Sin against the body

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4981
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Sin against the body

Post by Paidion » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:19 pm

That's an interesting site, Morbo.

I was surprised by the following comment by brojangles:
Paul was weird about sex (he only grudgingly even sanctioned marital sex), so who knows?
The writer to the Hebrews wrote:Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled...
Traditionally, that writer is considered to have been Paul.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 82.

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:09 am

Michelle...

I really appreciate the answer. It is more than most.

I asked a question here -- why is sex with a harlot a sin against the body?

And only received one answer. Not one person attempted to answer my second question -- is sex with a virgin a sin against the body?

Back to your answer...............again, I do appreciate the response. However, does not your answer make Romans 7:2-3 mostly redundant?

Paul wrote to the Corinthians and explained to them that the woman married is bound for the life of the husband, only death will break the bond. Verse 39.

You say forgiveness will break the bond. I personally will have to trust Paul that he meant what he said. Jesus also repeated this admonition.

Is it not redundant that both Paul and Jesus said "death" was the vehicle in which a woman is released from the law of her husband; but yet you insist 'forgiveness' is just as reliable? It is a rhetorical question. I am not looking for an answer. Just something for you to think about.

Thanks for your time.

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:49 am

morbo3000 wrote:This is obviously very important to you. Everyone on here hungers for the word, as you do, but haven't grasped so hard on one topic. So I'm wondering your personal context

Morbo...........

You are asking me for my testimony. I'm sure most here would be bored by it, so I will give you a Reader's Digest version:

In 2002 I had a moment of crisis -- a death in the family. I was a Judeo-Christian at that time like most. However I always had doubts at what I was being told versus what I was reading in the Scriptures. But love for family and friends was more powerful - Matthew 10:37. However this time -- this moment of crisis -- was different. I had asked the Lord to reveal Himself to me despite the cost. I met a man who recommended that I take a trip all by myself with just my Bible and a concordance. He then asked me to underline every passage from cover to cover which implied a "conditional" approach to the Father. By the time I finished reading the bible, cover to cover my bible was filled with pencil. It seemed every page had an underlined passage. It was then that I realized the teaching of Eternal Security was heresy.

.............I most likely opened another can of worms..........................

Once I realized that the Lord's Salvation was one of a "continuation"..............a perseverance...............I recognized how important it was to be holy. Jesus said that he who "keeps" His commands is he who loves Him -- John 14:21.

So I vowed to keep His commands. I was living with a girl during this time, so when I returned home I knew I had to "marry" her. But I didn't trust the church to tell me what was required to be married. This is when I began my journey to discover "marriage".

To wrap this up.........................it didn't take me long to learn that to marry was simply to have sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is the vehicle in which two flesh become one. When a virgin girl has sex with a man she is known by that man. She is now 'joined' to that man. Civilization SHOULD recognize them man and wife. Society's failure to recognize them man and wife is not the fault of God or the lack of information in the Scriptures. Leah and Rachel is a good example of this. Jacob labored for Rachel. Rachel was given to Jacob as a wife by contract. However, Laban inserted Leah into Jacob's tent. Leah was now Jacob's wife because they had sex; however the "agreement/contract" was for Rachel.

Joseph and Mary is another example. Mary was considered Joseph's wife by property - agreement/arrangement/contract etc. However, Mary broke the rules of the contract and was found to be with child -- no longer a virgin. Joseph and Mary had yet to sleep with each other, but the Scriptures and society thought of them as husband and wife. You can have legal marriage without sex; but you can't have Heavenly marriage without sex. Sexual intercourse is the 'marriage' of two flesh into one.

I spent the next few years focused on exposing the heresy of Eternal Security. The past few years I have shifted my focus to reveal that most people, who believe they are actually married; are in reality - not. Most are adulterers and are unaware. Just as Jesus said, "not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

How many 'married' ever bothered to fully explore the Lord's desire for a righteous marriage??? The majority just trusted the church to define it.


There is certainly more to this story and I won't waste space. If anyone is interested they can email me -- hobsroy@gmail.com

Thanks for your time.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Sin against the body

Post by backwoodsman » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:08 pm

RoyHobs wrote:Not one person attempted to answer my second question -- is sex with a virgin a sin against the body?
I answered it by pointing out that the question is based on your misreading and misrepresentation of Paul's words. But that's not the answer you're looking for, so you ignored it, as you have several other responses and questions. I think you'll find you'll get a little more interaction here if you're a little more forthcoming with responses to things that seem to show you're mistaken.

It's pretty common for those who are serious about being disciples of Jesus to have a little trouble finding others just as serious with whom to fellowship, at least in our own local area. But when you find yourself the only one who you think really understands some important point of doctrine, and when that point of doctrine consumes your mind and defines your spirituality, it's time to take a step or two back and re-evaluate whether you've become sidetracked and forgotten the whole point of following Jesus.

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Sin against the body

Post by morbo3000 » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:18 pm

backwoodsman wrote:
RoyHobs wrote:Not one person attempted to answer my second question -- is sex with a virgin a sin against the body?
I answered it by pointing out that the question is based on your misreading and misrepresentation of Paul's words. But that's not the answer you're looking for, so you ignored it, as you have several other responses and questions. I think you'll find you'll get a little more interaction here if you're a little more forthcoming with responses to things that seem to show you're mistaken..
I didn't answer because I had a hunch it was a baiting question. I didn't follow the link for the same reason. Which is not to say I disdain links to personal writing. I am working on a project I'd like help on, which will involve linking to my work. But that will be for feedback. Not agenda.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3361
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Sin against the body

Post by steve » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:30 pm

Roy,

I agree with morbo that your arguments seem to be coming from some personal damage you feel you have suffered in this realm, though I cannot imagine what it was. Only such could account for the total irrationality of your arguments. For example:
What is the difference between a harlot and non-virgin: Physically speaking?
The significant difference between a harlot and another kind of non-virgin (say, a widow) is not to be found in the physical condition. A woman's physical condition as a non-virgin does not in itself count against her. A harlot is a particular kind of non-virgin who has prostituted herself. If you are not able to see the moral difference between that and a woman who has been raped, abandoned by her husband, or widowed, then your qualification to speak to Christian moral issues is greatly to be questioned.
Are not both joined to a man? Are not both "known" by a man?
Yes, and so is a legitimately married woman. Being "known by a man" is a condition common to virtuous wives and immoral women alike. It is not determinative of moral standing, in itself.
is sex with a virgin a sin against the body?
Yes, unless you are married to her.

Roy, you complain that your questions have been ignored (though they haven't been). Now, will you answer the question asked earlier: Are you the writer of the blog?

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:43 pm

Steve,

I am one of a handful of other men who contribute to the blog.

Steve...........are you Steve Gregg?

RoyHobs
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Sin against the body

Post by RoyHobs » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:58 pm

morbo3000 wrote:I didn't answer because I had a hunch it was a baiting question.

Morbo.....it was not a 'baiting' question from the perspective of being deceptive or manipulative in a negative way. It is a serious question. When I discovered that "sex is the vehicle in which two flesh become one", I had to then look at all the Scriptures that pertained to sex and marriage.

I somewhat accidently stumbled across 1 Corinthians 6:16. I had never heard any pastor/teacher or author ever extrapolate this passage.

When Paul makes a special point to say that the sin of sexual immorality is a sin like no other.............I had to give it attention.

"What is it about this statement"? I asked myself. Then I asked the question, "What is the difference between a harlot who is one flesh; and a non-virgin woman who is one flesh?" I figured the answer to be nothing. They are both joined to a man.

The harlot is in a sense -- defiled. So a non-virgin girl is also defiled. Why defiled? Because they are already joined to a man. No person on here would ever deny that sex with a married woman is sexual immorality. The married woman is one flesh with a man. The non-virgin is 'one flesh' with a man. This must be the nature of the reason why sex with a harlot is sexual immorality -- a sin against the body.

When I study ALL the Scriptures pertaining to sex and marriage this reality rings true. Why did Tamar rip her robe of virginity? Why did Dinah's brothers murder Shechem? Etc., etc.

You just can not find one example of a non-virgin girl taking a husband in the Scriptures. Unless a widow of course. Then you have Paul just confirm this reality -- 1 Corinthians 7:34 -- "....there is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman......" Who is the unmarried? Answer: the virgin.

So............I seek other men and ask them these same questions. It is very revealing the answers -- or non-answers I receive. Thanks for your time.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3361
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Sin against the body

Post by steve » Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:14 pm

Steve...........are you Steve Gregg?
The same.

User avatar
dizerner
Posts: 1221
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:43 pm

Re: Sin against the body

Post by dizerner » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:18 pm

This must be the nature of the reason why sex with a harlot is sexual immorality -- a sin against the body.
Notice in the passage though the comparison and emphasis is on the body being a temple of the Spirit made for worship of God which produces a similar union to that which sex produces. The emphasis is not on the virginity but on the unlawful union. Why is it a sin against the body? Not because of virginity or lack thereof, but because the body is the temple of the Spirit and being joined to an ungodly source.
~ Classical Arminian Christian Mystic ~

Post Reply

Return to “Marriage & Divorce”