those who feel some kind of way about this topic?

What would make you think people aren't aware of 1 Corinthians 7? Posting a single scripture with no commentary and one that also does not support the subject of your thread generates all manner of emotion and opinion. As do all threads here.

 

[SoulWeaver]

One can be serious and post a serious post quoting scripture without preaching a whole sermon. The posters in the thread have posted several sermons worth of material.

Do you mean in this thread? In my experience it is rare for preachers to touch Paul's teaching on sex in marriage. If you will notice, the scripture passage warns against the neglect side-- defrauding one's spouse-- but doesn't address 'excessive demand.' It does recommend times of fasting with mutual consent.

Fair enough; it is just that the way title was forged, it came across as one dimensional.

Just because the passage itself doesn't mention the other issue, doesn't mean that it isn't a problem in some marriages, and that it isn't a relevant subject; just noticing the focus is always on "defrauding" whenever this topic is mentioned. Which prompted me to say that extremes in either direction are no bueno, and also that people should be aware that if the spouse seems to ignore them, before they accuse them of selfishness or start suspecting infidelity (like we had MANY threads where people come and declare just that), they should first consider if there is a medical/physiological reason.

 

[soggykitten]

Are you one of those people who thinks the teachings of scripture against sexual immorality do not apply because they were written in a different time?

One could also apply that type of reasoning to murder and argue that all the teachings against murder were addressed to people who lived in the first century AD or before it, and because that was in a different time and culture, that murder is okay now. That's the same sort of reasoning, but it doesn't make murder okay. Nor does the fact that scripture was written a long time ago from our perspective mean that God's standard of morality has changed.

Something that helps the Bible student in scriptural understanding is to also apprise themselves of the culture of the time.
I think if you look to find first century Christian marriage practices you'll be able to understand better the import of Paul's letter to the church in Corinth.

 

[presidente]

Something that helps the Bible student in scriptural understanding is to also apprise themselves of the culture of the time.
I think if you look to find first century Christian marriage practices you'll be able to understand better the import of Paul's letter to the church in Corinth.

Understanding culture is important. I see the idea that the culture was different as an excuse for rejecting scripture quite often.

For example, if the idea of wives submitting to husbands was in line with marital customs in the first century, that doesn't mean that wives should not submit to their husbands.

 

[soggykitten]

I see the idea that the culture was different as an excuse for rejecting scripture quite often.

Ah, now who is the one seeking to rile people up? Learning about the culture of the time when the NT books were written is concomitant with proper Exegesis.

 

[presidente]

Ah, now who is the one seeking to rile people up? Learning about the culture of the time when the NT books were written is concomitant with proper Exegesis.

Sure, but I also see people throwing terminology like that around then using culture as an excuse to reject the teaching of scripture.