~ archived since 2018 ~

1 Corinthians 7:38

huehuethrowahue · 2019-01-29T23:09:48+00:00

So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better....

huehuethrowahue

January 29, 2019

66 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

Archived from /r/MGTOW

r/MGTOW is a community for men going their own way by forging their own identities and paths to self-defined success; cutting through collective ideas of what a man is.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MGTOW archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	1 Corinthians 7:38
Author	huehuethrowahue
Upvotes	66
Comments	29
Date	January 29, 2019 11:09 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/al629s/1_corinthians_738/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/1-corinthians-738.418853 https://theredarchive.com/post/418853

Comments

[–]Brother_Judas16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]justtenofusinhere10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

That's not necessarily correct.

There is quite a bit of argument/debate on what exactly the earliest christian's views on sex, sexuality, gender role and marriage were.

For example, were the earliest christian anti-sex or anti-institutions, including the institution of marriage?

That said, some early Christian (but early as in after 100 A.D., but before the 4th century Nicean Counsel) writers and leaders were anti sex. Interestingly enough, though these people agreed sex was wrong, they usually didn't agree on exactly why. Also, I'm not sure it's remotely accurate to say they were ever the majority view. That strain of though continued even after Nicea to some degree.

All of which is different than what is arguably a much clear position of Paul, which is that unrestrained sexual indulgence was a dangerous and corrupting enterprise.

[–]Red_Pill_Dynamics7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In that regard, Paul was indeed correct as unrestrained sexual indulgence is absolutely dangerous and corrupting to the soul.

To the OP - I'm not sure I would base any of that on Christianity; instead, I would ask myself what would Christ think about marriage and sexual relations as a whole.

Without going into too much detail, I'm pretty certain he wouldn't point women in the direction of social-media to seek sexual validation and fuck as many men as possible before marriage (or anything similar throughout history). He'd probably warn men to seek refuge from these women knowing the source of the corruption and the separation that would surely follow should a man seek and marry any woman that practiced those ways.

Satan, if anything, has corrupted women from the beginning of time - to separate man from God, men from each other and men from women. Clearly the plan is working.

[+][deleted] 7 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

No, there shouldn't be any debate. The order of God is a patriarchy. Gender roles, are you kidding me? There is no debate because we know what the Scriptures say and that is how we live our lives as men of God. If they were men of God then they lived their lives as God intended. Anything else would be a subversion of the divine order.see picture. If they didn't agree with this below then they weren't Christians.

https://i.imgur.com/uPjJSUM.png

[–]justtenofusinhere0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

He asked a question about Christianity views on sex. You answered and basically said the lives of early Christians and how they interpret it was up for debate. My point is that if they were Christians they'd believe in the Bible. See the verses in the image. Debate shouldn't matter as much as the concrete truth the Bible provides for us. That's what I'm getting at.

[–]justtenofusinhere0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There are many errors in your reply.

"He asked a question about Christianity (sic) views on sex." No, he asked whether Christianity was founded on abstinence. Of course, that raises the preliminary questions of what constitutes "Christianity" and "Founding" so that we can then more accurately identify who the Christians were and when they were and what they believed.

Of course, your basing your whole position on the "no true Scottsman" fallacy--if they don't believe what you believe then they aren't Christians, which easily allows you to discard anything not meeting your pre-conceived notions. If they do believe in the Bible, but they don't believe it says what you believe it says, will you still credit that they believe in the Bible, even if their understanding is wrong? Can they be wholly wrong and still be Christian as long as the source of their error is faithful adherence to an incorrect biblical understanding?

FYI--there is virtually no popular understanding of Christianity being adhered to today, that wouldn't almost have been considered a heresy by Christians in the first 150 years after Christ.

[+][deleted] 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

God is not the author of confusion and there is only one true interpretation of the entire Bible put together. Many Judeo Christians say they believe in Christ but at the same time hate people like myself for telling them how God will divide the wheat from the tares and who these people are today. Of course they can know who Christ is and pray to God. But that doesn't mean their biblical weltanschaaung is correct. When they have an incorrect understanding like most Judeo Christians they will run into much folly, such as casting pearls before swine, and accepting spots in their feasts of charity, and sadly many of them reap what they sow. They are still Christian, but they are blinded.

Really or is it called Dual seedline Christian identity and Paul was a teacher of it?

My view on sex, marriage, gender roles (what you said in your post) is explained in the image of the verses I sent. Christians do not pick and choose what to believe. You either believe in sound Christian theology based on the entire Bible, profane history, biblical history, and a study of Hebrew and Greek or you believe in a lie. It's simple. You remind me of the Judeo Christians who talk about the various thousands of interpretations of what hell is. Just tell me what the scripture saith. My pre conceived notions are a firm view of what the Bible actually teaches.

[–]justtenofusinhere0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wwe2k18noob1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So with your logic then man will never know the truth of the Bible because no one really knows right? Thats called skepticism. You will never have true faith if you allow any random interpretation to change your biblical worldview. No, my beliefs are firmly aligned with what Paul and Christ taught. Nothing I day or preach is contradictory to either of them. Yes, there is one trek for the Adamic race from Eden to the gathering of the wheat. We have to get our Bible understood properly or we will fall for anything. As I already said God is not the author of confusion. You wanting to believe in whatever is. Sound theology does exist.

Why is this hard for you to believe that all the Bible verses work correctly together? I am no expert and will never claim to be. But yes, I do know of the proper interpretation of Scripture. I did not find it on my own will. Look up DSCI and see for yourself.

And don't mistake sound theology for theosophy.

[–]wwe2k18noob1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Brother_Judas0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UmmmmNoThanks1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brother_Judas1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]UmmmmNoThanks1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brother_Judas1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]UmmmmNoThanks1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Brother_Judas0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

I've never heard that original Christianity is founded on that ever.

[–]Brother_Judas0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

How can a marriage be sinful? A marriage is when two people take their virginity. This is what the Bible preaches. People think a marriage is when two get ordained by a pastor but this is incorrect. This is putting the pastor above God.

No, maybe I did hear it. The Bible is not founded on celibacy or abstinence. There is nothing wrong with it. The Bible is founded on the covenant between Yahweh God and His people.

[–]justtenofusinhere0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wwe2k18noob1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hypergamous0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoingCamaro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So sick of people preaching this "sex is gift from God" thing.

I got an especially distorted view having both this and the secularists preaching how great and amazing sex is. It's not. Period. What can be great is the intimacy you share with another person that is expressed physically through, sex, hand holding, kissing and sharing a meal together. Yes, you are doing an intimate act with your bro when you go get a slice and a brew. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact it should be celebrated and viewed as such.

Sex, physically is just the act of procreating and as males we are hardwired to want to do it all the time. Nothing wrong with that and feeling shame over it is wrong. In fact Christians shaming young ones over sex is far more damaging than productive.

When I finally said "fuck it" and "threw away" my first time on a one night stand, I expected some longing or feeling of shame or regret or whatever... there was a little... I wish I could have waited for "the one" as the intimacy factor was lacking. Without intimacy, I found sex to be masturbating with a vagina. It wasn't a bad experience, it just wasn't with someone I cared about and therefore it was purely physical.

So if any of you guys end up raising young boys, teach them the value of intimacy, but also be real with them about sex. It's not as special as the church or the secularists claim. It's just a part of being human.

[–]Brother_Judas1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ugsley0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theasshole9990 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowThrowThrone0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link