I'd be interested to see thatI know I've posted a link before to a procreation---reproduction timeline.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'd be interested to see thatI know I've posted a link before to a procreation---reproduction timeline.
I'd be interested to see thatI know I've posted a link before to a procreation---reproduction timeline.
I imagine that the marital expression of love is still a good thing.
I imagine that the marital expression of love is still a good thing.
It has already been confessed that contracting the virus is an evil. It is not an expression of love to expose another to what is evil and harmful for them.
Concerning the marital expression of love -- God did not make sexual relations pleasurable in themselves; He made procreation of His image to be pleasurable. It is not merely physical, but spiritual also. If a couple does not take pleasure in seeing their union result in the fullest fruit of their "coming together" then the marital expression of love is lacking an important development for which God created it.
I definitely disagree here. I actually think the closeness of being one is superior to procreation.
Any benefit from such closeness is a blessing from God; a blessing from being close to the image of God in that person; a blessing which encourages the propagating of the same image as a fruit of that closeness. To sever the spiritual element is to serve the creature in the place of the Creator.
What bible passages support this position?
Concerning the marital expression of love -- God did not make sexual relations pleasurable in themselves; He made procreation of His image to be pleasurable.
If she's 2 months pregnant and you're still just as desirous of her and take just as much pleasure in her even though you know it won't make another baby, how would that fit in?
I am going to say no. I make less than $2,000 a month (post tax). I am crunching numbers now and when I get married, if I am not making anymore money, things are going to be tight. If I were to add a child there is no way I could make ends meet. If I were to have multiple children things would absolutely fall to pieces. I have had conversations with my (hopefully) future wife and we have decided on 3-4 children at most. I grew up in a family with a large number of children and, while I can't imagine life without them, I think it is totally legitimate to not want a large family.
You haven't addressed my point at all, which was that the passage says that even though marriage is a blessing, it is not wrong to refuse it at certain times. Why is childbirth different?
I have addressed this completely, in an earlier post. It is very simple: there are specific passages dealing with both entering into it and with not entering into it. There is no such completeness with the issue of childbirth; in fact, it is exceptionally one sided.
And the principle is, that we need or may limit things in our lives to avoid excessive carefulness (v32). This principle applies to marriage (which is a great blessing) and is not limited only to marriage, as verses 30-31 show.
I definitely disagree here. I actually think the closeness of being one is superior to procreation.
Honesty is commendable, but the sentiment expressed is idolatry. Any benefit from such closeness is a blessing from God; a blessing from being close to the image of God in that person; a blessing which encourages the propagating of the same image as a fruit of that closeness. To sever the spiritual element is to serve the creature in the place of the Creator.
Concerning the marital expression of love -- God did not make sexual relations pleasurable in themselves; He made procreation of His image to be pleasurable.
If she's 2 months pregnant and you're still just as desirous of her and take just as much pleasure in her even though you know it won't make another baby, how would that fit in?
Or if she's infertile? And not just that you suspect it, so there's always hope for a baby, but you know it because some illness removed her ovaries when she was 14? Or he's infertile.If she's 2 months pregnant and you're still just as desirous of her and take just as much pleasure in her even though you know it won't make another baby, how would that fit in?
The principle the apostle lays down is that to avoid carefulness and divided interests it is better not to marry, especially in the present distress. If avoiding the married state is the only way to relieve oneself of its burdens it is obvious that entering into the married state obliges one to all its burdens.
Or if she's infertile? And not just that you suspect it, so there's always hope for a baby, but you know it because some illness removed her ovaries when she was 14? Or he's infertile.If she's 2 months pregnant and you're still just as desirous of her and take just as much pleasure in her even though you know it won't make another baby, how would that fit in?
But wouldn't you still fall under the 'obligations' of the married state, as per the marital relations in 1 Cor 7:5?
Wait a minute...how did you come to the conclusion that the closeness of man and woman knowing each other is a severance of the spiritual element?
Or if she's infertile? And not just that you suspect it, so there's always hope for a baby, but you know it because some illness removed her ovaries when she was 14? Or he's infertile.
Paul specifically says that even those who are married are not to let their marriage and its duties so overwhelm them that they become too distracted from serving the Lord.
Yes, but I argue that this would still be spiritual and that the husband-wife obligations are to bring closeness to a couple, regardless of childbearing occurring or being able to occur.
That's just it - there's no difference in the mechanics of marital relations, it is just that no child occurs. It is not a results-based issue, it is an attitude of the heart issue.
Yes, but I argue that this would still be spiritual and that the husband-wife obligations are to bring closeness to a couple, regardless of childbearing occurring or being able to occur.
That's just it - there's no difference in the mechanics of marital relations, it is just that no child occurs. It is not a results-based issue, it is an attitude-of-the-heart issue.
Rev. Winzer makes me dance like Snoopy.
That's just it - there's no difference in the mechanics of marital relations, it is just that no child occurs. It is not a results-based issue, it is an attitude of the heart issue.
But the married couple know that no child will result and yet have relations. If the proper intention of having relations is always to try to have children, or possibly have children, and any other intention is unnatural, then their behaviour is unnatural.