Lil Red Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Well, excuse me for not taking the passage in the light of total literalism, despite the fact that the Author says it is to be understood by way of concession and not as a command. (1 Cor 7:6) BTW, I must ask, how's all this working out for you? I'm sure you're really fulfilled and happy in your relationships with women. i may not agree with Norse 99% of the time, but that's an unfair personal attack.
Lil Red Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 also: why are we still beating this dead horse? isn't that cruelty to animals or some such thing? or desecration of a body? (or does that only apply to human bodies?)
Basilisa Marie Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 The receiver has nothing to receive if the giver will not give. That's what St. Paul is warning about - not to deprive one another. Therefore, due to the use of the word "deprive" (or whatever other versions translate it as), it is aimed at those who refuse to give. Norse, that kind of strict, literalist interpretation paves the way for believing that rape is impossible in marriage. Which isn't true. Paul's right to say not to deprive one another, because sex is a beautiful, joyful, important part of marriage. He's talking about situations where one spouse decides that he or she wants to be celibate, without the consent of the other spouse. You can't make a vow of celibacy if you're already married, unless your spouse is cool with it (and wants to make a similar vow, I'd imagine). It's not about never saying "Not tonight, honey."
arfink Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Yet this does carry through into sacramental theology, since a marriage needs to be ratum et consummatum to be valid. Sex is what differentiates living as husband and wife from living as brother and sister. Additionally, if you read on, after St. Paul talks about "concession, not command", he stated that he preferred people to be single than married, so when read in that context that does not diminish that once you are married, it is a debt. As he stated earlier in the chapter, a married person does not belong to him/herself but rather to his/her spouse. Consummation is part of Roman Catholic canon law, and in the East it is not required. Also, if you read the CCC, there is no mention of ownership. No, mutual consent is not ownership. Unity is not ownership. You can perhaps claim that they are functionally identical, and while that may be externally true, the internal reality is that when you treat sex as a debt owed to you by your spouse, the sexual act is no longer freely given. The Church rightly teaches that each sexual act needs to be open to life, which is why contraception is wrong. The Church also rightly teaches that each and every sexual act need to be free, and as soon as you treat sex as a right you have to demand from your spouse, that sexual act is no longer free. But I guess that's a moot point for you.
Norseman82 Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) Norse, that kind of strict, literalist interpretation paves the way for believing that rape is impossible in marriage. Which isn't true. Paul's right to say not to deprive one another, because sex is a beautiful, joyful, important part of marriage. He's talking about situations where one spouse decides that he or she wants to be celibate, without the consent of the other spouse. You can't make a vow of celibacy if you're already married, unless your spouse is cool with it (and wants to make a similar vow, I'd imagine). It's not about never saying "Not tonight, honey." But St. Paul is also being very practical. He is warning married people that depriving each other in that way for an extended period of time is an occasion of sin (since he is concerned about Satan tempting us). Edited July 28, 2013 by Norseman82
CatholicsAreKewl Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 also: why are we still beating this dead horse? isn't that cruelty to animals or some such thing? I had no idea you were a PETA supporter.
Norseman82 Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Consummation is part of Roman Catholic canon law, and in the East it is not required. Also, if you read the CCC, there is no mention of ownership. No, mutual consent is not ownership. Unity is not ownership. You can perhaps claim that they are functionally identical, and while that may be externally true, the internal reality is that when you treat sex as a debt owed to you by your spouse, the sexual act is no longer freely given. The Church rightly teaches that each sexual act needs to be open to life, which is why contraception is wrong. The Church also rightly teaches that each and every sexual act need to be free, and as soon as you treat sex as a right you have to demand from your spouse, that sexual act is no longer free. But I guess that's a moot point for you. Take it up with the Author.
Norseman82 Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) I had no idea you were a PETA supporter. Notice that this was post# 666. NOW you can cue the Rod Serling music. OK, humor break over. Edited July 28, 2013 by Norseman82
arfink Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Take it up with the Author. You're seriously saying St. Paul is saying it's ok to use another person for sex just because you're married to her? You're wrong. Don't defend that position, it's not true.
Norseman82 Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 You're seriously saying St. Paul is saying it's ok to use another person for sex just because you're married to her? You're wrong. Don't defend that position, it's not true. Please don't twist my words to deflect away from the fact that we are entering the territory of biblcial concepts that some/many may find "inconvenient truths".
CatholicsAreKewl Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Notice that this was post# 666. NOW you can cue the Rod Serling music. OK, humor break over. I like a man with a sense of humor. ;)
havok579257 Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Please don't twist my words to deflect away from the fact that we are entering the territory of biblcial concepts that some/many may find "inconvenient truths". its a good question. Do you think St.Paul was saying someone is ok in using their spouse just for sex?
Amppax Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Take it up with the Author. My interpretation of Scripture. FIFY
arfink Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 Please don't twist my words to deflect away from the fact that we are entering the territory of biblcial concepts that some/many may find "inconvenient truths". I can tell you find them very inconvenient.
Amppax Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 i may not agree with Norse 99% of the time, but that's an unfair personal attack. Agreed.
Norseman82 Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 FIFY I'm not the one trying to negate what Scripture says.
Norseman82 Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 its a good question. Do you think St.Paul was saying someone is ok in using their spouse just for sex? I never said that and you know it. Just because there is more to marriage than sex, one cannot deny the sexual aspect of marriage, otherwise it's not a marriage but rather a couple living as "brother and sister".
arfink Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 I never said that and you know it. Just because there is more to marriage than sex, one cannot deny the sexual aspect of marriage, otherwise it's not a marriage but rather a couple living as "brother and sister". And I never said couples should avoid having sex just because. ;) That said, it still doesn't establish a "right" to have sex for the spouses.
Norseman82 Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 And I never said couples should avoid having sex just because. ;) That said, it still doesn't establish a "right" to have sex for the spouses. Tell that to the Author. He's the one who used the word "debt" (or "obligation", or whatever word whatever translation of Scripture you are using).
Recommended Posts