«Home

Does This Make Me A Carnal Christian?

I'm a young lady who loves God and is trying to walk with him as honestly as I can. I have one problem however; i feel extremely carnal when I am around my fiance! we have been together for over five years now and we are talking about getitng married.We made a vow to keep ourselves till we get married and even imposed a no kissing rule, just hugs. however,we have broken that rule a couple of times and its mostly because we both have mad chemistry.A peck can cause as much damage as a french kiss for both of us.

The thing is,when he isn't around me,Im perfectly fine.I feel like Im making progress with God,I read my bible and Im on a lovely spiritual plane.The minute he comes around,I always have to fight the urge to sleep with him.I think thoughts that shock even me when i see him and it bothers me greatly.I don't feel this way for any other person except him.As a christian, does this make me carnal? does this mean I'm not really born again? Is it wrong for me to want him the  way I do? please I need the advice of mature christians,

Avatar
Newbie
116 answers

I read many different views on this topic, and i found myself sorta cheering on various posters sides, with many pros or cons ~ in the end i got quite confused and bit dizzy.

But im very new to Christs teachings and find them very simple and easy ... until i hear Christians talk in church ,, and i get confused again , just like from this thread.

my origional thinking on this subject is that Christ and his elect told us what to do ... and so thats the reason to do it .... perhaps Christ told us so we can have a beter life and not get aids like some people said , But perhaps he told us so we will have a harder life , and be ready and strong from within to face far greater challenges than simply dealing with strong lust.

I personaly dont know why Christ said to do many of the things he advised or demanded ... but I don't see many of them actually having much to do with a safer life so were protected.

he never said don;t climb mountians , be careful not to proclaim your faith to the romans or they might molest your wife and kids and murder you all ... he said proclaim it , and go climb the mountian ... even tho it might be a huge risk to your life and health.

anyway I don't like the huge amount of advice i have ever read, or heard spoken in a church ~ it seems like everyone knows yet has a hard time with it .... when in fact its very simple and easy ... Christ is the great boss and master of us... and we accept to submit to him and promise to obey and follow with no need of logic or understanding ,, simple faith and blind submission is more than enough ....... and his only job is to let his wishes be known and defend them ..... so we must trust that he has done that ,because he is God and never fails , and he has spoken whats been written , and if he said I make you hungry and starving , and send you out into the orchard with the sweetest fruit ,,, but do not eat any ... sit still until you die of starvation.

then thats a very simple thing to do , it might be painful but still requires no debate or theory or explination ... because God has said to do it ,, for good or for Bad we follow God ... and not one person of flesh can say where he will take us ,, But we do not care where we go its only a word or label, we care to obey.

maybe God will say to us because we are very petty and dificult ..... go into the garden and starve and i will raise you up to eternal life , where you shall never want for fruit or food again .... and then we weigh it and decide it sounds like a good deal, by a fair loving God, and by knowing that we will get raised up, we decide to suffer through hunger .... and i feel we are prostitutes for that ,, because to follow God is more than any reward of eternal life or bliss .... its simplistic and beautiful beyond words , alone without logic or ego or the need to weigh rewards.

I wonder what causes me to write this , its my first post ~ and i wonder what causes so many people to give their opinion on God and his reasons.... isnt it more than enough to know he is God and we have heard him ? shouldnt all confusion end there ,, and every question be answered with a warm gesture of directing a person to His word ?

What i read in the bible is not what the priests I have heard speak had read .... i read it differently ,, and we all read it the way God speaks it to us... we do not need confused people to tell us what God says ,and worse , we do not need people who know what God speaks to tell it to us,and worst of all , we do not need to ever debate the word of God ... his word is for YOU and not for us ... it is you who will serve him or not .... its not us

i think its good and right that a married couple discuss his word , and that after the discussion the woman submits all to the choice of her husband .... a couple is not two people , its one flesh with several brains .. one is the master , the other is a source for the masters reflection to assist in understanding, and to measure his own compassion and love against ... so that he might be clearly guided by Gods word.

but i feel that should be the only time debate on the topic of God is ever participated in.

You decide to obey and follow God ,, and God tells you to take a husband ,, then you take one ,, then God tells you to serve and obey your husband like he is the Lord ,, so you follow .... you do not question when your husband decided to murder a hundred other people .. and your husband does not question when God murders 100 000 by fire and brimstone or 100 000 000 by flood ,,, I believe if you are a christian then you follow the word of Christ ... you can not ever claim that you dont know or understand his word... because he has spoken it to you clearly and simply .. have faith & Obey.. and in many words ... love the neighbour like your yourself and so on.

i believe very few cristians have ever or would ever follow Christ, if christ stood over there and held up a blessing many will go over to recieve it ... and thats the limit ,, set by the acceptance of self understanding ,, of feeling whats right or wrong ,, and of weighing ..... if a person decides to follow Christ, then there is only one right and one wrong ... to to have faith & obey or not ~ and everything in between is not yours ,, that's Gods realm and responsibility .. just like judging is.... the reasons you do not obey is always the same , so no reason needs to be given .. every sin is to disobey and every sin a measure of faith lacking.

If i have a child , I will tell them one advice .. have faith and obey.. and i will put the word of God in their hand ... its the only thing i will ever do on that subject ... and everything else will be to serve my husband or God ,, and my child can see by my actions what my view is .... i will not confuse my child with my own words ,, i will answer every question about God with the same answer , i will put the word of God in their hand and say have faith and obey.

the rest is no less simple ~ suffering Gods word with a light heart and an ever growing joy.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Good luck in your exam bro. The Lord is your strength. It is well for you in Jesus' name. (Amen)

0
Avatar
Newbie

spent about an hour reading this thread... and I have an exam tomorrow...

Just wonder if anyone here still agrees with his/her arguments made 2 years ago? Or any revisions?

0
Avatar
Newbie

poster r u a teenager ?

what kind of CHILDISH QUESTION IS THIS?did u not do biology in school?

okay HELL YES IT MAKES U CARNAL AND U WILL GO TO HELL IF U DONT STOP/REPENT , I guess this is what u want to hear, shior!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ogaga4luv, if indeed you have read it, then I recommend these three books by the same author: Evidence that Demands a Verdict, The Resurrection Factor, and He Walked among Us. There is no wisdom in deriding what you have not CAREFULLY examined, so I guess if you read the other three books as well (which approach the matters from other evidential perspectives) then you can return and make a case.

See what more Wikipedia has to tell you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Deep Sight and Ogaga4luv: If you really want to know, I recommend this book, it's just $2.60 or less. MORE THAN A CARPENTER by Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Carpenter-Josh-McDowell/dp/0842345523)

0
Avatar
Newbie

^^ offtopic

if you dont like the gospels then go ask the Jews if the Torah permits premarital intimacy.

if you dont like jews, then have abuzola give you an update on sexual mores in Islam

while you're at it, go to the village and ask the elders there how things were in the olden days

0
Avatar
Newbie

Deep Sight i feel you, the most supprissing thing is that there is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels--the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ--were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic--the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek--every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts--such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.

But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Excellently put. I can't get over the nature of Christian dogma: it appears to me synonymous with a severe form of dislocated derangement. The paganistic fallacies regarding the diety of christ being the most outlandish claims that supposed men of reason can be so bold as to embarrass themselves with.

0
Avatar
Newbie

But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself.

0
Avatar
Newbie

A good point sir and as it goes, I cannot speak for everyone on this, so I'll outline my personal motivation

At a point, notions of heaven and hell did come into consideration. Along with the sense of the eternal futulity of the vanities we pursue on this earth and my very real sense of personal sin and hopelessness

There are at least 3 different schools of thought on hell and I personally can't claim any revelational knowledge about it. My best reading of the bible and consideration of the views of others does not lead me to the commonly accepted view.

But as my journey unfolds it is less about doctrine as such and not about rewards or blessings. Its about the relationship and my desire to know

Him, to please Him, to honour and to glorify Him. My terror at the thought of forniction/adultery, is not so much at the consequences to me - which is less than my concern about the impact on others - its about the thought of damaging or impairing my relationship with Him. Perish the thought.

God bless

TV

Phew, it was bloody out there, but with mighty scything blows of my well thumbed NKJV, I put the gentile princes to flight - or "area scatter" as I'm told its known as these days". Timing wasn't great, but a little light exercise after a meal aids digestion. No time to relax my mission is as yet complete. Resets helmet and points chariot in the direction of the kings palace. tbc,

0
Avatar
Newbie

Krayola you are on your own oh kweshun the bible ko?

0
Avatar
Newbie

lol . . . I will be back in earnest to answer all these my wonderful brothers, gatta rush off to the lab!

0
Avatar
Newbie

lol and here I was thinking you are not usually online during weekends lol.

Sweetheart you got it a bit twistedd on different levels, first off my little prediction there about love being in the bible if it was written in our times was only a reflection of how important it has become in recent times and really nothing to do with the topic at hand, what I wanted you to take from it was that I thought the law was too rigid to follow these days.

Furthermore, you missed the point yet again about people complaining, I am saying that even when something goes beyond what should be accepted as rationally and morally right people would say things like hey I need my 72 virgins and next stop is to blow Jesoul's house when she is sleeping. . . . . . . Catch my drift?

0
Avatar
Newbie

  Not by a long stretch.

 

  The bible is not against se.x, it simply encourages that it be done only in the context of marriage - there there is commitment and the two parties are one. This "love" nonsense is what gives loose men and women of today the basis to go round hopping from bed to bed and then when they fall out of "love" move on to the next piece. Sorry, I don't buy "love", if its true love it will not be afraid to commit fully to only that person in marriage.

  Christians have testified here how fulfilled they are without it, how happy and satisfied that Christ and the knowledge of God be our only pursuit - YET - opponents still imagine we're "missing out" and subjecting ourselves to some kind of sacrifical lack for the sake of religion? No.

  Should it come to that, I will do so because nothing compares to Christ. Whatever you think you might be "giving up" is really a gain for the sake of the pursuit. So don't feel sad for us, au contraire, we are the most happy of men, the most happy.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I do not think the idea of waiting till one is ready for s.ex is a bad idea through and through, I think though that the decision of when should rest solely on when a person is 'smart' enough to deal with the consequences of s.ex. The age where one can get at least reasonably married these days is a lot different from when these 'inspired' men wrote these books, I dare say that if the bible were written in our times the instruction might be have s.ex with only your fiance or someone who you really love. But this is where I think religion sucks and badly at that, my dearest sister Jesoul is very willing to go without it if she does not find anyone, which is not a 'bad' thing if you ask me but what I need to underline is this, her decision is based on what she has seen in the bible and that is the feeling I get when I read lines like "na by force to follow bible' and suddenly I can see why people will continue to try and blow other people up. . . . .it is sad that even in the face of evidence people will choose what they see in their religious books. . . . .so one of the reasons why I can never ever be a theist in my life again.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Too late sista: you have no idea what a great christian fanatic i once was: from the age of about 4 my whole family and relatives called me "pastor" and "bishop" because of this business of obsession with the truth and seeking it. . . used all my poocket money in primary school to buy bibles and christian literature. . .bored my siblings to death preaching to them. . . wrote hymns. . . became a Jehovah's Witness. . . preached in Secondary school. . .u have no idea dear. . . it's been a long road; but i will never turn back to that now: its dead whereas now i am firmly and truly liberated and alive in the will of the one true living GOD. . .this i know in my heart for sure. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yes. His grace is sufficient. I counted the potential cost at the outset. And as much as I desire holy matrimony, its all or nothing. His will be done.

Deep Sight sir, no offence, but in the face of one who lives it, your argument - although forcefully asserted  - simply falls apart. Its not theology, neither is it doctrine. It is not by command nor religiously enforced - I don't belong to any sect. It is not without experience of the alternative and neither has there been any detrimental psycholgical or physiological effects. In fact, quite the opposite. I could go on, but in the absence of any genuinely enquiring discussion piece, I hold mine.

Having handled always trumps having heard.

God bless

TV

0
Avatar
Newbie

By strong's concordance, the word carnal is sarx (σάρξ) meaning:

So I think the question answers itself based on the red portion above. Your desires are carnal as they do not edify your spirit.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I KNEW you would abscond from this question.

0
Avatar
Newbie

flawed analysis from top to bottom.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What are you guys saying at all? Sto making noises. Dont you guys get erections at times? is it sin? Dont you women get wet at times? Is it sin?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Quote from Jesoul -

You HAVE called me a liar. Emphatically so. Thank you.

Nevertheless that begs the question.

Let us assume that i am lying (which i am not).

It is not definite that there are many middle-aged christian spinsters in the world?

Is it not also definite that not all of them will marry in this lifetime?

I REPEAT; IS IT YOUR CHRISTIAN SUGGESTION THAT THEY SHOULD SPEND THEIR ENTIRE LIVES WITHOUT HAVING SE.X AT ALL? ? ? - SINCE MARRIAGE ELUDES THEM?

IS THAT EVEN REMOTELY NATURAL? DOES IT NOT REEK OF A PERVERSE ADHERENCE TO SOMETHING THAT IS SICKENINGLY AGAINST THE NATURAL ORDER? ? ?

ANSWER ME THIS AND STOP ESCAPING BY SAYING YOU DONT BELIEVE ME ON MY COUSIN.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thanks Jesoul.

So i take it that we have now crossed the rubicorn.

WE can now thus clearly see that -

IF A CHRISTIAN IS UNABLE TO FIND A MARRIAGE PARTNER IN YOUR OWN WORDS, ONLY TWO OPTIONS AVAIL SUCH A PERSON -

1. Abandon Christianity or

2. Live the rest of your life without having se.x until you die.

I leave it to you to choose, whilst hoping that such an eventuality will never be your lot, so that you can see the real life consequences of the dogma you so lightly brandish.

I ask YOU Jesoul - if it so happened that you never found a partner (Jupiter forbid) WOULD YOU OPT FOR THE SECOND OPTION: A LIFETIME TILL DEATH WITHOUT ANY SE.X AT ALL? ? ? ? ? ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Quote from Krayola -

Really? You are one of the most honest and sincere persons on this forum in my view. I verily hope that that honesty has not taken flight.

BECAUSE you are all too aware as i indicated before that this sort of dogma actually interferes with EVERYBODY'S LIFE. You cannot claim as you have above that "it does not in anyway hinder your ability to chase your dreams."

1. Look at Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia. Which woman there is free to pursue her personally chosen sexual lifestyle? The society makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the individual to have personal choices in these matters.

2. It is the SAME religious dogmatic consideration that you are advocating that has driven the Saudi's to that sorry state.

3. Even in secular states such as Nigeria, the overwhelming condemnation associated with free sexuality serves to prohibit many many people from pursuing their own freely chosen path of sexual liberalism. Please do not dare deny that there is a mighty social burden; a stigma, which many people on a psycological level are frightened of: and as humans we cannot escape our social psyche. Thus the plain truth is that these beliefs actually affect everyone - including those who do not share such beliefs.

4. I cannot count the numerous instances where a potentially life-long and beautiful relationship has been cut short on account of the influence of dogma (he does not attend my church; he does not believe in this or that). . .

HOW DARE YOU TELL ME IT DOES NOT AFFECT US ALL? ? ? EVEN IN TERMS OF SOCIAL AND FAMILY PRESSURE ALONE IT IS VERY VERY REAL! ! !

DO NOT LIE!

0
Avatar
Newbie

your rules is always engaging in "escapism".

  You've made up your mind about Paul so why are you soliciting my input on the matter? I've already said I believe otherwise and that you're misunderstanding Paul's words and I happily leave it at that. Besides threads upon threads exist where these issues have been dueled out times without number. A simple search will suffice for anyone really interested in what Paul meant. May I also recommend biblegateway.com, commentaries section. Read to your heart's content on Paul's views on women - this is what christians believe and why, you don't need jesoul.

The poster is a CHRISTIAN. She asked a question pertaining to the CHRISTIAN faith. The responders are CHRISTIAN advicing her according to the biblical position. We have CHOSEN how we want to live our lives. Why is this so hard for YOU to accept? why? Leave us to our "unnatural" ways now? where's the beef? Abstinence never murdered anyone has it?

Lemme quote Krayola for you again since you musta missed it the first time:

0
Avatar
Newbie

JESOUL THIS IS A TERRIBLE FORM OF ESCAPISM.

YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE VERY WORDS OF ST PAUL AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS DUCK BY SAYING YOU WILL NOT DISCUSS WITH A NON-CHRISTIAN? ? ? ?

ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THAT IN ITSELF IS DISCRIMINATORY (AGAINST ME: FOR NOT BEING CHRISTIAN) AND INDICATIVE OF A DIVISIVE APPROACH TO RELIGIOUS UNDERSTANDING, IT IS ALSO A GREAT WAY TO AVOID DIFFICULT POSERS. CONGRATS.

And yes, my Cousin complains to me. Feelings of guilt, etc etc.

When you guys propagate dogma like this, remember that your listeners are only human and can easily become confused and disoriented given that your dogma teaches them to contradict the very essence of their human nature.

I cannot think of anything more sinister than that.

0
Avatar
Newbie

deepsight- there are billions of men in this world.

Your cousin should find one she gells with, if she's complaining about not having sex.

Even at 49, she can find someone to marry if she's really serious about doing so.

Men are scarce but not that scarce.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I have already provided cogent reasons why it bothers me but it seems you were not taking note.

I restate: It bothers me because -

And in addittion my poor cousin will go about under some misapprehension that she is obliged never to have se.x till she dies only because she did not get married!

Is that not enough to bother me? ??

0
Avatar
Newbie

What is this? ? ?

Embedded in this statement is AN ASSUMPTION that everybody gets married eventually.

THAT IS FALSE.

My cousin is 49 and she is NOT married. Reason? She simply never found the man that gelled with her.

Now she is a christian. Is it YOUR recommendation that she spends thE whole of her life resisting sexual urges and remaining celibate? ? ? ?

DOES THAT SOUND NATURAL TO YOU? ? ? ? ?

GET HONEST! ! !

0
Avatar
Newbie

WRONG MADAM. IT IS NOT HIS OPINION OF ST PAUL: IT IS THE OBJECTIVE FACT.

This is the same chauvinist St Paul who -

1. Insisted that no woman must ever lead the church

2. Stated that women should not open their mouths to speak in the presence of male leaders

3. Stated that it is best for a man not to marry at all -

4. And added that men should feel free to marry IF they cannot hold their agro! It is CLEAR THAT HE WAS AN UNBRIDLED CHAUVINIST.

Must you defend every "man of God" ? ? ?

But that is exactly what the chauvinist fanatic St. Paul recommended, no?

No you are not. You have conditioned yourself to militate against nature and imagine that you are satisfied.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I tire o, Ilosiwaju - so much bl.oody hypocrisy on this subject. I am sure perhaps only 1% of those screaming abstinence here actually abstain!

And 90% of the 1% are probably abstaining because no show for them anyway.

Let me start off the poll by handing in my own confession: I DO NOT ABSTAIN.

I am not in the business of deluding myself and contradicting nature.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi Krayola. I am fine my brother. Hope you are fine too. As to your question, I am not aware of any scientific research to compare sexual desires between modern day humans and humans that lived on earth some one to three million years ago. What I state is based on a spiritual recall of how mankind was until sin entered the world and humans disobeyed God. There are a lot of obstacles if one is to investigate scientifically what happened in prehistoric times. But the obstacles are not insurmountable. But even without going into the past, I think that it is possible even today to look at individuals who have mastered the sexual instinct, that is individuals who are biologically normal and yet have absolute control over their sexual instinct, and those who have become a slave to this instinct, that is those it torments leadiing them to continual battle with this instinct. Such reseach will give pointers to what has gone wrong.

As an aside. There is no reason why young people will engage in courtship lasting years. If people are prayerful and spiritually alert, they can pick who is their wife or husband in seconds. One does not need to travel from one end of the world to another in search of a partner that God made for him or her. Just allow your inner being to be open, and you will not be left in any doubt who God made for you. If you chose a husband or wife that God made for you, then the permanence of the marriage is ensured from the very start. The spiritual love  between the couples is like the poles of a magnet, holding the couples tightly together and all earthly trials will strengthen this bond rather than weaken it. But even when their own strength, threatens to fail them, God who joined them together in the sacred act of marriage will reinvigorate them with his power. Joyful and happy married life on earth is not as difficult as many imagine. One of the sure signs of a genuine love for your wife or husband to be is that the sexual instinct is cut to size and strange as it may sound if true love vibrates in intending couples, then sexual intimacy is actually out of the question. IT is also the same genuine love that eliminates infidelity when a man takes a woman as his wife. The pulsating harmony between a man and woman who are joined in marriage according to the laws of God does not permit even a second thought for infidelity, much less a physical act of infidelity.

Any man or woman who genuinely love his intending partner will not molest him or her with unclean thoughts or sexual advances. It is wrong to gain sexual intimacy on the promise that you want to marry. If one find somebody who God made for him or her, then marry instead of promising to marry.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Escapism leads us nowhere.

Esp escapism based on dogma.

0
Avatar
Newbie

circular arguments lead us no where.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Oh my bad, I was replying you, just quoted the wrong post.

I was responding to #102 and #103 - your query about "papers" and "official marriage" etc . . . clarifies?

  And no, I didn't evade anything at all dear, but rather deferred to Krayola's impending response since you've been dueling with him. I have simply told you you believe A, christians believe Z and will live their lives according to Z, and nothing you say is going to change that.

0
Avatar
Newbie

For Emphasis here are the points again -

1. Krayola said - "Hunger isn't deemed sinful, but gluttony is."

When he says that Hunger is not sinful, but that gluttony is sinful – he thereby admits that EXCESSES are what should be regarded as sinful.

So why is he shy of applying that very logic to se.x and reach the conclusion that only excess se.x is sinful? ? ?

2. WHAT ABOUT A PERSON WHO NEVER GETS MARRIED? Does your christianity require such a person to be celibate for life? How natural does that seem to you?

3. Is it not true that the dogma affects many innocent people by causing them to feel a terrible burden of guilt for the simple fact that they are normal human sexual beings?

4. Is it not true that in many societies in the past and even conservative islamic societies up till today, people were and have been stoned to death, ostracized, burnt to death, etc for the simple fact that they did what comes naturally to everybody - they had s.ex? IS IT THEREFORE NOT GLARING THAT SUCH DOGMA THAT PREACHES AGAINST SOMETHING AS NATURAL AND SIMPLE AS SEX SHOULD BE actively discoraged by all men and women of true conscience?

ANSWER ME!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Jesoul did you make a mistake?

Have a look at your post - No. 115 on this thread.

You quoted me where i stated that not everyone gets married and thus what should happen to such persons - lifetime celibacy? -

And then you posted a response that had absolutely nothing to do with the issue i raised. It rather seemed your write-up was directed at the post of Godson?

Perhaps you are tired.

I also notice you totally evaded the many many issues and posers i brought up -

0
Avatar
Newbie

@estrella

my view on this subject might be controversial,but one thing i have discovered with the bible and its interpretation is that it all depends on what we key into.

first of all,the whole act of marriage is and how it should be done is not mentioned in the whole bible,the only place marriage is mentioned was jesus christ and his disciples and mother "attending"one

and also in genesis when isaac had to take a wife,note that the bible said isaac and the servant saw a beautiful girl,they got talking and she apparently agreed right there and then or was favourably disposed to isaac,and the next thing is that they were together.

the point of my preamble is that looking at the biblical instances as a christian,once your family and your boyfriend's family have collectively agreed to your union,then in the eyes of GOD you are as good as married, the church marriage is only a social formality same as all the other sociological rituals which we feel we must do.

therefore once you and your bf have formally introduced both families to each other,then you are as good as married in my own opinion and from men of GOD who i have listened to speak on this contentious issue.

however it must be quickly noted that if the normal fulfillment has not being done and you both have no intention of getting married to each other or both families dont recognise you both as a couple then it is simply fornication,and you should keep a reasonable distance and barrier from each other,

the bible recognises the danger of temptation that why you will find the bible using words like"flee from temptation"not walk away from or resist but "flee from"

0
Avatar
Newbie

JESOUL - It is entirely and altogether impossible to listen to Krayola on this one, my dear.

Let's have a look at what he has put on the table -

But first neither he nor your eminent self have cared to address this –

Note particularly the fact that not every person gets married.

Is it YOUR considered Christian view that christians who do not get married should spend the whole of their lives never having s.ex AT ALL?

I am going to presume on your behalf that you are able to see how scandalous and anti-natural such a proposition should be. That a human being born a sexual creature would spend an entire lifetime repressing the sexual instinct.

Now under your dogma, the only way ANY HUMANBEING would be able to avert this terrible fate is to get married. Thus certain people will per force end up marrying partners they care little for. . . just to avoid a lifetime sentence of celibacy. . .how does that sound to you? ? ?

More crucially Krayola has failed to revert to me on these crucial posers –

1. The dogma affects many innocent people by causing them to feel a terrible burden of guilt for the simple fact that they are normal human sexual beings

2. In many societies in the past and even conservative islamic societies up till today, people were and have been stoned to death, ostracized, burnt to death, etc for the simple fact that they did what comes naturally to everybody - they had intimacy.

Tell me why people should suffer a burden of guilt for expressing their sexuality ? ? ?

I will never accept that such makes any sense or is healthy in any terms in a rational society.

The truth is that all these myths and restraints are already on their way out of the human psyche as enlightenment spreads – you will hardly meet many Europeans who have these perceptions and I bet you that in another 100 years you will struggle hard to find such views ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. Wanna bet?

Krayola said –

This is bizarre in the extreme. Especially since he had already defined dogma as belief without evidence or reason. He here insinuates that when I point out the natural world and natural instincts that is dogmatic? Is the natural world not the best “evidence” and “reason” or “basis” we could have for ANY belief? ? ?

What a stunning contradiction! Krayola has bastardized the application of the word “dogmatic” in applying it to a person such as myself who points at nature as a clear basis for his conclusions.

THE TRUTH is that Krayola who rejects the evidence of nature WITHOUT ANY BASIS, is the only one being dogmatic here! ! !

No; I will not listen to him on this!

Now look at this terrible statement from Krayola again -

When he says that Hunger is not sinful, but that gluttony is sinful – he thereby admits that EXCESSES are what should be regarded as sinful.

So why is he shy of applying that very logic to se.x and reach the conclusion that only excess se.x is sinful? ? ? You see, Krayola is not being honest here! ! !

Instead he states that the issue is about abstention from se.x before marriage. To this I respond –

WHAT ABOUT A PERSON WHO NEVER GETS MARRIED? ? ? ?

Answer me on that!

0
Avatar
Newbie

@TVO1,

you really took your time to dissect what I said line by line! thank you, you have helped a great deal,

My fiance is born again just as I am and he is spiritually mature and responsible, most of the time that is!,

Thanks again!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Krayola - CRUCIALLY -

And again the whole doctrine presupposes that everybody will get married at some point in their lives.

This is NOT true. Many people wander though life unable to find a befitting partner. What then? Life long celibacy? Surely even you will laugh at such a suggestion, Krayola.

Do not tell me that it is an individual matter only because -

1. The dogma affects many innocent people by causing them to feel a terrible burden of guilt for the simple fact that they are normal human sexual beings

2. In many societies in the past and even conservative islamic societies up till today, people were and have been stoned to death, ostracized, burnt to death, etc for the simple fact that they did what comes naturally to everybody - they had intimacy.

How do these twin facts appear to you? ? ?

It is thus vitally important that civil society guards against such dangerous dogma very actively.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Krayola -

Please understand me right: everyone is absolutely free to do as they please with their own sexual lives. I have no problems with freewill in that regard. What i have repeatedly tried to point out to you is that i have a problem with the BASIS of such decisions. If people abstain from s.ex because it is bad for their health, because it is too much exercise, because they don’t have a desirable partner, etc, i am at home with this. But you and i know very well that the reason for abstinence in terms of this thread is ONE REASON AND ONE DETESTABLE REASON ONLY  -

THAT THEIR BORROWED RELIGION CRIMINALIZES PRE MARITAL S.EX.

This i find appalling for the very reason that s.ex is a natural instinct which the processes of the body show clearly was intended by nature to be carried out with reasonable regularity.

Can you imagine a similar natural instinct such as hunger being declared sinful? That is surely an affront to nature and common and obvious reason. I regard s.ex as being just as natural and compelling as eating food. You can thus appreciate the level of bizarreness with which i view the attempts at abstention - especially given the indicated BASIS for such abstention.

Let us look at a natural instinct which i think is most similar to the sexual instinct: one that you can surely have no problems with as an example. The instinct to scratch your skin when it itches. You feel an itch. It pricks you. You reach out to assuage it by scratching your skin.

This is perfectly similar to the sexual instinct. You feel a sexual itch - an urge. You reach out to assuage the itch by consummation, or in the absence of a partner people will even self-service. Can you imagine how ridiculous it will be if people developed a religion that told them it was wrong to scratch their skin in response to an itch until a certain date in their lives? It is quite simply a religious injunction that is completely at odds with the simple prescriptions of nature!

In the same way you can see that my views are not unfounded. I am at severe pains to imagine why a religion would impose on people the need to resist natural itches such as the clearly beneficial and wholesome sexual urge.

Religion is a terrible thing indeed.

0
Avatar
Newbie

inasmuch as anyone is still living on this planet earth and has to interact with other human beings, there will always be a social and legal contract involving marriage.

Even gay people are demanding full marriage recognition for their unions, so its rather retroactive to say intimacy alone is the be all and end all of everything.

Whether you jumped over a broom or killed a lion with your bare hands as a brideprice requirement, whatever goes in your community as a legal basis of marriage, is what holds.

A wise person understands that while intimacy may be the reason for a relationship in many cases, people cant stay on the bed 24/7 in glorious ecstacy. At some point, you have to get up and rejoin the rest of the world in order to exist.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Brilliant again.

Where is Krayola? Jesoul?

Perhaps if you instinctively reject anything said by Deep Sight maybe Jagunlabi & M_Nwankwo's deeper sights above can get the point across to you.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Quote from M-Nwankwo -

Brilliant!

GBAM! GBAM!! GBAM!!!

Just what i've been trying to communicate!

Wwhat do you make of this one Jesoul?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ mnwankwo. How are u? Hope all is well.

In your post above when u talk about the way things were before, and then go on to describe the sexual appetite of modern man as "overcultivated", is that based on your religious or spiritual beliefs, or on some study or research or something of that sort?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Natural instincts indeed!!!

Who do you people want to use and throw away? Nonsense.

0
Avatar
Newbie

For those that still believe in God, sexual union between a man and a woman is a gift of God. It only remains a gift if it is used for the purpose for which God bestowed us with this wonderful gift. Sexual union has the purpose of both procreation as well as renewal of the cells of the body or to be more precise the animistic currents that animates the physical body. The sexual energy exchanged during sexual intercourse is only healthy and upbuilding if it emanates from a healthy normal body with a pure soul and if the physical union is a a consumation of harmonious relationship between couples and this harmonious relationship is predicated on spiritual as well as psychic compatibilty. To put it simpler, sexual union that is according to the laws of God occures where there is genuine love beween the couples. Only genuine love attracts the power of God and consecrates such a union. Whether or not such a union is blessed by legal, cultural or religious ceremony is irrelavant and of no consequence spiritually. However, there is nothing wrong  in obeying religious, cultural or civil laws in so far as a clear distinction is made between these ceremonies and the act of marriage itself. The act of marriage is only granted to couples whose souls vibrate in pure love and in harmony. Such couples will recieve a consegration of their marriage as well as the power to go through life together in selfless love for themselves, their neighbours as well as love for God who permitted them the sacred sacrement of marriage. Thus some people who by prevailing religious or civil standards are considered unmarried are indeed married in the eyes of God while some who are considered married according to prevailing religious, cultural or civil norms are not married in the eyes of God. Wherever genuine love is the basis of a relationship, love, peace and harmony are the consequence and no matter the earthly trials, the couples go through life with radiant joy that can be infectious. Thus where there is no love and harmony, then all sexual union are immoral even if the couples were married by the pope. We can not judge by the man of today since present humans have an abnormal, overcultivated sexual instinct. That is not the way it was when God first created humans and permitted them to live on this planet. At that time, men and women had healthy bodies that are permeated by the power of God, keeping the sexual instinct natural and normal. At that time there is no need for forced abstinence or uncontrolled sexual desire. Humans can go several months and even years without the thought of sex or sexual desire. Something has gone tragically wrong with modern humans that a natural instinct has turned into a plague that even the pious fights a loosing battle. An abstinence in which the person continually struggle with the sexual instinct is harmful both to the body as well as the finer material coverings of the soul. Such a person is actually dispating large amount of energy meant to enable him or her to be active and creative ion earth. In addition, such constant struggle with the instinct actully strengthens the instinct. Having dispated this energy, he or she may be left with mood swings, unhappiness, over sensitivity and in some extreme cases even depression. If one recognises that he or she has an abnormal sexual instinct, the solution is not in forceful abstinence but rather in seeking help from God. Then he or she will be taught how to permit the spirit to take back the control of the body so that sexual instinct once again becomes natural and does not torment him or her anymore. In this later case an inward purity wells up within the spirit and then spreads to the body. Such an individual have no sexual desire except when the conditions set by the laws of God for sexual union are fufilled. Best Wishes.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.