God did not create sex for pleasure

[Josiah]

.

But it is what common sense seems to point towards.

IMO, the opposite is true. God designed us. GOD did that, it's an objective reality stated in Scripture (revelation from GOD). And obviously, undeniably, He designed our bodies so that sex would be extremely enjoyable. He didn't need to.... we'd figure out this is how procreation happens and we'd do it.... or He could have simply given us a very strong drive that would cause us to do something non-pleasurable (even if it hurt) but He didn't. He made it so it is extremely enjoyable - physically and emotionally. Was this a mistake on His part? I'm not following your reasoning here.

The passions that accompany sexual intercourse are part of our fallen nature and God tolerates it, just like He tolerates all our other flaws.

Why would God DESIGN us with a flaw? Or do you hold that God designed sex to hurt (in every way) BUT then - because of the Fall - turned it pleasant as punishment? I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here.



Friend, I agree with you that likely the PRIMARY purpose of sex is procreation. IMO, the strong link to marriage supports that conclusion.... as well as the reality that sex of course can (rarely) lead to that. BUT I find nothing in Scripture and nothing logically that suggest ergo it must be the ONLY purpose of it - especially when clearly God designed human bodies to REALLY enjoy this - on every level. Sex clearly is a very intimate act that is designed to be very giving/sharing and obviously enjoyable on many levels. It seems unlikely to me that all this is actually PUNISHMENT or is simply an accident God never intended. Of course, it IS possible to abuse this gift (true of ALL God's gifts!) but that doesn't mean the problem is with the gift. MY opinion.


Blessings!


Josiah (married for 6 years now.... and highly appreciative of this gift (LOL).... and a virgin the day before my wedding.




.

 

[NathanH83]

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.

Do you know how sexual reproduction works? They’re not going to multiply and have babies without having sex first.

 

[Lanman87]

Wow, I totally disagree with this premise. God made the parts of the body that produce pleasure in sex. He could have made reproduction boring and numb, but He chose to make it pleasurable. I believe the joys and pleasures of married sex are a gift of God. This gift has been abused by fallen mankind (porn industry, seeking pleasure for the sake of pleasure, orgies and so forth). But in its right place, sex is a wonderful Gift of God.

 

[Lanman87]

Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
16 Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for strangers with you.
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love. Proverbs 5:15-19 ESV

How beautiful and pleasant you are,
O loved one, with all your delights!
7 Your stature is like a palm tree,
and your breasts are like its clusters.
8 I say I will climb the palm tree
and lay hold of its fruit.
Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine,
and the scent of your breath like apples,
9 and your mouth like the best wine.
It goes down smoothly for my beloved,
gliding over lips and teeth.
10 I am my beloved's,
and his desire is for me. Song of Solomon 7:6-10 ESV

It sure sounds to me like the physical aspects of marriage are to be delighted in.

 

[Josiah]

Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
16 Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for strangers with you.
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love. Proverbs 5:15-19 ESV

How beautiful and pleasant you are,
O loved one, with all your delights!
7 Your stature is like a palm tree,
and your breasts are like its clusters.
8 I say I will climb the palm tree
and lay hold of its fruit.
Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine,
and the scent of your breath like apples,
9 and your mouth like the best wine.
It goes down smoothly for my beloved,
gliding over lips and teeth.
10 I am my beloved's,
and his desire is for me. Song of Solomon 7:6-10 ESV

It sure sounds to me like the physical aspects of marriage are to be delighted in.

The Catholic Church avoids that (obvious) conclusion by insisting that Solomon is talking about our relationship to the Catholic Church. I know.



.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

The fact that a random (fallen) human wrote a poem inspired by her(?) (fallen) human desires and other random (fallen) humans decided to include it in a collection of writings that they more or less arbitrarily considered "canonical" and called it "Bible" is not proof that the current form of what humans call sexual intercourse was God's original idea for how it should unfold.

 

[Lanman87]

The fact that a random (fallen) human wrote a poem inspired by her(?) (fallen) human desires and other random (fallen) humans decided to include it in a collection of writings that they more or less arbitrarily considered "canonical" and called it "Bible" is not proof that the current form of what humans call sexual intercourse was God's original idea for how it should unfold.

If you don't believe all scripture is God Breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, then what is the basis for your belief?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

At the present moment, the basis of my belief is reason. That's why I find it very difficult to continue calling myself a Christian. I'm leaning more towards classical theism.

I have tested the Bible's promises and they have failed to come true. When asking Christians why this happened, I was faced with variations of the same copout answer that God works in mysterious ways that we should not question. I don't find myself able to align the reality I am experiencing with such a mindset, so I don't know what to do about that.

 

[hedrick]

I think you should look at the Bible as a whole. The biggest collection of prayers -- the Psalms -- are full of situations where what people want didn't happen. Jesus prayed to be spared death, and wasn't, and he warns people that they will be persecuted. I just looked at two commentaries on Mark 11:24. I think the best comment is that faith moving mountains is pretty obviously hyperbole. Yes, faith can remove
obstacles. But it doesn't remove all obstacles.

There are lots of questions Jesus didn't answer that we might like answers to. One of the biggest is why things aren't perfect. The only answer I've seen that makes sense is that no one would develop into a mature, effective person if every wish was granted. The world needs to have real challenges and real consequences.

 

[tango]

At the present moment, the basis of my belief is reason. That's why I find it very difficult to continue calling myself a Christian. I'm leaning more towards classical theism.

If the basis of your belief is reason, on what basis do you conclude that something very pleasurable is something that wasn't designed to be very pleasurable?

I have tested the Bible's promises and they have failed to come true. When asking Christians why this happened, I was faced with variations of the same copout answer that God works in mysterious ways that we should not question. I don't find myself able to align the reality I am experiencing with such a mindset, so I don't know what to do about that.

I'd echo what hedrick said here. Sometimes things don't go how we expected them to, or how we wanted them to. Sometimes people find life seems to just keep on kicking them. I can't go into a lot of detail because I don't want to inadvertently identify someone without their permission but I know a person who suffered a horrendous accident in his early 20s and ended up paraplegic. I'm often amazed at the depth of his faith in the God who obviously didn't protect him from harm. And then you see people who have what appears to be a really easy life but struggle with any sense that God is real.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

If the basis of your belief is reason, on what basis do you conclude that something very pleasurable is something that wasn't designed to be very pleasurable?

It might have been designed tot be pleasurable, but it was not created for pleasure, just like eating was likely not created with the purpose of experiencing the taste in our mouths, but rather for obtaining nutrition. The taste and the pleasure are experiences that make said processes enjoyable, but the experiences are not the goals for which the activities were created. Turning the desire for said pleasurable experiences into the goal of the activities is a sin because it changes God's original design, and anything that goes against God and His design is a sin. There are various degrees of sin, and there are various reasons for which God tolerates certain sins for a period of time (e.g.: divorce in the Old Testament).

I'd echo what hedrick said here. Sometimes things don't go how we expected them to, or how we wanted them to. Sometimes people find life seems to just keep on kicking them. I can't go into a lot of detail because I don't want to inadvertently identify someone without their permission but I know a person who suffered a horrendous accident in his early 20s and ended up paraplegic. I'm often amazed at the depth of his faith in the God who obviously didn't protect him from harm. And then you see people who have what appears to be a really easy life but struggle with any sense that God is real.

Cognitive flexibility differs from one person to another, and neurscience is still trying to figure out the reasons for this. From what I've read so far, one's past experiences seem to be the central contributing factor. That's why I think that the "others have it worse" (followed by examples of others who have it worse, yet kept their faith) type of arguments are very damaging to the mental health of a person who lacks cognitive flexibility. Yes, in some cases it can make people reflect upon their circumstances and reconsider them in a favorable light, but there are also cases in which it can leave the person with feelings of frustration, confusion and guilt for having such a limited cognitive flexibility.

 

[tango]

It might have been designed tot be pleasurable, but it was not created for pleasure, just like eating was likely not created with the purpose of experiencing the taste in our mouths, but rather for obtaining nutrition. The taste and the pleasure are experiences that make said processes enjoyable, but the experiences are not the goals for which the activities were created. Turning the desire for said pleasurable experiences into the goal of the activities is a sin because it changes God's original design, and anything that goes against God and His design is a sin. There are various degrees of sin, and there are various reasons for which God tolerates certain sins for a period of time (e.g.: divorce in the Old Testament).

Your reasoning here still appears to be based on the presupposition that sex for pleasure is sinful. Is there any reason why God's design for sex can't serve two purposes - to create a growing intimacy between a husband and his wife and also to create the next generation?

Why would you assume that a God who loves us would create a whole load of biological processes and deny us the chance to enjoy them? Yes, we need to eat to sustain our bodies but is it such a far cry to believe that God designed the process such that we could enjoy certain foods? If eating is purely for the sake of nutrition why would foods even have such varied tastes? Why not just create one single tree, that is incredibly robust, that produces a food that tastes bland enough we're not tempted to sin by overindulging but which gives us everything our bodies need in one hit?

Cognitive flexibility differs from one person to another, and neurscience is still trying to figure out the reasons for this. From what I've read so far, one's past experiences seem to be the central contributing factor. That's why I think that the "others have it worse" (followed by examples of others who have it worse, yet kept their faith) type of arguments are very damaging to the mental health of a person who lacks cognitive flexibility. Yes, in some cases it can make people reflect upon their circumstances and reconsider them in a favorable light, but there are also cases in which it can leave the person with feelings of frustration, confusion and guilt for having such a limited cognitive flexibility.

I don't think this is a matter of cognitive flexibility as being aware that strength of faith doesn't have to be bound by having experiences of a God who does what we want and/or gives us an easy life. I'm as guilty as the next person of lamenting things in my life that are utterly trivial when compared to what other people are dealing with. It doesn't make my issues of the day seem any less significant and the idea isn't to create some kind of league table where those at the top get to mock those lower down ("Ha, you think that's bad? You should see what happened to me...") but to see that there is no guarantee that life will turn out how we want it and, if we misinterpret or misunderstand a promise, we can't be surprised if it isn't kept the way we expected. Sometimes it's as simple as making sure to keep things in context - if I read "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength" (Php 4:13) and decide to run an ultramarathon without doing any training because, hey, Christ will give me strength to do anything, then I shouldn't be surprised if I get a few miles in and find I can't actually finish the race.

Ultimately the reality is that if we accept God is in charge then God doesn't have to explain himself to us. It's very easy to get caught up in a twisted theology that suggests we are owed some kind of explanation, as if we have come to believe that God answers to us rather than the reverse.

 

[Lanman87]

At the present moment, the basis of my belief is reason. That's why I find it very difficult to continue calling myself a Christian. I'm leaning more towards classical theism.

Thank you for an honest response.

The way I see it. We live in a broken world. I believe the fall of man broke not only humanity but also all of creation. Bad things happen to all of us because of either our personal sin, the sin of others, or the consequence of the world being broken.

The hope of the Gospel teaches us that, when the time is right, there will be a new creation and a new earth and all things will be made new. There will be no more sorrow, pain, or tears. Until that time comes then we trust in the One who will make all things new, find joys in living out a life of faith in the One who makes all things new, and find comfort from the sadness and pain of being broken and living in a broken world in the One who makes all things new.

 

[FredVB]

We should trust that God really has better things for us than sex.

 

[Josiah]

We should trust that God really has better things for us than sex.

I don't disagree, but that has no relevance to the issue. God created sex.... He told Adam and Eve to procreate.... He designed sex to be very pleasurable...


.

 

[atpollard]

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts:

Jesse Lee Peterson was never married but has been engaged twice.​

“It just didn’t happen,” Peterson explained on his show in October 2020. ”I’ve been engaged twice, but uh, I refuse — you know how women pretend to be all in your corner until they get you.”​

Not qualified to be a Pastor. Never ordained. Never attended any Bible college or seminary. Not qualified to speak about God and this issue. His unsupported personal opinion is incorrect.

 

[hedrick]

The video seems incoherent. But it has also pushed the discussion in an odd direction. Normally the proposed purpose in addition to procreation is unitive, I.e. a bond between partners. The relationship of marriage is clearly endorsed by both OT and Jesus. Sex within it, even if children are not possible or not wise, has a purpose beyond pleasure. Nor is there anything wrong with pleasure, within appropriate bounds.

 

[atpollard]

Song of Songs says God is in favor of pleasure.

 

[Nomad]

If God did not create sex for pleasure why do we experience pleasure while doing sex? If sex is just for reproduction can you reproduce without experiencing pleasure?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

If God did not create sex for pleasure why do we experience pleasure while doing sex? If sex is just for reproduction can you reproduce without experiencing pleasure?

1 - the fact that an activity is pleasurable does not mean that it was created with the goal of being used for pleasure.
2 - yes, you can.