God did not create sex for pleasure

[Lucian Hodoboc]

God did create the reproductive organs for men and women to procreate, but He did not create sex as a means to seek pleasure. That is what Jesse Lee Peterson is stating in this video and that is what God seems to have been leading me to believe as He has been changing me over the past year...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2275608256013261

What are your thoughts? And please, please try to not allow your preconceived ideas about sex and your sexual desires do the thinking for you before you reply.

 

[Josiah]

I disagree with Jesse Lee Peterson.

 

[kiwimac]

God did create the reproductive organs for men and women to procreate, but He did not create sex as a means to seek pleasure. That is what Jesse Lee Peterson is stating in this video and that is what God seems to have been leading me to believe as He has been changing me over the past year...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2275608256013261

What are your thoughts? And please, please try to not allow your preconceived ideas about sex and your sexual desires do the thinking for you before you reply.

He would be wrong.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

I listened to what he said, and that’s not biblical.

God created man and woman. And BEFORE the fall he told them to be fruitful and multiply. Sex is not a result of the fall. It’s God’s Creation BEFORE the fall.

The result after the fall is pain in childbirth.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

God created man and woman. And BEFORE the fall he told them to be fruitful and multiply. Sex is not a result of the fall. It’s God’s Creation BEFORE the fall.

And likely sex was even better (more pleasurable) before the fall because the fall corrupted everything.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

God created man and woman. And BEFORE the fall he told them to be fruitful and multiply. Sex is not a result of the fall.

Sexual intercourse was designed with the purpose of procreation. Before the fall, God told them to be fruitful and multiply, not to be fruitful, multiply and have sexual intercourse for pleasure. Your confusion stems from equating sexual intercourse as we know it with multiplying.

 

[Stravinsk]

(I'm going by the description of the video - which seems to be it's synopsis, rather than commenting on the video itself, which I don't feel inclined to watch)

This hang up with original sin/fallen nature/sex that pervades within some (many?) Christian minds - that is - the combination of the two, I have seen wreck havoc on at least one marriage. Ideally, sex is an expression of love combined with bodily desire and pleasure all rolled into one with a devoted, monogomous person of the opposite sex, that can, but doesn't have to, result in the "multiplying". Some men and women cannot have children, for one reason or another. Are they not still "one flesh" with their husbands/wives? Many married couples stop having children after X many but this doesn't stop sexual desire, which on the video's premise seems to suggest all of a sudden becomes sinful or something. I don't believe God created sinful desires - only wrong ways of expressing desire that is innate.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

(I'm going by the description of the video - which seems to be it's synopsis, rather than commenting on the video itself, which I don't feel inclined to watch)

This hang up with original sin/fallen nature/sex that pervades within some (many?) Christian minds - that is - the combination of the two, I have seen wreck havoc on at least one marriage. Ideally, sex is an expression of love combined with bodily desire and pleasure all rolled into one with a devoted, monogomous person of the opposite sex, that can, but doesn't have to, result in the "multiplying". Some men and women cannot have children, for one reason or another. Are they not still "one flesh" with their husbands/wives? Many married couples stop having children after X many but this doesn't stop sexual desire, which on the video's premise seems to suggest all of a sudden becomes sinful or something. I don't believe God created sinful desires - only wrong ways of expressing desire that is innate.

Please come back with a reply after you've watched the 65-second long video.

 

[Stravinsk]

Please come back with a reply after you've watched the 65-second long video.

lol...o k...I watched and my response is the same.

 

[Albion]

Please come back with a reply after you've watched the 65-second long video.

We understand what your point of view is. However, Jesse Lee Peterson here is just explaining his own theory about something he thinks is implied by the Scripture accounts.

On the other hand, we aren't interested in running your private life. That's all there is to say about this, except you need to be sure to explain all of this in advance to anyone you may ever contemplate marrying.

 

[tango]

Sexual intercourse was designed with the purpose of procreation. Before the fall, God told them to be fruitful and multiply, not to be fruitful, multiply and have sexual intercourse for pleasure. Your confusion stems from equating sexual intercourse as we know it with multiplying.

I think this line of thinking muddles things around. Obviously without sex there is no future generation so it's kinda critical for the survival of the species. That said there's no reason why it can't serve multiple purposes.

If you assume sex is simply about making babies there's really no reason why it shouldn't be enjoyed with anyone who has strong genes. You know, maybe I'll have one child with my wife and then meet someone with some better genes and have a child with her, all the while my wife is carrying another man's child because he had some better genes than I did. And then once someone is no longer of child-bearing age there's no need to have sex at all any more. So once my wife goes through the menopause and is no longer fertile I'd need to find someone else to continue to spread my own genes.

If sex is about intimacy between a husband and wife as well as about making babies then the concept of marriage starts to make a whole lot more sense. The prolonged relationship between a committed husband and committed wife brings ever deeper intimacy which is about so much more than just making babies.

WIth regard to your original reasoning it blurs the difference between silence and prohibition. Not telling someone to do something isn't the same as telling them not to do it.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

If you assume sex is simply about making babies there's really no reason why it shouldn't be enjoyed with anyone who has strong genes.

I'm not following. There are clearly several reasons for that. To mention only a couple of them:
- children produced within marriage, a union blessed by God, are considered "clean" (whatever that may mean) (1 Corinthians 7:14)
- polygamy is frowned upon, if not downright condemned for people of God in the New Testament

 

[tango]

I'm not following. There are clearly several reasons for that. To mention only a couple of them:
- children produced within marriage, a union blessed by God, are considered "clean" (whatever that may mean) (1 Corinthians 7:14)
- polygamy is frowned upon, if not downright condemned for people of God in the New Testament

If the sole purpose of sex is to produce children (presumably healthy children are preferable) then about the only thing that matters is good strong genes. In this situation monogamy makes no sense at all.

If one purpose of sex is to create deeper intimacy (emotional, spiritual and physical in any combination) between husband and wife then requirements for monogamy make a whole lot more sense.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

If the sole purpose of sex is to produce children (presumably healthy children are preferable) then about the only thing that matters is good strong genes. In this situation monogamy makes no sense at all.

Your premise is incorrect. The purpose of sex is to produce children within the covenant of marriage by two people who have consecrated their lives to one another.

 

[Josiah]

The purpose of sex is to produce children

It seems that is your personal opinion.... but where is this confirmed?

And is such the ONLY, exclusive purpose - there is an impossibility of any other?




.

 

[tango]

Your premise is incorrect. The purpose of sex is to produce children within the covenant of marriage by two people who have consecrated their lives to one another.

You can't argue away a reasoned position with an unsupported opinion.

 

[Pedrito]

=========================================================================

Post #1: God did create the reproductive organs for men and women to procreate, but He did not create sex as a means to seek pleasure.

Post #6: Sexual intercourse was designed with the purpose of procreation. Before the fall, God told them to be fruitful and multiply, not to be fruitful, multiply and have sexual intercourse for pleasure.

=========================================================================

Does that mean that someone who cannot bear children for some reason should not get married?

If a partner in a marriage is or becomes infertile, does that mean that the couple should never come together again?

I suggest that some clarifying clarification would help clarify the situation.

=========================================================================

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

It seems that is your personal opinion.... but where is this confirmed?

And is such the ONLY, exclusive purpose - there is an impossibility of any other?




.

It's not my personal opinion. I still wrestle with the revelation I was given and am willing to admit being mistaken. But it is what common sense seems to point towards. I don't quite understand why a God of reason, love and peace would design the chaotic and irrational actions that precede and accompany the act of human (and animal) procreation. And to call said actions a means of displaying affection seems quite ridiculous to me.

I don't know what you mean by confirmed. Virtually nothing has ever been confirmed to the entire human population.

No, it is not the only exclusive purpose. The passions that accompany sexual intercourse are part of our fallen nature and God tolerates it, just like He tolerates all our other flaws. Sexual intercourse as a means of pleasure within marriage is not (necessarily) a sin, because it has the purpose of helping those who cannot abstain burn with passion. Nevertheless, the more you seek God to free you of these passions, the less power they have over you and the more you see them for what they are.

You can't argue away a reasoned position with an unsupported opinion.

The reasoned position contains logical fallacies.

=========================================================================

Post #1: God did create the reproductive organs for men and women to procreate, but He did not create sex as a means to seek pleasure.

Post #6: Sexual intercourse was designed with the purpose of procreation. Before the fall, God told them to be fruitful and multiply, not to be fruitful, multiply and have sexual intercourse for pleasure.

=========================================================================

Does that mean that someone who cannot bear children for some reason should not get married?

If a partner in a marriage is or becomes infertile, does that mean that the couple should never come together again?

I suggest that some clarifying clarification would help clarify the situation.

=========================================================================

If a person cannot abstain from fornication and burns with desire, (s)he should get married and extinguish his/her passions by engaging in normal (not perverted) sexual intercourse within the covenant of marriage. The husband and the wife should help each other in this sense to the best of their abilities, so that neither of them fall into temptation. (1 Corinthians 7:5, 1 Corinthians 7:9)

Bearing children was initially the main (perhaps sole, but I might be wrong about this) purpose of sexual intercourse. After the fall, everything got twisted and perverted. Without revelation from God, it is impossible to tell the exact details of what is permitted and what is tolerated. We can use Scripture as guidelines.

For example, Jesus says that in the resurrection, humans will neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but will be like the angels. Does this mean that the angels have sexual intercourse without needing the covenant of marriage? Probably not. My guess is that it means that angels don't engage in sexual intercourse. If sexual intercourse is the ultimate form of intimacy, it would be logical for superior beings to engage in it. Should we conclude that angels are inferior to us as far as expressing intimacy to one another is concerned? Most likely no.

 

[hedrick]

Possibly sex is the human form of something in eternity that is even deeper.

 

[tango]

It's not my personal opinion. I still wrestle with the revelation I was given and am willing to admit being mistaken. But it is what common sense seems to point towards. I don't quite understand why a God of reason, love and peace would design the chaotic and irrational actions that precede and accompany the act of human (and animal) procreation. And to call said actions a means of displaying affection seems quite ridiculous to me.

It might seem ridiculous to you but it seems perfectly normal to many others. Perhaps your revelation, assuming it was a revelation from God, was intended for you rather than for everybody.

I don't know what you mean by confirmed. Virtually nothing has ever been confirmed to the entire human population.

No, it is not the only exclusive purpose. The passions that accompany sexual intercourse are part of our fallen nature and God tolerates it, just like He tolerates all our other flaws. Sexual intercourse as a means of pleasure within marriage is not (necessarily) a sin, because it has the purpose of helping those who cannot abstain burn with passion. Nevertheless, the more you seek God to free you of these passions, the less power they have over you and the more you see them for what they are.

You're making assertions here without backing them at all. It's perfectly possible for sexual relations within the context of a marriage to be about deepening intimacy between husband and wife without it being little more than a release of burning passions. You know sometimes in the context of a marriage one partner does things purely for the benefit of the other, right? That may relate to sex and may relate to all sorts of other things as well.

The reasoned position contains logical fallacies.

It might be helpful to explain why you think there are fallacies rather than simply making an assertion without backing it.

If a person cannot abstain from fornication and burns with desire, (s)he should get married and extinguish his/her passions by engaging in normal (not perverted) sexual intercourse within the covenant of marriage. The husband and the wife should help each other in this sense to the best of their abilities, so that neither of them fall into temptation. (1 Corinthians 7:5, 1 Corinthians 7:9)

This seems to fall into "all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples" reasoning.

Bearing children was initially the main (perhaps sole, but I might be wrong about this) purpose of sexual intercourse. After the fall, everything got twisted and perverted. Without revelation from God, it is impossible to tell the exact details of what is permitted and what is tolerated. We can use Scripture as guidelines.

Bearing children is a purpose of sexual intercourse. Beyond that you're rather assuming what God's design philosophy might have been. If bearing children was the only purpose of sexual intercourse I don't imagine God would have made it quite so pleasurable.

For example, Jesus says that in the resurrection, humans will neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but will be like the angels. Does this mean that the angels have sexual intercourse without needing the covenant of marriage? Probably not. My guess is that it means that angels don't engage in sexual intercourse. If sexual intercourse is the ultimate form of intimacy, it would be logical for superior beings to engage in it. Should we conclude that angels are inferior to us as far as expressing intimacy to one another is concerned? Most likely no.

Starting a line of reasoning from an assumption doesn't necessarily produce anything useful.

Perhaps sex is to give us an idea of the level of spiritual intimacy that can be achieved in heaven, and sex is the ultimate form of intimacy that can be experienced in our physical bodies. It doesn't seem like any less silly an assumption than yours.