Marriage and family

[Aaron]

I didn't answer your question because it's irrelevant and I found it very difficult to abstain from commenting on the reasoning behind it. I've already been edited once in this thread.

 

[TaterTot]

I didnt think it was irrelevant, when earlier you said that the seed was the reason for the act. I know many people who dont have seed and I just wondered how that fit in. SEnd it in PM if ya want.

 

[dianetavegia]

Aaron, then you are going against scripture if you claim a person who is sterile is not to engage in marital relations because they have no seed.

Lance Armstrong had his 'seed' preserved before his cancer treatments. Many young boys are undergoing cancer treatments and their parents opt for 'seed' removal and preservation so that child can father a child as an adult.

If God sees fit to make a woman barren and, being a virgin, she had no idea before marriage, is her husband never to engage in relations with her?

The BIBLE says..........
1 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.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

 

[Su Wei]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Aaron, then you are going against scripture if you claim a person who is sterile is not to engage in marital relations because they have no seed.

when did he say that???

 

[Su Wei]

superdave, you're carrying the argument further than i intended to go: ie. big families = more spiritual.

I was merely supporting the statement from Aaron that God says lots of children are a blessing, from the scripture.

God multiplying the seed of Abraham was in His sight, a blessing. that's that. We should not impose our twentieth century mindset on what He thinks is a blessing.

 

[dianetavegia]

Originally posted by Su Wei:
when did he say that???

His thread was edited.

 

[Songbird]

This is ludicrous. When I read Song of Solomon I am not thinking that they are in the baby-making mode. I am thinking they are enjoying themselves and an expression of intimacy that has been blessed by God. And sex is an expression of intimacy--not the only expression, but an expression nevertheless.

If I was thin-skinned I would be offended. As posted before, my dh and I (unless God intervenes w/a miracle), will not have biological children of our own. But that is not going to stop us from doing what God has ordained for married couples. Children are a result of sex, but not the sole purpose.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Su Wei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Aaron, then you are going against scripture if you claim a person who is sterile is not to engage in marital relations because they have no seed.

when did he say that??? </font>[/QUOTE]Never. Never even implied it. Diane, I'm surprised at you. The edited portion was edited for a slang phrase meaning sex.

Oh well, you folks will condemn me if I do, and condemn me if I don't. So...

Tot's question is irrelevant. A man's physical defect or injury is in no way indicative of God's purposes and will in the creation and use of a certain system. Would we say that God's primary purpose in creating the eye was something other than sight simply because some men are born blind?

The question is also leading. She was headed in the direction of an attempt to justify sterilization, an inference that cannot be drawn from the facts submitted, and a direction that will effectively highjack the thread.

Were Sarah, Hannah, or the wife of Manoah, exempted from the rights of marriage because of their defects? Of course not. And neither can one point at them and say, "See there? God's okay with sterilization."

I wanted also to say it was a dumb question, but I think it would get edited if I did.

 

[4His_glory]

Aaron, the act of marriage involves a whole lot more than the function of certain system. You can not compare it to the eye.

God created it for the enjoyment for husband and wife. That is pretty clear. As has been mentioned Song of Solomon is not about making children, but the relationship between a man and his wife, and their enjoyment of each other.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Songbird:
When I read Song of Solomon I am not thinking that they are in the baby-making mode. I am thinking they are enjoying themselves and an expression of intimacy that has been blessed by God. And sex is an expression of intimacy--not the only expression, but an expression nevertheless.

Excellent point. And SoS goes so far as to discuss, uhhh, certain sexual acts which, hmmm, how shall I say it, don't involve "Tab A and Slot B". You know, the kind we know associate with Bill Clinton.

Now, if the primary purpose of sex was procreation, why is SoS discussing such a non-procreative act is some detail? There appears to be no condemnation of that act in scripture at all.

As posted before, my dh and I (unless God intervenes w/a miracle), will not have biological children of our own. But that is not going to stop us from doing what God has ordained for married couples. Children are a result of sex, but not the sole purpose.

Same here. I have children from a previous marriage. My current wife does not want children, and, since I had a vasectomy years ago, we have no plans whatsoever to have children.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Su Wei:
Aaron said: God says lots of children are a blessing.

Pastor Larry said: Really? Where?? That isn't in my Bible that I know of.

Just taking most of the verses that have the word multiply and blessing in it, my bible says:[/qutoe]None of those verses specify a number of children that are a blessing, nor does it require any particular amount. As someone pointed out, almost all (if not all) are directed to an individual with specific promises, not to people at large.

This is still quite a reach.

 

[TaterTot]

Aaron said "Tot's question is irrelevant... The question is also leading. She was headed in the direction of an attempt to justify sterilization, an inference that cannot be drawn from the facts submitted, and a direction that will effectively highjack the thread."


Now, Aaron, thats fine if you see my question as irrelevant. I disagree, but we can do that. But I wasnt trying to justify sterilization. My husband and I have not chosen that route in our marriage. If it was a leading question, then I would not have said you could PM if you'd rather. Dont be so defensive. Either we can discuss stuff or we cant.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Aaron, the act of marriage involves a whole lot more than the function of certain system. You can not compare it to the eye.

I didn't compare marriage to an eye. Guys, you have to read these things a little more carefully. I will summarize the argument thus far.

4His: Bearing children isn't the primary purpose of marriage.

Aaron: It is the primary purpose of sex.

4His: Prove it.

Aaron: Posts a sex ed 101 lesson in the form of a metaphor contrasting man's and God's descriptors.

4His: Yeew! Gross!

Then Tot began a digression about what the implications of that understanding might be if one had a certain physical defect.

And that's the usual objection to things like what I said about sex. The concern isn't so much for the Scriptures as it is for the implications. If I'm right about sex, then the Scriptural and natural evidence should support it, and it does—eminently. God calls it seed. Who sows seed without the hope of fruit?

Seed is also a metaphor for the word of God, implying fruitfulness. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:11.

Helen hit the nail on the head when she said the act figures Christ entering into one's heart, and we see the fruitfulness of Christ, Behold I and the children which God hath given me, Hebrews 2:13. I'm reminded of one of the most poignant lines of poety ever written of Christ outside the Song of Solomon:

Take me to you, imprison me, for I
Except you'[enslave] me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chast[e], except you ravish me. (John Donne, Holy Sonnets)

God created it for the enjoyment for husband and wife. That is pretty clear. As has been mentioned Song of Solomon is not about making children, but the relationship between a man and his wife, and their enjoyment of each other.

The Song of Solomon does not undo what God has said elsewhere, and, as someone pointed out, is lacking any mention of copulation. Is sex enjoyable? Sure, just like eating honey. (You may like this comparison a little better than the eye. Food and sex are related in the sense that they're both lusts of the flesh.) Did God make honey sweet? Sure did. Did he intend for us to enjoy the taste of honey? Quite so. But is that his primary purpose for honey? No. He created it for food, to nourish and strengthen not only bees, but us as well. Those who eat merely for the pleasure of it are abusing it. Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness! Ecclesiastes 10:17.

I hope I didn't ruin that term of endearment for anyone. "C'mere, Honey."

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by TaterTot:
Now, Aaron, thats fine if you see my question as irrelevant. I disagree, but we can do that. But I wasnt trying to justify sterilization.

Okay. I spoke unadvisedly. However, I am so used to questions like the one you asked and the non sequiturs they usually lead to, that I simply assumed you were headed in that direction. I apologize.

My husband and I have not chosen that route in our marriage.

That's fine too, and I wasn't trying to imply that you did. What you and your husband do and don't do is not my concern especially with this subject matter. There's no reason any individual's practices should come up at all in this debate.

All I'm concerned with is, "Thus saith the Lord."

 

[4His_glory]

Aaron,

The Bible does not call the act of marriage "seed", but rather that which comes from the man. Sex involves a whole lot more than a man giving a women his seed. Thats only part of it. No makeing babies is not the primary purpose, it is A purpose, but not THE purpose.

 

[Pastor Larry]

All I'm concerned with is, "Thus saith the Lord."

For such a limited concern, you certainly have added a lot to it.

 

[Su Wei]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Su Wei:
when did he say that???

His thread was edited. </font>[/QUOTE]Diane, the part that was edited came before Tater's question... so....

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Aaron,

The Bible does not call the act of marriage "seed", but rather that which comes from the man.

You seem to be confusing marriage with sex. When I say something about sex, you argue about marriage, and when I say something about marriage you argue about sex.

Would you clarify your position please?

Sex involves a whole lot more than a man giving a women his seed.

Agreed, but what event is considered the climax? In fact, it's pretty much over once you've crested the hill. Didn't you read your lesson?

 

[4His_glory]

Aaron you are the one that is confusing. I said the primary purpose of marriage is not to have children, to which you responded that it is the primary purpose of sex. So I challenged you do prove that from Scripture,and all you came up with was an implied response concerning "seed".

Read back over what you said before you accuse me of confusing things.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sex involves a whole lot more than a man giving a women his seed.

Agreed, but what event is considered the climax? In fact, it's pretty much over once you've crested the hill. Didn't you read your lesson? </font>[/QUOTE]All of this sounds rather boring for her!