Should every couple practice male chastity?

The Bible (New Testament):

"Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21)

Or specifically for sex:

“… the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Corinthians 7:4)

Wife has authority over her husband’s body!
Yes, the bible gave the wife authority over her husband’s body, counterbalancing the husband’s first-century legal power over his wife’s body. This declaration removed a husband’s most basic “right” to control his wife, replacing the patriarchal norm with Biblical mutuality. In stark contrast to the legal positions and social expectations of the first century.


Also new is the respect and honor for the woman:

"husbands should live with your wives in understanding, showing honor to the weaker female sex..." (1Peter 3:7)

Male should showing honor to the female sex. More: http://woman.szm.com


Bible - New Testament is a revolution. New world order.

 

Whoa! Dude! Taking the Bible out of context..........that's REALLY bad.....Here is what 1 Cor 7:4 says:

The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

 

So....typical "Christian."

 

No. I also said it is mutual - "Biblical mutuality". But I chose only what's important for us. And it is right:

“… the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Corinthians 7:4)
The Bible - English Standard Version

Wife has authority over her husband’s body!

Not a problem

 

The key part is that you put the "......." You left out half of the verse you said you quoted. That is the quintessential definition of "out of context". The obvious point of the verse is that man and women are equal. You may disagree, but don't insult any of us who can read.

But don't worry about me.......

 

Actually, typical "scholar". I simply looked up what was cited. The OP left off half of the verse he said he was quoting. He was taking the information out of context. As a result, he completely misrepresented what was said. Perhaps he did it unintentionally, but I doubt it. He deliberately omitted half of the verse. His use of the "........" was my clue that subterfuge was going on.

Is that what a typical Christian does? They actually look up stuff and read it? WOW! Guilty as charged.

Here's one for Ranger Cuck: “As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly.”

 

Well for what's it's worth (non biblical). Aren't we all equal? It's just that some are more equal than others!

 

I said it is mutual. I think if you say the context, you do not give the full text, only part what is interesting for us. But okay, not problem, again:


The Bible (New Testament):

"Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21)


Or specifically for sex:
(1 Corinthians 7:4, The Bible - English Standard Version):
"For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.
Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."


“… the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Corinthians 7:4)

Wife has authority over her husband’s body!
Yes, the bible gave the wife authority over her husband’s body, counterbalancing the husband’s first-century legal power over his wife’s body. This declaration removed a husband’s most basic “right” to control his wife, replacing the patriarchal norm with Biblical mutuality. In stark contrast to the legal positions and social expectations of the first century.


Also new is the respect and honor for the woman:

"husbands should live with your wives in understanding, showing honor to the weaker female sex..." (1Peter 3:7)

Male should showing honor to the female sex. More: http://woman.szm.com


Bible - New Testament is a revolution. New world order.

 

Fair do's Isekor. I can see your point. Thank you for clarification. Do you mind if I try putting your point into my own words to see if I understand you?

Since we are commanded (Biblical) to honor our wives and acknowledge their authority (even though we also have authority with them) then if, for example, she wishes to keep her husband in chastity, we must obey. While OUR authority cannot negate hers by ignoring it...claiming superior authority. Am I close?

Does it follow, then, that if the husband also wanted her in chastity, she should also obey? I understand that honoring the spouse does not entitle you to negating what they want.

Thanks for helping to dig deeper into this.

 

Jesus. Someone's got a chip on their shoulder. I was referring to the person who quoted only half a verse to justify his position. That's what the vast majority of "Christians" do these days. I wasn't even referring to you. Go crawl back in your hole until that chip falls off.

 

I do not know. Only my opinion: All should be consensual. Good marriage should be happiness for both. For wife and also for husband (Not only for a wife).

The Bible: "Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun..." (Ecclesiastes 9, 9)

This is not official theology. Only my opinion.

This is the modern theology – The book from Catholic theologian Christopher West:

-------------
(...) "16. Every time I hear that Scripture verse that says, "Wives, be subject to your husbands,” the hair stands up on the back of my neck. Why should I listen to what the Bible says about marriage when it's so demeaning toward women?

The verse you’re referring to is Ephesians 5:22. If it makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, I want to affirm your response. Why? Because you probably think the passage means something like: “Wives are doormats who must surrender to their husbands’ domination.” If that’s what you think it means, then I’d be concerned if it didn’t make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

Nevertheless, that’s not what the verse means. When we look at this verse in the context of the whole passage (Eph 5:21-33), the context flips the typical interpretation on its head. Unfortunately, as soon as people hear this one verse, they tune out the rest of what St. Paul says.

While we must admit that some men throughout history have pointed to this Scripture verse to justify their fallen desire to dominate women, St. Paul is in no way justifying such an attitude. He knows it to be a result of sin (see Gn 3:16), which is why in this passage he’s actually restoring God’s original plan before sin. He does so by pointing out what marriage was all about in the first place. It was meant to foreshadow the marriage of Christ and the Church. St. Paul simply draws out the implications of this analogy.

He starts by calling both husbands and wives to be subject to one another ”out of reverence for Christ” (v. 21 ) - out of reverence for the ”great mystery" that spouses participate in by imaging Christ’s union with the Church. In the analogy, the husband represents Christ, and the wife represents the Church. So, he says, as the Church is subject to Christ, so should wives also be subject to their husbands (see v. 24).

Another translation uses the word ”submission.” I like to explain this word as follows. ”Sub” means "under,” and ”mission” means ”to be sent forth with the authority to perform a specific service.” Wives, then, are called to put themselves ”under” the ”mission" of their husbands.

What’s the mission of the husband? ”Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her” (v. 25). How did Christ love the Church? He died for her. Christ said he came ”not to be served but to serve,” and to lay down his life for his Bride (Mt 20:28).

What, then, does it mean for a wife to ”submit” to her husband? It means let your husband serve you. Put yourself under his mission..." (...)
---------------

Christopher West - Good News About Sex & Marriage. (Christopher West holds a Master’s Degree in Theology from the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage & Family.)

Nihil obstat: Reverend Gerard Beigel, S.T.D., Censor Librorum.
Imprimatur: Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver, July 28, 2000

The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a book is free from Catholic doctrinal or moral error.

 

im thinking of this question, here a copy of a treath I posted today.
"Im struggling, because I cant yet see, if the chastity is just a substitute for decreasing passion dictated with a tool of repression to males deeply need of orgasm or, if the power over males sexdrive in the longer turn ending up in indifference by male and female."

the aroused , and disapointed I feel of chastity, one has to be carefull with this chastity, this suffering for something , can misslead in some kind of religion.
we are a group, im not even 3 month in the 24/7 irons, alowed to cum every week or two, and im already belong to this society of chastised males. just because I wear a iron on my private and im suffering in my hornyness. impossible in my imagination how it must feel to wear it for 30 days.
the evidence I most probably must stay in chastity untill we might split, I fight, to see this denial as a religion for me. its just a tool to express submission to my love.

 

Cool! This turned into an interesting thread! Some great comments.

 

He mentioned the birth rate in the first world. He made no such suggestion.
Why would you bring colour and therefore race into it?

The shit people consume often unknowingly, the effects of te chemicals from bith pills getting into our water. Te combinations of chemiclas we consume ..many harmless on their own... all contribute to lowered sperm count in the west or 1st world.

WTF has race or colour got to do with that?

You are allowed to think a little before you click on [Post Reply]

 

Thank you Mistress for helping us all see objectively.

 

Gay men are no threat to women and may provide an outlet (inlet?) for relieving locked (straight) males. Let them have at it!

 

So gay men won’t be locked ? Won’t it be hard to distinguish between gay and straight males at a young age though?

 

so locked until proven gay

 

Right except there’d be many straight males masquerading as gays just to avoid chastity. We would need a better system. However I do support it.

 

Ok but if you wouldn’t lock up gay males, and more gay males would come up you would barely effectively lock any guy up. Most guys would just say they’re gay. Not to mention that distinguishing between an alpha or beta at a young age would be almost impossible.

 

Except that most all men in chastity, enjoy it.

 

Wow, real animosity and debate, mixed in with some good old fashioned religion and intolerance, over a topic that is pure science fiction.

First I get always get a kick out of anyone quoting the Bible to prove anything. I don’t see a whole lot of animal sacrifices in modern times, and pretty sure we don’t live over 200 years. The Bible, like any religious book, is meant to teach through story, each story was selected and written by humans and therefore like humans, can be flawed, exaggerated,right, wrong, or omitted.

I’m not crapping on anyone’s religion, especially if being close to a higher power gives you peace of mind and love in your heart...but let’s keep it away from PROVING anything.

To answer the original question...no. For the most part, anything that involves the words; all, forever, best, true, or only, the answer is usually no. See that? I said usually, it doesn’t box everything in to one black and white answer. Every couple would not be down with male chastity, so why on earth SHOULD every couple practice it? To sacrifice the happiness of some for the greater good of someone’s version of utopia? Sounds fairly nazi’ish.

 

Sorry, but no!

The Bible is inspired by God (For us). Christian religion are moral norms for us. Many people want to enjoy life, but only in these moral norms. Therefore not homosexuality, not pedophilia, etc. If you do not accept these norms, okay, you only ignore our texts!

 

Inspired by god...ok, written by humans though and thus fallible. The Bible is, as you are plainly demonstrating, open to interpretation, not unlike ummm a story. I have no intention of changing your viewpoint, or PROVING it through ancient literature. Intolerance and hate in the name of religion is about as ironic as you can possibly get, and if I had to explain it, would fall on deaf ears. So ignoring it is one route, which I will take. I will leave you with one question however, just some food for thought.

What if you’re wrong? What would happen if you interpreted everything wrong or it was written by men that didn’t have gods will. What if the one thing god didn’t tolerate was intolerance? Some might be on the outside looking in, when they had thought they were so faithful.

Good luck in your journey and life, I will not be responding to anything after, and consider myself out of this thread and conversation.

 

Dear Nicoftime, 1. We believe The Bible is inspired by God and God also protects his work - the Bible (at least in key information). 2. A many of information is in bible 2x and more (For one information Two different authors and more.) 3. Many miracles, visionaries and other external sources confirm - The Bible is true. 4. But this topic is not "Is the Bible True?" Exists Christian books fof topic "Bible True". You search Christian books and read, if you have a real interest.

Intolerance and hate? I do not kill the homosexual, I do not kill the pedophile... I love. I love also you, I love all people. I only give Biblical information, or other information. Sorry. Give information is not intolerance or hate. Everyone can ignore all the information.

And What if God says different? What if God says only one...
- Is God so unable? God not know give key information for people? Sorry. But I see - God gave many information...

Dear Nicoftime, if for you fundamentally questions of religion are really interesting, You read religious books.

Most people in the Western world are Christians. And also many in this forum. And for us there is a nice theme: "Should all females require their male to be locked?" And for us are very interesting also Christian and biblical arguments. If any argument exist. For me it's fun.

I love you. Good luck.