In the past, Christianity has rather demonified sexuality. The roots
for such a perspective derive from a Jewish understanding of the
body; indeed, some interpret the consumption of the 'fruit of the
knowledge of good and evil' as becoming sexually aware (we see the
analogue for this with Prosperpine and Pluto with the pomegranate).
St Paul has much to say about the separation between earthly things
and spiritual things, to avoid the lusts of the flesh and focus on the
divine.
Whether this reading is accurate or not is of little consequence, but
the fact that it has been historically used to elevate the state of
virginity generally and restrained sexuality. In the past, the
Christian churches have demonize the naked body or any expression
of sexuality.
In more recent history, the Christian churches have recognized that
sexuality in marriage is a healthy thing, if not a supreme form of
expression, but only within a limited framework. Indeed, the
notion of sexual exploration, so-called sodomy (be it oral, anal or
digital), masturbation, and many other related topics are often
deemed taboo.
In fact, there are many Christians (perhaps even some on this site)
who have taken the notion of sexuality to be so filthy and so evil that
the couple will (at mutual consent) not touch each other in any way
sexually, for fear of the sin of lust. In order to have children, sperm
is removed from the male via suction and implanted within the
woman. As such, their relationship is utterly chaste and pure, free of
the physical passions which they believe cripple other couples. They
believe that, by doing this, they are transcending their sinful,
animalistic, 'fleshy' nature and focusing on the True, Divine, and
Spiritual things, as per St Paul's writings.
While not all go to this extreme, many others deem various sorts of
sexual experiences as sinful and, similarly, avoid them for fear of
Divine condemnation.
Is this really a True Biblical message -- that sexual self-denial is a
higher calling -- or is it a perversion of Christian teaching in an effort
to establish and maintain control through fear and guilt?
Discuss.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI don't know how in the world humans could have the gift of sexuality and then be made to suffer for it. While moderation and a commited relationship are pivotal to ensure against abuse, and therefore spiritual decline, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could do something are unnatural as what you described as procreation without actual lovemaking! Are people that hung up about their bodies, and the perception of generating sin in a loving relationship? We humans are a funny (odd, not haha) bunch.
Is this really a True Biblical message -- that sexual self-denial is a
higher calling -- or is it a perversion of Christian teaching in an effort
to establish and maintain control through fear and guilt?
Originally posted by NemesioThe Bible clearly says that sex in the marriage bed is NOT a sin, but a command from God! What is a sin is sex before marriage, sex with family, sex with animals, sex with the same gender. All of these things are harmful anyway.
In the past, Christianity has rather demonified sexuality. The roots
for such a perspective derive from a Jewish understanding of the
body; indeed, some interpret the consumption of the 'fruit of the
knowledge of good and evil' as becoming sexually aware (we see the
analogue for this with Prosperpine and Pluto with the pomegranate).
St Paul has muc ...[text shortened]... in an effort
to establish and maintain control through fear and guilt?
Discuss.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusHomosexual activity is harmful? To whom, your God and right-thinking Christians? That your God would decree that two people of the same sex who love one another and are prepared to commit to one another ought not have sex is just further evidence that your God is deeply unjust.
The Bible clearly says that sex in the marriage bed is NOT a sin, but a command from God! What is a sin is sex before marriage, sex with family, sex with animals, sex with the same gender. All of these things are harmful anyway.
What is a sin is sex before marriage, sex with family, sex with animals, sex with the same gender. All of these things are harmful anyway.[/b]Originally posted by Darfius
The Bible clearly says that sex in the marriage bed is NOT a sin, but a command from God!
You are talking about 'procreation,' that is, functional sex. Indeed, the Bible says 'Be fruitful
and multiply' and the like on several occasions.
However, the Bible also talks (negatively) about the 'pleasures of the flesh,' that is 'recreational
sex.' So, it would seem that it would be a sin to engage in sexual intercourse when you don't have
the intention of procreating, or non-procreative sex acts (such as oral, anal or digital sex).
Would you say that this is a fair assessment, or do you disagree, Darfius? As such, would your
recommend sex only when intending to procreate? Would you find that position that other
Christians take -- where no sexual contact is made, but children are born through extraction and
implantation -- as a more perfect state, avoiding corruption of the flesh but still fulfilling the
obligation to be fruitful and multiply?
Also, I don't recall the Bible's ever forbidding sex outside of marriage. Perhaps you could give
a citation. All I can recall is you shall not commit adultery (i.e., break the bonds of either your
marriage or another person's marriage). That is, if a couple were getting married then sexual
relations would not be adultery.
Perhaps you could clarify, Darfius?
Nemesio
Originally posted by bbarrEverybody in the homosexual community is laughing their socks off after reading your statement. You sound like someone defending good old family values.
Homosexual activity is harmful? To whom, your God and right-thinking Christians? That your God would decree that two people of the same sex who love one another and are prepared to commit to one another ought not have sex is just further evidence that your God is deeply unjust.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think you misread his post. I would think that the homosexual community would be
Everybody in the homosexual community is laughing their socks off after reading your statement. You sound like someone defending good old family values.
inclined to agree with him.
Or am I missing something?
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeI value valuable family values, among them monogamy and commitment. I do not value the condemnation and active oppression of those who are in love and harm nobody.
Everybody in the homosexual community is laughing their socks off after reading your statement. You sound like someone defending good old family values.
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr, what is happening to you ? You are presenting yourself as a man of law and order in the Terri Schiavo case and here you are presenting yourself as a man of the good old "valuable" family values.
I value valuable family values, among them monogamy and commitment. I do not value the condemnation and active oppression of those who are in love and harm nobody.
.... Are you still a Freethinker or has a conversion occured also in this field ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThese are mutually exclusive? Like every person, Ivanhoe, I contain multitudes.
Bbarr, what is happening to you ? You are presenting yourself as a man of law and order in the Terri Schiavo case and here you are presenting yourself as a man of the good old "valuable" family values.
.... Are you still a Freethinker or has a conversion occured also in this field ?