Vote Number 2: I totally abstain from abstinence.

ilosiwaju:

The christian point of view on pre-marital se.x is fundamentally flawed on this one. Psalm 51, david asks for forgiveness for being conceived in a sinful way. That's by the way sha, the rather obtuse paul is actually an apostle who is a classic example of what women right activists dont need in this present day. In one of his emails to s[i]omewhere[/i]tians, he clearly stated that marriage causes men not to serve GOD well enough that blessed is the man who gives his daughter's hand in marriage but more blessed is the one who does not. you wont hear those scriptures during weddings am sure!
He goes further on his perversive trip by implying / recommending that men should only get married if they cant hold on their sexu.al urge. In other words, women are property(which is not new in the jewish world) and are to be taken to the altar only because of agro .

St. Paul totally lost it there, he should not get a scrap of praise from anyone of the feminine folk who knows what self-worth means. WHAT? Women only as se.x objects? That's a sweet example of condescending. I am however willing to hear some defense for him from Nlanders here(Barrister Deepsight, offering pro-bono services? ) and some enlightenment of course.

Your opinion of Paul and you're most certainly entitled to it. The heaviest of emphasis on "your".

Here is my ask (jesoul, other ladies and everyone here), for those emphasizing on marriage before bang, would you as the lady(even if you were told) go into marriage because your boyfriend is se.x-starved with a piece of laminated paper as evidence of the legitimacy of the union? yeah, i thought so too. The jews are a set of chauvinists and it only amazes me why we still swallow all they spit hook, line and sinker!

No sensible person, christian or otherwise, gets married simply because they want to get down.

By a show of hands posts, how many(of the proponents) here really adhere to the no-se.x-before-marriage thingy? You're free to lie though. Only asking.

Serves no purpose for anyone to answer this mischievious question. Good for you and Deepsight that you don't practice abstinence, but why does it bother you others do? leave us to our swallowing of "jewish jumbo" in peace. We're very satisfied and content with our chosen lifestlye.

ilosiwaju:

The christian point of view on pre-marital se.x is fundamentally flawed on this one.

The Christian view is there should be no physical intimacy outside wedlock. Quite simple. I see no flaws?

ilosiwaju:

He goes further on his perversive trip by implying / recommending that men should only get married if they cant hold on their sexu.al urge. In other words, women are property(which is not new in the jewish world) and are to be taken to the altar only because of agro .

St. Paul totally lost it there, he should not get a scrap of praise from anyone of the feminine folk who knows what self-worth means. WHAT? Women only as se.x objects? That's a sweet example of condescending. I am however willing to hear some defense for him from Nlanders here(Barrister Deepsight, offering pro-bono services? ) and some enlightenment of course.

Here is my ask (jesoul, other ladies and everyone here), for those emphasizing on marriage before bang, would you as the lady(even if you were told) go into marriage because your boyfriend is se.x-starved with a piece of laminated paper as evidence of the legitimacy of the union? yeah, i thought so too. The jews are a set of chauvinists and it only amazes me why we still swallow all they spit hook, line and sinker!

If - not that it is so - the Christian position is for men to marry to slake the urge - as if women don't get it too? - how is that worse than the alternative? Don't marry her - and take on the responsibility for and care of a wife - just chop and clean mouth Does that not reduce women to lust objects? Or is there another alternative I'm missing?

So how does female self-worth play out if men get to romp without commitment ?

ilosiwaju:

By a show of hands posts, how many(of the proponents) here really adhere to the no-se.x-before-marriage thingy? You're free to lie though. Only asking.

If you give me further insight into the reason for this poll, I'm more than happy to discuss my personal experience.

God bless
TV

JeSoul:

No sensible person, christian or otherwise, gets married simply because they want to get down.

Excellent! But Uncle Paul recommended marriage just in case people no fit hold body! Right? So Paul got it wrong there let's face it or run in the regular religious section circles.

jesoul, you called the question mischievous, mischief was actually not my intent.

JeSoul:

Serves no purpose for anyone to answer t[b]his mischievious question[/b]. Good for you and Deepsight that you don't practice abstinence, but why does it bother you others do? leave us to our swallowing of "jewish jumbo" in peace. We're very satisfied and content with our chosen lifestlye.

It's definitely none of my business what two consenting adults do in their privacy but are'nt you being too defensive? Just a thought.

@TV: sir,

TV01:

The Christian view is there should be no physical intimacy outside wedlock. Quite simple. I see no flaws?

If - not that it is so - the Christian position is for men to marry to slake the urge - as if women don't get it too? - how is that worse than the alternative? Don't marry her - and take on the responsibility for and care of a wife - just chop and clean mouth Does that not reduce women to lust objects? Or is there another alternative I'm missing?

Alternative? haba bros, does abstinence before marriage guarantee absence of lust later on? We sha know of married people who still dey waka waka about(men and women). Lust is another issue on its own and since it's something both genders are guilty of(_{men own plenty sha, i know}) would it be safe to call men lust objects from the view of the slutt.y married woman or sugar mummy?
The strong part of my argument is paul's position which you're not saying anything about. (If you no fit hold body, marry wife). How do you honestly term a wife married this way in paul's context? Honestly, how?

The most intersting part of your post for me however is:

TV01:

If you give me further insight into the reason for this poll, I'm more than happy to discuss my personal experience.

Yoruba people have an adage that goes thus:
Eni meji kii padanu iro which is translated as: Two people cant both fall victim to a lie, if the listener does not know he is being lied to, the liar surely knows himself.
Meaning, it's just a test in Hypocrisy 101, you know the answer though you dont have to provide it. But i go like hear that your own gist sha, would you oblige?

ilosiwaju:

Excellent! But Uncle Paul recommended marriage just in case people no fit hold body! Right? So Paul got it wrong there let's face it or run in the regular religious section circles.

  And it is the same uncle Paul that talks in several other places about marriage and reasons to and attitudes to wife/husband and family - he goes far far beyond just marrying for seks. You're taking one portion of scripture, building your point on it and ignoring the rest.

jesoul, you called the question mischievous, mischief was actually not my intent.It's definitely none of my business what two consenting adults do in their privacy but are'nt you being too defensive? Just a thought.

Defensive? not in the least bit. You're both flaunting your "un"-abstinence and I say good for you. I'm just wondering why it bothers others so much that a certain group of people have chosen to keep themselves only for their spouse.

JeSoul:

Your opinion of Paul and you're most certainly entitled to it. The heaviest of emphasis on "your".

WRONG MADAM. IT IS NOT HIS OPINION OF ST PAUL: IT IS THE OBJECTIVE FACT.

This is the same chauvinist St Paul who -

1. Insisted that no woman must ever lead the church

2. Stated that women should not open their mouths to speak in the presence of male leaders

3. Stated that it is best for a man not to marry at all -

4. And added that men should feel free to marry IF they cannot hold their agro! It is CLEAR THAT HE WAS AN UNBRIDLED CHAUVINIST.

Must you defend every "man of God" ? ? ?

No sensible person, christian or otherwise, gets married simply because they want to get down.

But that is exactly what the chauvinist fanatic St. Paul recommended, no?

We're very satisfied and content with our chosen lifestlye.

No you are not. You have conditioned yourself to militate against nature and imagine that you are satisfied.

JeSoul:

I'm just wondering why it bothers others so much that a certain group of people have chosen to keep themselves only for their spouse.

What is this? ? ?

Embedded in this statement is AN ASSUMPTION that everybody gets married eventually.

THAT IS FALSE.

My cousin is 49 and she is NOT married. Reason? She simply never found the man that gelled with her.

Now she is a christian. Is it YOUR recommendation that she spends thE whole of her life resisting sexual urges and remaining celibate? ? ? ?

DOES THAT SOUND NATURAL TO YOU? ? ? ? ?

GET HONEST! ! !

JeSoul:

I'm just wondering why it bothers others so much that a certain group of people have chosen to keep themselves only for their spouse.

I have already provided cogent reasons why it bothers me but it seems you were not taking note.

I restate: It bothers me because -

3. Is it not true that the dogma affects many innocent people by causing them to feel a terrible burden of guilt for the simple fact that they are normal human sexual beings?

4. Is it not true that in many societies in the past and even conservative islamic societies up till today, people were and have been stoned to death, ostracized, burnt to death, etc for the simple fact that they did what comes naturally to everybody - they had s.ex?

And in addittion my poor cousin will go about under some misapprehension that she is obliged never to have se.x till she dies only because she did not get married!

Is that not enough to bother me? ??

Deep Sight:

WRONG MADAM. IT IS NOT HIS OPINION OF ST PAUL: IT IS THE OBJECTIVE FACT.

This is the same chauvinist St Paul who -

1. Insisted that no woman must ever lead the church

2. Stated that women should not open their mouths to speak in the presence of male leaders

3. Stated that it is best for a man not to marry at all -

4. And added that men should feel free to marry IF they cannot hold their agro! It is CLEAR THAT HE WAS AN UNBRIDLED CHAUVINIST.

Must you defend every "man of God" ? ? ?

But that is exactly what the chauvinist fanatic St. Paul recommended, no?

  I purposed while ago on NL not to debate "christian teachings" with those who aren't of the same persuation. So dear I state again that the above is your opinion of Paul. We christians believe otherwise and are entitled to our beliefs whether or not you deem them ridiculous.

No you are not. You have conditioned yourself to militate against nature and imagine that you are satisfied.

Lol . . . so Deepsight is dictating to me how[b] I [/b] feel about a particular issue?  does anyone see the irony?

Deep Sight:

What is this? ? ?

Embedded in this statement is AN ASSUMPTION that everybody gets married eventually.

THAT IS FALSE.

My cousin is 49 and she is NOT married. Reason? She simply never found the man that gelled with her.

Now she is a christian. Is it YOUR recommendation that she spends thE whole of her life resisting sexual urges and remaining celibate? ? ? ?

DOES THAT SOUND NATURAL TO YOU? ? ? ? ?

GET HONEST! ! !

And did she complain to you that she personally has a problem remaining celibate for the rest of her life? or is she infact happy and content with what she is? she can very easily leave christianity if she wishes to to live another lifestyle such as yours. Why are you taking panadol for another man's headache? - a headache that you claim the man has? 

  Deepsight deepsight deepsight, you never cease to make me chuckle with your bold declarations of personal opinion as fact, that you project onto others and proceed to demand that your law be the same for them.

Krayola:


@ Jesoul. How nah? 

Barrister Krayola I dey. I was trying to take my seat quiety at the back of the class but Deepsight kept calling me asking me to raise my hand and answer .

Krayola:
What is positive depends on context . . . . I think I have shown you that. And if some people have a worldview in which intimacy is seen as a gift from God, I think you should respect that, whether or not you agree with it. Abstinence can be seen as positive in the context of that worldview. It is a choice they have made, and it does not in anyway hinder your ability to chase your dreams. When it does that, feel free to raise hell. I'll bring the kerosene.

This is what I've been trying to beg Deepsight with but the guy no gree lol. We must believe as he does or else . . .

ilosiwaju:

Yoruba people have an adage that goes thus:
Eni meji kii padanu iro which is translated as: Two people cant both fall victim to a lie, if the listener does not know he is being lied to, the liar surely knows himself.
Meaning, it's just a test in Hypocrisy 101, you know the answer though you dont have to provide it. But i go like hear that your own gist sha, would you oblige?

Not sure about the import of your "owe"? but like I said, if you can give a cogent reason for the show of hands, I'm happy to bare my heart - or expose my ynash as the case may be !

God bless
TV

@ the poster,If your inner chambers don't rise up when you are with the one you're about to marry trouble dey na
Na who suppose fire ya grill ?
It is as normal as farting
Infact if whenever you see the man, all you think about is a Bible study session,he is not the one for you
he may just be a pastor the Lord has sent to sharpen your Christian walk
You must feel "eros" together with "agape" with your man
Eros is erotic love and agape is the unconditional  God kind of love.
You are not being carnal,you are being human
But you must hold yourself till the wedding day,tough but can be done.[b]premarital se.x is still fornication in God's eyes.[/b]Bring the date forward if una wan chop unaselves fast fast.

JESOUL THIS IS A TERRIBLE FORM OF ESCAPISM.

YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE VERY WORDS OF ST PAUL AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS DUCK BY SAYING YOU WILL NOT DISCUSS WITH A NON-CHRISTIAN? ? ? ?

ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THAT IN ITSELF IS DISCRIMINATORY (AGAINST ME: FOR NOT BEING CHRISTIAN) AND INDICATIVE OF A DIVISIVE APPROACH TO RELIGIOUS UNDERSTANDING, IT IS ALSO A GREAT WAY TO AVOID DIFFICULT POSERS. CONGRATS.

And yes, my Cousin complains to me. Feelings of guilt, etc etc.

When you guys propagate dogma like this, remember that your listeners are only human and can easily become confused and disoriented given that your dogma teaches them to contradict the very essence of their human nature.

I cannot think of anything more sinister than that.

Deep Sight:

JESOUL THIS IS A TERRIBLE FORM OF ESCAPISM.

YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE VERY WORDS OF ST PAUL AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS DUCK BY SAYING YOU WILL NOT DISCUSS WITH A NON-CHRISTIAN? ? ? ?

ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THAT IN ITSELF IS DISCRIMINATORY (AGAINST ME: FOR NOT BEING CHRISTIAN) AND INDICATIVE OF A DIVISIVE APPROACH TO RELIGIOUS UNDERSTANDING, IT IS ALSO A GREAT WAY TO AVOID DIFFICULT POSERS. CONGRATS.

  Deepsight, anyone who refuses to play by your rules is always engaging in "escapism".

  You've made up your mind about Paul so why are you soliciting my input on the matter? I've already said I believe otherwise and that you're misunderstanding Paul's words and I happily leave it at that. Besides threads upon threads exist where these issues have been dueled out times without number. A simple search will suffice for anyone really interested in what Paul meant. May I also recommend biblegateway.com, commentaries section. Read to your heart's content on Paul's views on women - this is what christians believe and why, you don't need jesoul.

And yes, my Cousin complains to me. Feelings of guilt, etc etc.

I'm not calling you a liar my dear, but you must understand why I cannot take your word for it.

When you guys propagate dogma like this, remember that your listeners are only human and can easily become confused and disoriented given that your dogma teaches them to contradict the very essence of their human nature.

I cannot think of anything more sinister than that.

This is perplexing.

The poster is a CHRISTIAN. She asked a question pertaining to the CHRISTIAN faith. The responders are CHRISTIAN advicing her according to the biblical position. We have CHOSEN how we want to live our lives. Why is this so hard for YOU to accept? why? Leave us to our "unnatural" ways now? where's the beef? Abstinence never murdered anyone has it?

Lemme quote Krayola for you again since you musta missed it the first time:

And if some people have a worldview in which intimacy is seen as a gift from God, I think you should respect that, whether or not you agree with it. Abstinence can be seen as positive in the context of that worldview. It is a choice they have made, and it does not in anyway hinder your ability to chase your dreams.

Quote from Krayola -

It is a choice they have made, and it does not in anyway hinder your ability to chase your dreams. When it does that, feel free to raise hell. I'll bring the kerosene.

Really? You are one of the most honest and sincere persons on this forum in my view. I verily hope that that honesty has not taken flight.

BECAUSE you are all too aware as i indicated before that this sort of dogma actually interferes with EVERYBODY'S LIFE. You cannot claim as you have above that "it does not in anyway hinder your ability to chase your dreams."

1. Look at Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia. Which woman there is free to pursue her personally chosen sexual lifestyle? The society makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the individual to have personal choices in these matters.

2. It is the SAME religious dogmatic consideration that you are advocating that has driven the Saudi's to that sorry state.

3. Even in secular states such as Nigeria, the overwhelming condemnation associated with free sexuality serves to prohibit many many people from pursuing their own freely chosen path of sexual liberalism. Please do not dare deny that there is a mighty social burden; a stigma, which many people on a psycological level are frightened of: and as humans we cannot escape our social psyche. Thus the plain truth is that these beliefs actually affect everyone - including those who do not share such beliefs.

4. I cannot count the numerous instances where a potentially life-long and beautiful relationship has been cut short on account of the influence of dogma (he does not attend my church; he does not believe in this or that). . .

HOW DARE YOU TELL ME IT DOES NOT AFFECT US ALL? ? ? EVEN IN TERMS OF SOCIAL AND FAMILY PRESSURE ALONE IT IS VERY VERY REAL! ! !

DO NOT LIE!

Quote from Jesoul -

I'm not calling you a liar my dear, but you must understand why I cannot take your word for it.

You HAVE called me a liar. Emphatically so. Thank you.

Nevertheless that begs the question.

Let us assume that i am lying (which i am not).

It is not definite that there are many middle-aged christian spinsters in the world?

Is it not also definite that not all of them will marry in this lifetime?

I REPEAT; IS IT YOUR CHRISTIAN SUGGESTION THAT THEY SHOULD SPEND THEIR ENTIRE LIVES WITHOUT HAVING SE.X AT ALL? ? ? - SINCE MARRIAGE ELUDES THEM?

IS THAT EVEN REMOTELY NATURAL? DOES IT NOT REEK OF A PERVERSE ADHERENCE TO SOMETHING THAT IS SICKENINGLY AGAINST THE NATURAL ORDER? ? ?

ANSWER ME THIS AND STOP ESCAPING BY SAYING YOU DONT BELIEVE ME ON MY COUSIN.

Deep Sight:

Quote from Jesoul -

You HAVE called me a liar. Emphatically so. Thank you.

Common DS, I did no such thing. I'd like to hear from her her exact feelings instead of hearsay from a 3rd party. Alright lets say I take your word for it and she's been complaining to you.

Your cousin to free to denounce christianity and live in whatever manner she pleases. Again no be by force to follow bible now

Nevertheless that begs the question.

Let us assume that i am lying (which i am not).

It is not definite that there are many middle-aged christian spinsters in the world?

Is it not also definite that not all of them will marry in this lifetime?

I REPEAT; IS IT YOUR CHRISTIAN SUGGESTION THAT THEY SHOULD SPEND THEIR ENTIRE LIVES WITHOUT HAVING SE.X AT ALL? ? ? - SINCE MARRIAGE ELUDES THEM?

IS THAT EVEN REMOTELY NATURAL? DOES IT NOT REEK OF A PERVERSE ADHERENCE TO SOMETHING THAT IS SICKENINGLY AGAINST THE NATURAL ORDER? ? ?

ANSWER ME THIS AND STOP ESCAPING BY SAYING YOU DONT BELIEVE ME ON MY COUSIN.

Again, any "christian" that doesn't want to live by the biblical injuction of abstinence is free to choose any other religion or none, that allows them to sleep with whoever they want, as frequently as they want. No be by force.

Hmmm. . .

So much has been said on this thread already. But I think in our answers, we should not forget FOR ONCE that the OP asks if it makes her a carnal CHRISTIAN.

I think it's only fair to respond in that light, and not lending the leanings of other worldviews about pre-marital seks into the matter.

Thanks Jesoul.

So i take it that we have now crossed the rubicorn.

WE can now thus clearly see that -

IF A CHRISTIAN IS UNABLE TO FIND A MARRIAGE PARTNER IN YOUR OWN WORDS, ONLY TWO OPTIONS AVAIL SUCH A PERSON -

1. Abandon Christianity or

2. Live the rest of your life without having se.x until you die.

I leave it to you to choose, whilst hoping that such an eventuality will never be your lot, so that you can see the real life consequences of the dogma you so lightly brandish.

I ask YOU Jesoul - if it so happened that you never found a partner (Jupiter forbid) WOULD YOU OPT FOR THE SECOND OPTION: A LIFETIME TILL DEATH WITHOUT ANY SE.X AT ALL? ? ? ? ? ?

deepsight- there are billions of men in this world.

Your cousin should find one she gells with, if she's complaining about not having sex.


Even at 49, she can find someone to marry if she's really serious about doing so.

Men are scarce but not that scarce.

What are you guys saying at all? Sto making noises. Dont you guys get erections at times? is it sin? Dont you women get wet at times? Is it sin?

ilosiwaju:
The christian point of view on pre-marital se.x is fundamentally flawed on this one. Psalm 51, david asks for forgiveness for being conceived in a sinful way. That's by the way sha, the rather obtuse paul is actually an apostle who is a classic example of what women right activists dont need in this present day. In one of his emails to somewheretians, he clearly stated that marriage causes men not to serve GOD well enough that blessed is the man who gives his daughter's hand in marriage but more blessed is the one who does not.  you wont hear those scriptures during weddings am sure! 
He goes further on his perversive trip by implying / recommending that men should only get married if they cant hold on their sexu.al urge. In other words, women are property(which is not new in the jewish world) and are to be taken to the altar only because of agro .

The christian point of view on pre-marital se.x is fundamentally flawed on this one. Psalm 51, david asks for forgiveness for being conceived in a sinful way. That's by the way sha, the rather obtuse paul is actually an apostle who is a classic example of what women right activists dont need in this present day. In one of his emails to somewheretians, he clearly stated that marriage causes men not to serve GOD well enough that blessed is the man who gives his daughter's hand in marriage but more blessed is the one who does not. you wont hear those scriptures during weddings am sure!
He goes further on his perversive trip by implying / recommending that men should only get married if they cant hold on their sexu.al urge. In other words, women are property(which is not new in the jewish world) and are to be taken to the altar only because of agro .

flawed analysis from top to bottom.

@ most of the people here who are getting upset as if someone padlocked their *** and prevented them from having intimacy

why are you spending so much time and energy trying to persuade others they must have intimacy by force? And why are you so bothered by a few people who decide they dont want to just yet?

what's it to you? Una dey sell condom?

tpia.:

Una dey sell condom?

Deep Sight:


I ask YOU Jesoul - if it so happened that you never found a partner (Jupiter forbid) WOULD YOU OPT FOR THE SECOND OPTION: A LIFETIME TILL DEATH WITHOUT ANY SE.X AT ALL? ? ? ? ? ?

I KNEW you would abscond from this question.

By strong's concordance, the word carnal is sarx (σάρξ) meaning:

Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

So I think the question answers itself based on the red portion above. Your desires are carnal as they do not edify your spirit.

Deep Sight:

I KNEW you would abscond from this question.

Lol, you know DS, some of us actually have lives outside of NL and do not spend 24/7 here  .

Now what was your question again?

Deep Sight:

IF A CHRISTIAN IS UNABLE TO FIND A MARRIAGE PARTNER IN YOUR OWN WORDS, ONLY TWO OPTIONS AVAIL SUCH A PERSON -

1. Abandon Christianity or

2. Live the rest of your life without having se.x until you die.

I leave it to you to choose, whilst hoping that such an eventuality will never be your lot, so that you can see the real life consequences of the dogma you so lightly brandish.

I ask YOU Jesoul - if it so happened that you never found a partner (Jupiter forbid) WOULD YOU OPT FOR THE SECOND OPTION: A LIFETIME TILL DEATH WITHOUT ANY SE.X AT ALL? ? ? ? ? ?

  This is why I told you I purposed not to discuss christian issues with non-christians - we don't speak the same language.

  You see how incomprehensible it is to you that a person can give up se.x for the sake of Christ? In your reasoning that soul is missing out on a pleasure you believe man cannot live without, BUT to that person, they have gained a joy and peace and freedom from being bondaged, ensalved to their flesh.   
  Exhibit A: Paul. He gave it up to dedicate his life to God. Monks and nuns do this all the time. Kini big deal? There's so much more to life than se.x my dear, so much more. If only the revolving doors can halt for just a second to take a look at what's around they'd be shocked at how much fulfilment there is in a life live solely for God not self.

And this is even only in extreme cases. How many christian women/men have really NEVER found a husband/wife? How many? Cos I personally don't know any. Even a crazy friend of mine who I once thought no man could ever live with just got married at 26 last week, a full decade before any of us thot she would. As Tpia alluded to, it is very rare to even see the kinds of cases you're worrying about.

JeSoul:

Lol, you know DS, some of us actually have lives outside of NL and do not spend 24/7 here .

Now what was your question again? This is why I told you I purposed not to discuss christian issues with non-christians - we don't speak the same language.

You see how incomprehensible it is to you that a person can give up se.x for the sake of Christ? In your reasoning that soul is missing out on a pleasure you believe man cannot live without, BUT to that person, they have gained a joy and peace and freedom from being bondaged, ensalved to their flesh.
Exhibit A: Paul. He gave it up to dedicate his life to God. Monks and nuns do this all the time. Kini big deal? There's so much more to life than se.x my dear, so much more. If only the revolving doors can halt for just a second to take a look at what's around they'd be shocked at how much fulfilment there is in a life live solely for God not self.

And this is even only in extreme cases. How many christian women/men have really NEVER found a husband/wife? How many? Cos I personally don't know any. Even a crazy friend of mine who I once thought no man could ever live with just got married at 26 last week, a full decade before any of us thot she would. As Tpia alluded to, it is very rare to even see the kinds of cases you're worrying about.

Thank you, but you are yet to say if YOU will be celibate for life in the event that you do not marry.

The quetion is that simple.

P.S: Please i never said a single word about sex for pleasure so please do not misquote me: i said sex AS A NECESSARY NATURAL INSTINCT.

Deep Sight:

Thank you, but you are yet to say if YOU will be celibate for life in the event that you do not marry.

The quetion is that simple.

   Oga, that one no ga happen at all hehe even if I no find for hia, I will hunt either you, Krayola or TV down 

Nah but seriously, if it ever really came down to that (and I know it NEVER will) yes, I will give up se.x, I assume it will have its challenges, but I will be happy and satisfied knowing that my "light and momentary struggles are acheiving for me an eternal glory that far exceeds it all" 2 Corinthians 4:17.

  and Philippians 3:8
What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ.

  Simply beautiful scriptures.

P.S: Please i never said a single word about intimacy for pleasure so please do not misquote me: i said intimacy AS A NECESSARY NATURAL INSTINCT.

Oh okay sorry I misquoted you.

JeSoul:

Oga, that one no ga happen at all hehe even if I no find for hia, I will hunt either you, Krayola or TV down

Sister JeSoul come 0? In the highly unlikely event that you do have to do a spot of hunting will you favour the unbeliever over god fearing me? Chei !

_{Bro' TV hastens to schedule more prayer, fasting and night vigils in place of his proposed trip to the east coast !}

God bless
TV

Deep Sight:

Thank you, but you are yet to say if YOU will be celibate for life in the event that you do not marry.

Yes. His grace is sufficient. I counted the potential cost at the outset. And as much as I desire holy matrimony, its all or nothing. His will be done.

Deep Sight sir, no offence, but in the face of one who lives it, your argument - although forcefully asserted  - simply falls apart. Its not theology, neither is it doctrine. It is not by command nor religiously enforced - I don't belong to any sect. It is not without experience of the alternative and neither has there been any detrimental psycholgical or physiological effects. In fact, quite the opposite. I could go on, but in the absence of any genuinely enquiring discussion piece, I hold mine.

Having handled always trumps having heard.

God bless
TV