1 Corinthians 7:2-9
Each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband because of sexual immorality. The husband should meet his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should do the same for her husband. The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Don’t refuse to meet each other’s needs unless you both agree for a short period of time to devote yourselves to prayer. Then come back together again so that Satan might not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I’m saying this to give you permission; it’s not a command. I wish all people were like me, but each has a particular gift from God: one has this gift, and another has that one.I’m telling those who are single and widows that it’s good for them to stay single like me. But if they can’t control themselves, they should get married, because it’s better to marry than to burn with passion.
Discuss.
What’s important to understanding this passage is the unstated assumption that Jeebus’ return was imminent, thus making procreation pointless.
Therefore, if one can’t stay totally pure (celibate), then it was advisable to get the use of one’s naughty parts authorized as fornication was a deal breaker.
Some of these idiots are still waiting for Jeebus, although his most passionate followers aren’t all that circumspect about the unauthorized use of their naughty parts these (latter) days.
Repentance, be-yotches!
Yeah, cause if theres one thing that prevents passion, it’s marriage.
I hope my prophet does not get fired by the Stranger for this posting ….
The sadness here is not Paul it is the Stranger with its obsession on Dan Savage’s life style and bigotry toward make female monogamy.
The sadness here is not Paul it is the reaction of Deathfrog and Zotz.
The sadness here is not Paul it is the Christian community who does not see that this is Paul giving common sense sex advice.
What does that mean?
@4: God is SJ. SJ appears here as God in its incoherent form. It’s also prone to spelling and grammatical errors.
SJ (God): Come back when you’re not hungover or whatever and explain to us how my “reaction” differs from the facts of the matter, historical and otherwise.
Whatever you may think of SJ or My typing errors, SJ is not Me.
As for Paul’s comment, can’t you see it is just marital advice?
Let me give you a revelation from Me about the meaning of marriage.
Marriage is a fusion of two or more people to form a new entity, the marriage. People in a marriage have a commitment to each other and to Me to share themselves … not just sex, but personality and hopes.
The “marriage” espoused by Dan Savage is merely a contract and has nothing to do with the marriage given by evolution, that is by Me, to your species.
Two, or more people, can choose to become married without a legal contract. Conversely, the legal contract does not bind people to a true marriage.
As for Paul, he is simply giving good advice to married couples.
@3 What do you have against Paul Constant?
I’ve always found the inclusion of the letters of Paul an interesting window into the sausage-making process of religion. They serve as a fine example of how one dedicated but misguided churchman can turn a philosophy of peace, understanding and forgiveness into a set of ironclad rules and punishments.
* subordination of women? Paul.
* hatred of gays? Paul. Jesus never said a *damn* thing about it.
* all the sexual hangups? Paul.
@8: Precisely.
And it is important to note that the ire of married men who lost relations due to their wives pursuit of purity to ready themselves for the imminent kingdom of Jeebus God Almighty was a leading cause for persecution of xtrians.
I know I’d be pissed.
@6, SJ (God): Try again.
@5, 10
I find the conceit that God is not SJ, and vice versa, has, um, run its course. As a reader, the disavowal no longer rings true and therefore loses its potency.
Just tell us what you think, Steve.
(Hi Zotz!)
Hey Lib Sci!
I find it funny that the identity of God should matter.
If you think My words are those of SJ, how does that change anything for you?
If I say that marriage is a result of Me or or of evolutions does that change your perceptions?
Odd that you care who I am.
Zotz
The image of your grabbing you genitalia in defiance of God is biblical!
Indeed it is worth if an image for the next version of a bible, one based on My writing here. Can you provide a link?
@14: Here you go…
Many thanks but I already found one that fits the situation better:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com.....e4eec0.jpg
@15: OK, Eddy then.
Now I’m even more confused. Still no answer to my first question, and now this:
Say again? There are roughly 5,700 species of mammals in the world, never mind the birds, amphibians, plants, bacteria, etc. All but one of these have evolved without any concept of “marriage”. To suggest that evolution and marriage have any relation makes no sense at all, to me.
If I understand God correctly, what he is saying is that if society is going to demand of a man that he be financially responsible for his offspring, then he has a right to demand proof positive that the offspring are his. Hence, the evolution of marriage, a fungible concept.
I don’t know what fungible means, but it sure sounds smart, don’t it?
@18 Rob
Pairing, harems, etc are all fund in evolution. These are genetic traits shaped to different degrees either by environment or, in our case by social mores.
Human societies, as far as >I< know, always show some variation of this commitment … though the nature … male dom, female dom, and the polygamous vs monogamous ratios vary.
Unless you believe that these forms of pairing came form some deity other than I, I would suggest you accept the idea that human pairing .. just like that seen on other species .. is a heritable trait caused by speciation and genetics.
Now, what you decide to do ABOUT this trait, that is up to your tribe. All I do is make the rules you folks call science.
God,
among mammals, sex, i.e. pairing, is required for procreation. But sex does not equal marriage. In many species, including ours, the pairing is only for as long as it takes to perform sex, which can hardly be considered marriage, and yet the species reproduce and survive successfully. So yes, I accept that “pairing … is a heritable trait caused by speciation and genetics.”, because it’s required for reproduction. But as that has nothing to do with marriage, I’m still unable to understand what the nature of the connection you’re claiming is.
@19 Jimmy
Not at all.
You or your tribe make laws,that too is himan.
All I can do is hope you follow my natural laws, including the rule of not doing anything to others you would not want done to you.
That “golden rule” is as real as gravity but humans build rockets and use them to drop bombs on each other.
I am that I am.
Above should have said “In many species, including frequently ours…
Yeah, the whole behave yourself or Baby Jesus will get a sad, just isn’t very convincing and judging by the rate that couple cheat on each other I’m not the only one that remains unconvinced.
Now, if you lived in a culture that told you to behave yourself or Perchta would be coming for you in the night, you might have better results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....nmaske.jpg
Paul’s hard enough to deal with without putting most of what he wrote in its original context. He’s somewhat compelling because the sonofagun knew how to write, and threw in more than a small amount of irony and quite a few personal comments about people he knew. It’s quite possible that when he penned the above passage he was thinking about some acquaintance who had a lot of trouble keeping his crank out of places it didn’t belong.
In any case, imperfect though the holy book may be, it’s unlikely that it would be improved by the addition of a whole tome devoted to Zotz wanking off.
Art
“the holy book”
??? Which one ….
Martian Chronicles, Book of Mormon, Quran, Torah, Haftorah, Talmud, Sutas, Humns of Zarathrusta, Canticle of Liebovitz, Dune, ???
BTW .. I do appreciate Zotz nomination but as a decidedley mortal being and a devout atheist I must decline the offer.
@6 What’s this? Another huckster promoting cold fusion? I know for a fact that fusion crap doesn’t work with rabbits. If you put two rabbits in a cage, you’ve got two rabbits in a cage. After a while, there’ll be ten or fifteen rabbits in the cage, but nothing gets fused in there. Trust me on this.
Man I done seen lotsa rabbits fusing. Boy on Girl, Girl on Girl, Boy on Boy …
so tell me this … does all Rabbit fusion have the energy to produce new rabbits?
Can boy boy fusion make rabbits?
Or is tit as the Christians say for their Jesus, Immaculate, and the bunnies are all made de novo and without sin?
Or, as the physicists suggest, is there conservation of rabbits and new ones occur by all too frequent miracles?
@27
Cold fusion? Picture the angel Gabriel (or whoever) calling God and saying, “Hey boss, guess what? Some clowns in Utah think they’ve discovered cold fustion.”
To which God responds “Really? Hold on a minute. Let me log in…(clickety tappety)…Ah! I see…a minor glitch in the code. Gimme a sec…(tap-tap-tap-clickety-tap) Ok, that’s fixed.”
Well since God seems to have punted on my questions, I’ll just leave this final thought:
This nicely sums up the problem with theistic religion; someone asks an awkward question, and the answer is “Just trust me, have faith.” Yeah, faith, it’s the go to excuse when you don’t have evidence.