KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
Youth Forum

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics :: :: Post new topic


Keralabrethren.net: Youth Forum: after marriage

Post Reply
Go to bottom of the page

# 00182 :  after marriage
after the marriage can we enjoy sex to any extent that we want(when i say any extent i mean;between husband and wife) or should we have certain limit. what do u say
Post by : f1_2116  View Profile    since : 9 Aug 2007


Reply by : joe.c.thomas   View Profile   Since : 9 Aug 2007 3:40:55 PM Close
Wait till you have Kids!... LOL
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : Varghese   View Profile   Since : 9 Aug 2007 4:26:10 PM Close
[The above sarcastic remark by “joe.c.thomas” is a good example of what we must avoid to keep this forum spiritually edifying! Please take a note.]

Sexual intimacy within marriage must be discussed frankly between the two partners. There is nothing wrong in enjoying sex within a Christian marriage as long as both partners are willing and that one’s love for the other is expressed in & thru the act. Sexual intimacy should never become a one-sided thing where one partner grabs every occasion to please oneself. Mutual satisfaction & Godly love for the other partner must be expressed through sexual intimacy.

God Bless!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 10 Aug 2007 7:47:22 AM Close
Dear brother Varghese,

Please allow me to add one to your posting.

It is allowed to enjoy sex within the Christian marriage. At the same time, there are limits. One of them is that sodomy is not allowed. This is only one example.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : f1_2116   View Profile   Since : 10 Aug 2007 11:52:55 AM Close
dear bro.george.p.koshy
is there any biblical refrence for what you said?
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 10 Aug 2007 12:26:13 PM Close
Dear 'f1_2116,'

There are verses that tell us about not to do that which is against natural use of the body. There are more than one rference about what happened in Sodom in the New Testament. I leave it to you to search the scriptures.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : f1_2116   View Profile   Since : 12 Aug 2007 12:48:45 PM Close
hey bro. are you reffering to romans ch1
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : joyboy   View Profile   Since : 4 Sep 2007 9:23:24 PM Close
I don't disagree with you, bro koshy, in fact I agree with you. However, my agreement is based on disgust, not on scripture.

If you're going to use scripture to prohibit this, I do believe we need more substantial scriptural principles than what you have quoted. Other things can also fall under the "that which is against natural use" idea depending on the person. We want an objective not a subjective standard. The "that which is against natural use" is too subjective.

Secondly, Sodom was not destroyed for sodomy, they were destroyed for overall paganness and sexual perversion, which was demonstrated by the attempted homosexual rape of the angels.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 6 Sep 2007 1:04:20 PM Close
Dear 'joyboy,'

I always say that no one need to agree with me, you ought to agree with the Word of God. If you think sodomy is not that which is not the natural use of the body, then I have nothing to say. You should read the scriptures and try to understand it as it is written and not as you prefer.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 6 Sep 2007 10:28:37 PM Close
What is "sodomy" according to the Scriptures can be discerned from the verses below.

De 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a SODOMITE of the sons of Israel.

1Ki 14:24 And there were also SODOMITES in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

1Ki 15:12 And he took away the SODOMITES out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

1Ki 22:46 And the remnant of the SODOMITES, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

2Ki 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the SODOMITES, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : joyboy   View Profile   Since : 12 Sep 2007 9:46:36 PM Close
Bro. Koshy. You, in one breath, say that i don't need to agree with you, but in the next say that my disagreement is tatamount to disagreeing with the scriptures. So, apparently, you have exclusive authority over scriptures? If I challenge you, please respond with a scriptural reply like lemuelraj, not with an arrogant reply such as yours.

First of all, the "natural use of the body" clearly refers to homosexuality, and clearly refers to men and men or women and women. That is the context. There is no contextual use in Rom 1 for heterosexual unions. I agree that sodomy is disgusting, but I do not agree that Rom 1 prohibits it in marriage.

2ndly, no where in scripture does it say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality. In fact, it says that the cities of the plains were destroyed for all manners of sexual immorality, which was demonstrated by the rape of the angels. Who knows what else went on there. I'm sure homosexuality was one of many many sexual perversions.

Finally, modern culture has defined the word sodomite and sodomy, not the Bible.

Thank you, bro Lemuel raj for those verses. The word sodomite (strongs word 6945) means temple prostitute.

So, again, I ask, other than general disgust at the behaviour which we all share, what Biblical prohibitions can you provide?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mathewgeorge   View Profile   Since : 13 Sep 2007 6:01:48 PM Close
We live in a world where prostitutes cannot be called so. But a sex WORKER!!!

Be not surprised in future a thief may be called a "STEAL(ing) worker"???

WHEN GOD CREATED MAN THE ORGANS WERE CREATED TO PERFORM CERTAIN FUNCTIONS. Anything beyond this requires examination, whether that would dishonour God.

However remember what Adam said when Eve was brought before him by God.
Gen. 2: 23…….this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh………………….

V: 24 …………………..shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be ONE FLESH.
V: 25 ………………………………………..and were not ashamed.

Heb. 13: 14 Marriage is honourable in all………

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mom23   View Profile   Since : 13 Sep 2007 7:20:36 PM Close
Just an FYI Bro. Mathew...It is actually a "Commercial Sex worker" ...CSW for short.
Not to disturb the thread but sir! why do you feel..

"We live in a world where prostitutes cannot be called so. But a sex WORKER!!!"

Isn't this a more apt description of the type of profession they are in ?

This not for argument or anything...just was curious to know why you thought that ....

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 14 Sep 2007 6:51:07 AM Close
Dear 'joyboy'

The thing is, all those who commit sodomy are sodomites. In the Bible, the Lord said no man should be a sodomite, and all sodomites were destroyed. So, as per the Bible, no sodomy, and no sodomites. That much is plain and clear. That is what I tried to bring in by quoting the verses.

Secondly, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were indeed destroyed for the sin of sodomy, which I understand is homosexual sins. We read of such behaviour in Israel in Judges 19:22. They are sinful acts which are abominable in the sight of God.

The word SODOMITE is a Bible word (1611), which is NOT modern! It's 400 years old.

Now it appears that you are discussing about "sodomy" within a relationship between a man and his wife. I am not sure if the word "sodomy" itself can be applied in a Biblical sense within a husband-wife relationship. I always thought sodomy refers to homosexuality.

However, I understand the sense in which brother Koshy is using that term "sodomy" within a marriage relationship. Irrespective of whether you call it "sodomy" or something else, I think what brother Koshy is referring to is UNNATURAL. I think you would agree with it.

Romans 1:24, "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves". Please notice that in this verse, there is no specific mention of women or men. That does not come until verses 26 and 27. What verse 24 talks about is UNCLEANNESS, and DISHONOURING of bodies. This I believe is the basis for brother Koshy's assertion. I think he is right.

Further in verse 26, "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is AGAINST NATURE." Kindly note that while verse 26 includes same sex relationships between women, the verse is not limited to that. It encompasses all that can be included as changing the natural use into that which is unnatural.

In Christ Jesus,
Moses LemuelRaj

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : joyboy   View Profile   Since : 14 Sep 2007 9:39:51 AM Close
Yes, bro moses, i agree it is unnatural. Than you for your detailed, humble posts.

However, is it unnatural to us only? Can that which is unnatural be defined by culture, and time and place? Do you see what I mean?

I too agree with you and bro koshy that the behaviour is disgusting and unnatural. However, I hate to make Biblical principles out of something that can be perceived as cultural, subjective etc.

for example, let us say that (this is purely hypothetical), that a culture defined behaviour X as unnatural, while a 2nd culture defined it as natural. How can we distinguish without solid, explicit, objective standards?

200 years ago, women wearing pants would be considered unnatural, and consequently subject to rom 1's provisions. but today, pants are specifically tailored to women's bodies. Is it unnatural?

Something such as this that is unnatural needs to be prohibited with solid, unchanging considerations, not something that can vary with a cultural or geographical context.

Do you see what I mean?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 14 Sep 2007 2:10:11 PM Close
Dear 'joyboy,'

You wrote, "I agree that sodomy is disgusting, but I do not agree that Rom 1 prohibits it in marriage." --- Did I say this? When you asked about Romans 1, I left it to you to search the scriptures and find it. The only comment I made was about that which is not natural. If you think that which is natural is sodomy, I have nothing to add. This is what I said.

If you disagree about that which is natural and that which is not-natural, please explain from the scriptures. No one has the authority to make the decision contrary to what God has revealed as His will and mind.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : joyboy   View Profile   Since : 14 Sep 2007 2:51:56 PM Close
That's exactly my point. Where do we find the explicit definitions of what is natural and what is not natural?

We need a definition, not subject to interpretation and not subject to cultural or time-specific whims.

I know of no such list. Do you?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mathewgeorge   View Profile   Since : 14 Sep 2007 4:16:20 PM Close
Thank you very much for your comments mom23 and correcting me.

My intention of stating it (CSW) was to bring home the present day trend to legalize any crime or sin.

[[[As far as I know in Kerala and other parts of India it is commonly said, even in the new items, as SW only. Countries like USA might have made it much more dignified. It is even considered as a profession, they have even Unions too. Robbery, killing etc. are all considered as professions. Has it not become more difficult for Christians to point out to some one that he is a sinner? I thought it was appropriate in the context. Please ignore my posting if you feel that it is not so]]].

As regards the topic of discussion there are some who say everything is right as we see in this thread or say everything is holy in holy matrimony. What does one’s conscience say while performing an act? The bible may not define everything as we may expect. But our inner man always will warn us when we do something wrong. My view is that a Christian needs to examine his/her actions as a child of God.

Please forgive me of my inability to express my thoughts well in words. Although comments and criticisms are welcome on my posting I may take the liberty not to contribute further on this matter/thread.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mom23   View Profile   Since : 16 Sep 2007 6:58:42 PM Close
Thank you bro. Mathew. I understand the point you were trying to make there. Sorry to take it away from the discussion. Take care.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 17 Sep 2007 7:57:28 AM Close
Dear 'joyboy,'

When you read in Romans 1, "For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed their natural use into that contrary to nature; and like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the females, where inflamed in their lust towards one another; male with male working shame, and receiving in themsleves the recompense of their error, which was fit."

Tell me in detail what is the "natural use" that was changed by those females? If you want to use graphic language, you may do so. In this world, the leaving of this "natural use" is also referred to by the term "sodomy," but not limited to it. If you think it is not, you explain it in detail.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : joyboy   View Profile   Since : 17 Sep 2007 8:45:00 AM Close
Why is there a need to be graphic? We can discuss this without going to such detail. No need to drag an already sensitive discussion deeper into detail, especially on a public forum where all ages can come and read.

Are you trying to make the point that the verse doesn't explicitly refer to female lesbian unions?

Lusts here refer exclusively to homosexual sexual acts. You're a student of the Bible. Contextual clues can indicate to us that this passage refers to all manners of homosexual sexual union: men with men and women with women. There's no need to distinguish what acts are described in these verses. For even kissing would be covered in these verses, not because kissing is wrong, but because it's in the context of a homosexual union.

Herein's my point. These verses refer to the context of the sexual relationship, not the sexual acts themselves.

Once again, let me reiterate that I'm not trying to find a justification for an act that you and I agree is vile. However, I am opposed to anyone making absolute statements and pruporting to have support from scripture for them.

The burden is on the rule maker to give scriptural backing for a blanket rule.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 18 Sep 2007 9:19:49 AM Close
Dear 'joyboy,'

In your explanation of Roamns 1:27 you added a word too many and making it to mean "women with women." A strict translation of 1:26 should be,"...even for females of them..." From the context of 1:27 it will beome clear that men changed the use of their females from natural to unnatuural.

About sodomy: There are different kinds of sodomy. One is men and women having sex with animals or creatures of a different "kind." This is clearly addressed in the Laws given by Moses in the Old Testament. Another one is the unnatural sex between two persons from behind. Both of these were practiced in sodom and that is how the name came into existence. Because of this, we read or hear avbout a person being sodomised by another. In this manner homosexuality is considered as sodomy and those who practice are sodomites.

In this connection please read 2 Timothy 3:3 also. There could be other verses in the New Testament. I leave it for you to find out. It is not always found under the word in discussion, "sodomy."

"Lust" is not limited to homosexual acts. It is in general to indicate the desire of the flesh, especially related to sexual activity.

When we read Romans 1:25 followed by 26 and 27, there we read about activities that are related to idol worship, idolatry, and not about some relationship. These are what are wrong with man's acts or actions in connection with idol worship. We should not treat them as mere relationship. Please read Romans 1:21 onwards.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : joyboy   View Profile   Since : 18 Sep 2007 10:31:36 AM Close
I agree with you about lusts. Lusts are not just relegated to the sexual realm. Lusts can be related to money, power, etc.

So, in romans 1:25-27, it talks about lusts. But in my view, Paul specifies which kinds he's talking about here. This is how I approached hte passage:
romans 1:26: "God gave them up unto vile affections"

the reader (that is, me!!) thinks to himself: "what kind of lusts?"
Romans 1:26 continued: "for even their women did change ...."

The passage goes further, v 27 begins with "likewise" (NIV translates "In the same way"). why this word? I interpret this to mean that the same gender lust (man with man) described in v27 was also described in v26 but in the female context.

These are all reasons why I interpret these verses in Romans to indicate the context is homosexual perversions.

By the way, what does the 2 tim 3:3 verse have to do with this discussion?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 19 Sep 2007 8:16:14 AM Close
Dear 'joyboy,'
Part-1

Before I write on 2 Timothy 3:3, let me address Romans 1:26-27. In the past few days, I was trying to make you to write what was in your mind. Since you did that, let me write what I had in my mind.

We read in Romans 1:26-27, “For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature; and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error, which was fit.”

The following is a free translation of these two verses, “Therefore God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For even their females changed their natural manner of using {CHRESIS = manner of using) to that against nature. And in like manner (“likewise” or “in the same way”), the males also forsake the natural manner with females, burned in their lusts towards one another, males with (EN =in) males working out the shamefulness, receiving back in them the reward which behooved those who strayed.”

(To be cont. Part-1)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 19 Sep 2007 8:21:52 AM Close
Dear 'joyboy,'
Part-2

First, it is connected with homosexuality that prevailed with idolatry. Second, the verse 26 by itself could be considered as dealing with lesbian activity. Third, from the context of 1:27, the women changed the natural way of intercourse and started sodomy. This is the beginning of sodomy. Men after participating in that unnatural manner with women thought that it is also equally viable to do with men. That is the beginning of homosexuality. Therefore, we read that men left the natural use of female and burned or inflamed in their lust did the same with other men.

Now, let me address briefly 2 Timothy 3:3. In my mind, there are three things for us to consider. They are “Without natural affection” (without natural feeling), “of un-subdued passion” (AKRATEIS = ‘without strength’ KJV translates this as “incontinent” = ‘incapable of controlling the excretory function’), and “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.” These three are parts of what we have to face during the last days and what we are to be guarded against them. I leave the rest of the study to you.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : joa   View Profile   Since : 19 Sep 2007 8:50:39 AM Close
Dear joyboy/George P. Koshy

Can you please explain what spiritual blessing do you gain from debating on the topic(in detail) which is not acceptable before God.

This is a spiritual public forum and i guess we are going out of the boundry (my personal opinion - don't ask me where the boundry is).

If both you still need to discuss on this, why don't you exchange your views in emails ?

Regards,
Joa

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 19 Sep 2007 10:23:15 AM Close
Dear 'joa,'

This is not a debate. We are discussing about sodomy as taught in the scriptures. The lack of understanding has made many believers to go along with those who support such activities. Even there are churches, claiming to be Christians, with appointed pastors who perform such things. Shying away from these discussions is not an answer to grow according to God's word.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abc   View Profile   Since : 24 Sep 2007 10:13:52 PM Close
After marriage, what?
Please attend the conference:
----------------------------
Family Conference, Konoor, India: October 5-7, 2007. In the valley of Konoor, we are going to have an amazing opportunity for young couples:

Date
: 5th October 2007 9 am to 7th October 2007, 5 pm

Place
: St. Theodore's Sanitorium, nestled in the Nilgiris Hills

Facilities
: 22 Bath attached Family Rooms available. Booking will be given for first come first basis.

Program
: It will not be a regular 'Bible Camp'! Instead, we will mix fun with the following food for thought.

Topics:
-Family budgeting
-Communication between Husband and Wife
-Handling differences between Husband and wife
-Raising children
-Physical relationship between Husband and Wife
-Handling in-laws & other relationships
-Roles of Husband and Wife
-Work-Life Balance

Can there be a better opportunity for young couples ?!!! Please confirm your Registration to - bennubella@gmail.com, dineshandelsha@gmail.com

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page


Post reply Here

please login to continue..

Registered Users, Login below:

Username Password
Problem Login?

New User? Register Now

Forgot User Name or Password? Click Here

Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::
© 2017 Sansnet.com



HOME
Back to Top