In Search of a Biblical Sexual Ethic

[janine]

Here's a lovely piece for your consideration:


Ideas About Sexual Righteousness

*whew*

[david johnson]

janine:

that author does not understand sex.

dj

[janine]

Nor the division of covenants nor the "Law" of Grace nor authority nor much else.

[Booty]

It would appear he is searching for answers from his reason and logic, rather pharisaical and sad. I pray he will find the Lord's grace and lift his thoughts to higher issues. Janine whatever are you doing on the Knox Ring lass?

I noted he is Reformed Prebyterian which has it's roots in Ulster. They were more Cristocentric and less political than the more common Presbyterian strains. Actually I believe that is what caused their splitting off, something about a rejection of a homogeny with england and Scotland churches solely for political reasons and not for faith reasons.

My own Presbyterian roots, Free Presbyterian, have some ties to them. I knew they existed in the USA but never really realized that they are a force.

[janine]

Booty, I was given a link to that item by a friend on the "Ship of Fools" - never heard of Knox Ring until this morning.

[Booty]

Ach and how are my libertine Anglican brothers and sisters?

[charlie]

I'm a pretty progressive-thinking guy, but I honestly liked the piece. Well, most of it. I don't think calling people idiotic or Star Trek characters is appropriate, but what he said made a lot of sense. I may not agree with all of his conclusions, but I can't deny that our world would be in a lot better shape if we were a bit more specific on what is acceptible and what is not in the sex department.

You know, just because somebody tries to follow the rules doesn't mean they have lost God's grace.

[Booty]

Ach Charlie and the rules to be followed would be, Love the Lord you God above all & Love one another as I have loved thee?

[boringoldguy]

Let's hope he doesn't teach the high school or young adults class in his home congregation.

[janine]

If he tries, and if they've not been well-indoctrinated from the cradle with his views, they may all get up and leave en masse...

Booty, they are a mixed bag over there as always.  Some of my particular friends remember you and ask after you from time to time.

[Booty]

Pass them on my blessings Janine!

[elearner]

This is so odd..the article relied heavily on the OT but gave no mention to the fact that in the OT MEN WHERE ALLOWED MANY WIVES...in fact they were allowed many wives and many concubines (read live-in honeys)...it is a little easier to follow biblical principles concerning sexual relations when you can have sex with a different wife every night... :bowling:

[Nevertheless]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]it is a little easier to follow biblical principles concerning sexual relations when you can have sex with a different wife every night... [/quote]


Why?

Is this simply a "guy thing" that I don't get because I'm a woman?  

Sexual intimacy in a marriage relationship cannot be separated from intimacy in all other aspects.  For a husband and multiple wives to enjoy the intimacy that is God's design for a couple would require all of them to be equally intimate with each other, not just each wife with the man.  That's just not gonna happen!

[janine]

...maybe in Hollywood... :0

[elearner]

it is a little easier to follow biblical principles concerning sexual relations when you can have sex with a different wife every night...  

Why?

Is this simply a "guy thing" that I don't get because I'm a woman?  >>
***
Well, yes to a certain extent men do tend to be more into multiple partners.
***
Sexual intimacy in a marriage relationship cannot be separated from intimacy in all other aspects.  For a husband and multiple wives to enjoy the intimacy that is God's design for a couple would require all of them to be equally intimate with each other, not just each wife with the man.  That's just not gonna happen!>>

Hhmmm...well it was God's design...polygamy was considered God's design for marriage through out the OT and the practice only stopped being the norm in Isreal when they fell captive to the Romans who outlawed it.   :D

[Nevertheless]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Hhmmm...well it was God's design...polygamy was considered God's design for marriage through out the OT and the practice only stopped being the norm in Isreal when they fell captive to the Romans who outlawed it. [/quote]


You are confusing common practice with God's design.  One husband to one wife has always been God's design.  

"Haven't you read,

[elearner]

Then why wouldn't God have told the Isrealites that they could only have one wife?  He repeatedly got angry at them for having 'foreign wives' and for getting divorced but He never seemed to mind that they married many women...

[janine]

They were His hotbed for forcing the Rose of Sharon.

He wasn't so worried about pollination within the bed, as he was cross pollination...

[Nevertheless]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Then why wouldn't God have told the Isrealites that they could only have one wife?  He repeatedly got angry at them for having 'foreign wives' and for getting divorced but He never seemed to mind that they married many women...[/quote]


Maybe the answer to that is somewhat like the one Paul gave to the people in Athens in Acts 17.  He was describing some of the characteristics of God - what He has always been like.  He told them that God is the creator of everything, that He has no needs that humans can fill, that He is not like gold or silver or stone, etc.  Then he tells them, "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

Now the ignorance Paul is talking about here is the ignorance about God Himself, but maybe the principle applies to our discussion.

In the past God overlooked their ignorance of His design for marriage, but now He expects more of us.

[seekr]

Something that has been going around in my head for awhile, and is a little  :offtopic: ...the question of repentance. Repentance from what? Repentance from all our sin? That is not possible as we cannot claim we have no sin because then we lie. So if it means turn from something...what is it God is asking us to turn from, if love is the law? What is it really speaking about, when it says the ignorance that God overlooked? It hurts my head to think this much. I know that this leading somehwere for me. Feedback anyone, or should I start a new thread? it kind of ties in with this.

seekr