|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How concerned is God with what we do in the bedroom?
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
On a Hell thread I've been sulked at for 'prying in my bedroom again.' This was in response to my arguing: Paul comments:
quote:
Don’t you know that your bodies belong to the body of Christ? Should I take what belongs to Christ and join it to a prostitute? Never! 16 Don’t you know that when you join yourself to a prostitute, you become one with her in body? Scripture says, “The two will become one.” (Genesis 2:24) 17 But anyone who is joined to the Lord becomes one with him in spirit.
18 Keep far away from sexual sins. All the other sins a person commits are outside his body. But sexual sins are sins against one’s own body.
19 Don’t you know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit? The Spirit is in you. You have received him from God. You do not belong to yourselves. 20 Christ has paid the price for you. So use your bodies in a way that honors God.
1 Cor 6:15-20
Jesus, apart from his striking comments about lustful glances being on a level with adultery, the worst of offences to his listeners, reserves a special condemnation for those guilty of encouraging sexual indulgence:
quote:
But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.
Rev 2:20-22
To continue my introduction to the new thread: I think that it's important to see Paul's comments in the context of a society that was probably as sex obsessed as we are, whereas Jesus was speaking to one where sexual excess was relatively unusual. But to me the crucial point is that what we do sexually has a spiritual impact - whatever 'becoming one flesh' means, Paul is clearly indicating that it's a big deal.
By contrast modern society is very relaxed about sexual relationships before marriage. It is therefore tempting for the church to conform to this attitude, failing to challenge such behaviour 'because there are more important issues', despite Paul's comment suggesting otherwise.
Of course there is a balance to be struck: going on endlessly about sexual sins to the exclusion of anything else is as bad as totally ignoring the issue. I guess I'm interested in hearing from anyone who thinks sexual behaviour before marriage / committed relationship doesn't matter, and how they square that with the biblical material. My understanding is that this view is pure gnosticism, a denial that the behaviour of the body has any effect on the spirit, whereas Christianity is a very body focused religion.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I guess I'm interested in hearing from anyone who thinks sexual behaviour before marriage / committed relationship doesn't matter, and how they square that with the biblical material. My understanding is that this view is pure gnosticism, a denial that the behaviour of the body has any effect on the spirit, whereas Christianity is a very body focused religion.
Doesn't matter? Of course it matters! It affects our health, emotions, mental state and sense of worth and well being.
I don't believe casual sex particularly helps any of these so, personally, would steer away from it. But within free, adult, consensual relationships which do no harm? I certainly wouldn't ban it.
As far as sex before lifelong commitment goes - how do we know which relationships will really 'stick'?
Once my sons were 18 I bought them double beds and left their sex lives up to them. They have been wonderfully faithful and caring to their partners. One has had three girlfriends over nine years - and is still very good friends with the first two. In fact two of them have become best friends. The other is still with his original girlfriend. I am enormously proud of them both.
I believe a lot of angst would be saved if people lived together for a good period before marrying.
Biblical teaching? I have no idea - I think our culture is too far removed to listen to Paul et al. on sexual matters. The only one I would go for is "Act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God". In this matter as in any other.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
When you point out the scripture where Paul condemns King David and other Patriarchs for shagging around, I think you'd have a point.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
On a Hell thread I've been sulked at
This is the second time recently you've brought a discussion from one thread to another with the allegation that you've been "sulked at". It's not a phrase I'm used to, but would you concede it is possible for people to disagree with you, in good faith, without them "sulking"?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I guess I'm interested in hearing from anyone who thinks sexual behaviour before marriage / committed relationship doesn't matter, and how they square that with the biblical material.
As Boogie says, of course it matters. I just don't agree with you about whether it's good or bad.
As for how I square that with what's in the Bible - that's an easy one. Paul may have had a major hang-up about sex, but that doesn't mean I have to. Paul wasn't God, you know - he was just some bloke who managed to wangle his way to the top of what passed for the church heirarchy in those days and then wrote a few letters. Human. Fallible. Wrong.
And even if you could seriously claim that Revelation is an accurate transcript of Jesus' own words, it says the square root of fuck all about homosexuality.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yes God is concerned about what goes on in the bedroom. I do not think is too happy when sex is used in an exploitative way or treats people as objects whether people in the relationship or those around.
The problem with David was not that he slept around, God seems to have accepted that, David had many wives and concubines already by the time he bedded Bathsheba, it was that he, in doing it, did not pay good concern to the relation between Bathsheba and Uriah and the structure of society and saw himself above it. In other words God was worried about it as a relationship that was disruptive of Uriah and Bathshebas relationship and also of David's relationship to Israel.
Solomon equally had many wives and concubines. The problem was not that he had sex with them but they led him to permit the worship of other gods. A big No! No! in Isael. Abraham had Hagar as well as Sarah, Jacob had two wives and two concubines. It is a bad idea to argue for modern sexual standards on the basis of the behaviour of patriarchs and kings of ancient Israel.
As far as modern relationships are concerned, I think all need to strive to mirror God's to us, whether or not they involve the bedroom. In which case issues of respect (whether deserved or not), faithfulness and care seem to me more important.
By the way nobody is saying what goes on in a bedroom does not matter. Look at the problems over child sexual abuse. Or are you saying that that does not fall into the same category?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
When Christians obsess about the minutiae of theft, injustice or covetousness with the same enthusiasm as they do over sex, then I'll believe that they are driven by a thirst for righteousness. Until then I am just seeing prurience, repression and displacement.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
No, Ender's Shadow, this is not what you were being "Sulked at" for and you know it. What you actually posted is below, bold is mine.
quote:
Whilst I'll agree with you over women, the gay issue has a far higher claim to being a matter of great concern. Paul comments:
quote:
Don’t you know that your bodies belong to the body of Christ? Should I take what belongs to Christ and join it to a prostitute? Never! 16 Don’t you know that when you join yourself to a prostitute, you become one with her in body? Scripture says, “The two will become one.” (Genesis 2:24) 17 But anyone who is joined to the Lord becomes one with him in spirit.
18 Keep far away from sexual sins. All the other sins a person commits are outside his body. But sexual sins are sins against one’s own body.
19 Don’t you know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit? The Spirit is in you. You have received him from God. You do not belong to yourselves. 20 Christ has paid the price for you. So use your bodies in a way that honors God.
You were then told that this was a Dead Horse tangent by Sionis Sais and Comet.
The passage from Paul is about Adultery and Fornication. You were called out because you used I Corinthians 6 : 15 - 20 which is about men seeing prostitutes in support of your beliefs about homosexuality.
If you're going to support your beliefs successfully, you'll need to come on straight.
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Song of Songs is also in the Bible. To quote the lad dressed as a vicar with a Bible* under his arm, part of a group of other ecclesiastically dressed rugby fans off to the Rugby Sevens, "That's porn, that is".
My point is that the Bible as a whole is not against sex the way St Paul would have us believe.
* He was fumbling around in what was obviously an unfamiliar text being silly. I said, "The Bible isn't that bad, read this bit!" and found him Song of Songs. Hopefully it opened his eyes.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
I'm not into proof texting but I think God is more likely to be concerned by our failures in love, justice and mercy rather than what any consenting adults are doing in their bedrooms.
Full personal disclosure here - what I do in my bedroom is s ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) , read and avoid the cat attacking my feet. I don't think even the most conservative fundamentalists would object to that.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I think a more valid question is "Why do people have so much sex?"
Setting aside the issue of sex crimes and peer/boyfriend pressure, surely it is because both parties are enjoying it!
If two people meet up in a nightclub and have consensual sex afterwards (hopefully in a bedroom, not on the bins!) then it's because both parties THINK they will get a goodly amount of pleasure from it. Fine, crack on. Take precautions and know that it carries risks, but sex is really good. They know it, I know it, you know it, so that's why we do it.
That isn't going to stop anytime soon.
God gave us those feelings, that pleasure and why would he get angry about it other than if, in the course of having sex, we cause harm, either through gluttony (in the form of affairs) or pride (another notch on the bedpost), or what have you.
I believe we should be more concerned with ensuring people take sex seriously, rather than trying to limit it.
I speak, by the way, as one who is very happily married and has ONE sexual partner (my wife) in forty five years.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
As the person who 'sulked' at you, all I'm going to do is point out to you what I said last time: I agree that sexual ethics matter. I don't agree that the gender of my partner has anything to do with sexual ethics.
And you were banging on about 'the gay issue', not about sexual ethics in general.
Frankly I find it a bit galling that you now want to talk about things like sex before marriage, but portray it as if that's the same subject you were discussing in Hell. It simply isn't. If you want to talk about sexual ethics, go right ahead, but it's clearly not the same topic that was occurring in Hell, otherwise you'd be forced to go to Dead Horses rather than Purgatory.
[ 28. November 2012, 09:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Liberals do need to do some serious work in order to put their theology here into a better intellectual framework, but there are good reasons for changing opinions.
All the 'sexual sins' that Shadow considers wrong are fairly obviously unacceptable if you assume a society like the middle east in the first century. It is very important that everyone knows who their father is, there's no contraception, divorce probably renders the woman destitute, it would bring great dishonor on a family if a woman wasn't a virgin on her wedding night (and families are very important; the interests of a family take priority over the interests of all the living members of that family).
The only non-obvious one is homosexuality; in my opinion the major change in society that has allowed us to tolerate homosexuality (in purely practical terms) is the invention of pensions. Without them, your well-being in old age is the responsibility of your children. Since society never likes having destitute old people about, it needs to put all possible pressure on everyone to have children. Why is the bible so completely obsessed about widows and orphans, while today our charities (un-biblicaly) care for children and old people without regard to which living relatives they might have? Because society knew it was failing the widows and the orphans but didn't really know what to do about it.
So it might appear that the task is to disentangle the sexual prohibitions that are entirely based on the aspects of society that made them necessary from the ones that are 'eternal laws'. I reckon that's impossible. What should be possible is to work out a teaching that is consistent with the wider principles of the gospels while recognizing the different consequences of actions in our society.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, ancient societies were ferociously patriarchal, in other words, men were dominant, and not only that, men had to conform to certain identities themselves.
Some anthropologists explain this by pointing to the very harsh conditions under which people lived, so that it was essential to produce many children, men had to be fairly tough, in order to protect the tribe, and so on.
So the corollary is that we live in a less harsh patriarchal society, and therefore sexual mores and in fact, social mores in general are bound to change. Women now have the vote, female sexuality is now not as suppressed, homosexuality is no longer a great taboo, and so on. I suppose you could argue that Christian theology should resist these changes, but that sounds Canute-like to me. It also runs the risk of supporting a patriarchal system!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
When you put it like that, it does seem odd that some people think Christianity should not be subject to the mores of this age, but subject to the mores of an age that has long since passed.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
It often seems to me that when liberals and conservatives are talking past each other, the reason is because liberals assume that rules must have reasons in this world (if something is a sin, I must be able to work out who is harmed by the sinful action), while conservatives assume that there are god-given laws and it's completely inappropriate to question why they are.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When you put it like that, it does seem odd that some people think Christianity should not be subject to the mores of this age, but subject to the mores of an age that has long since passed.
The nub of the question is to what extent they are mores of a particular age, and to what extent they are eternal mores that may or may not have been entirely in sync with a particular age.
To put it another way: some Christians are very keen on being 'counter-cultural' now, and their best support for their views would be if they were 'counter-cultural' THEN.
[ 28. November 2012, 10:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Marvin
That is a very good summary, which gives it added sharpness. Anyway, enough of this mutual congratulation.
I suppose the opposite argument is that eternal verities and morals have been revealed, even if through ancient Jewish society, and these should not be changed. This is a very hard sell, today, I guess, but not without merit.
[ 28. November 2012, 10:13: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
in my opinion the major change in society that has allowed us to tolerate homosexuality (in purely practical terms) is the invention of pensions.
One of the ironies (for me as a destitute Leftie) is the way $$$ or Pound equivalents has driven the Holy Spirit (or, i would suggest: vice verca) in recent years. Envioronmental and human and animal rights only really became sexy when they bit into the hip pocket ...
Nevertheless, I get sick yet again at an implied bibliolatry (?sp) when it comes to matters of penises, vaginae (?pl) and other receptickles and projectickles ... where is rape in marriage condemned in the bible? It isn't. Yet could I look youse guyz in the eye tomorrow if I raped my wife tonight? I hope not. Because i would be scum if I did that, no matter what the bible fails to say.
The biblical world is different to ours - you know: 'the past is a different country' and all that. 'Wives submit' was and is carte blanche in many centuries and still is in some religious cultures. Forgive me for not quoting chapter and verse, but I suspect it makes the Big Grown Up Jesus cry when it becomes an excuse for what we do in private, if it is exploitative or uncaring, unloving ...
Consenting adults? To a point. An adult might consent to have sex with me, but that of course would be wrong, because I'm married to kuruman. She might be a little cross ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) and rightly so, if I betrayed our trust ...
But I sort of digress. Is there a victim in this sexual encounter? A power imbalance? Transmission of a sexual disease? An unplanned, unwanted preganancy? A betrayal? Yes? Then Jesus will weep. Is it a glorious edifying life-enhancing expression of love between adults by which no outside party will be harmed? Sweat it out, dudes - have fun. I think even the angels will rejoice.
[ 28. November 2012, 10:17: Message edited by: Zappa ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
It often seems to me that when liberals and conservatives are talking past each other, the reason is because liberals assume that rules must have reasons in this world (if something is a sin, I must be able to work out who is harmed by the sinful action), while conservatives assume that there are god-given laws and it's completely inappropriate to question why they are.
I think that hits the nail on the head. Even citing patriarchal society as a source of morality and religious law strikes many conservatives as somehow impermissible, whereas, for most liberals, I suppose it is an historical necessity. I mean that social formations change, and we are interested to know how and why, and how these formations give rise to different kinds of mores. I suppose the problem with this is that it seems to end up in relativism, oh the horror, the horror.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
The bible, as far as it has any coherence with regard to human sexual relationships (which is not very far, in my opinion) upholds and promotes committed relationships, forgiveness and sticking-with-it. At times it appears to elevate sex, at times it seems to dismiss it. At best it is ambivalent about the mix of power and sex.
Our modern concepts of 'biblical family values' seem to have mostly come from the epistles, where the writers use mixed theological metaphors to put across opinions on behaviours of their day, the details of which have been lost in the midst of time. But to say that these comments therefore unambiguously therefore reflect God's prohibition of premarital sex and homosexuality is something which can only be stated from subsequent interpretations.
Even if the writers really meant that, then it doesn't necessarily follow that they're doing anything other than trying to enforce norms on their sect to distinguish it from the rest of society. In a similar way, early Quakers (whom I'm still researching) banned their members from marrying out of the Society. Or you might include the idea of celibate church leaders, the wearing of particular clothing for religious rites, etc and so on.
Personally exactly what these authors meant, who they were talking to and for what purpose are so hidden to me in the 21 century as to make it a largely pointless activity to try to decipher.
I think people experience most support and wholeness in committed relationships. I believe that any 'sharing' of individuals by having sexual relations with more than one partner concurrently inevitably leads to spiritual malaise. I don't need the bible to tell me that, and can only see it say anything on the subject by reading backwards from that position.
What does God want? If there is any sense in the universe, God must want people to be fulfilled and to meet their potential. But what does that mean? What if I only have fulfillment as a mass murderer (Samson?).
As far as I am concerned, the idea that it is possible to discern what God thinks about anything based on the bible is a morally bankrupt.
[ 28. November 2012, 10:38: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I agree with where I think that Ender is coming from here.
I think that marriage is much more central to spiritual life than society seems to think.
The love that is shared in our most intimate relationship is, in my opinion, the fundamental love of all the loves a person can have, and it is the foundation of all happiness.
Therefore I think that marriage should be highly valued, that sex outside of marriage is highly problematic, and that infidelity is hurtful both to individuals and to society in general.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
To pick up on what Leon said, I think that liberals (if indeed that is their mindset) need to include God (and their relationship with Him*) in the list of 'who might be harmed by this'.
*Well, for those who are Christians as well ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 28. November 2012, 10:50: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To pick up on what Leon said, I think that liberals (if indeed that is their mindset) need to include God (and their relationship with Him*) in the list of 'who might be harmed by this'.
*Well, for those who are Christians as well
Go on then, let me in on the secret of how you know whether God is going to be harmed by a sexual misdemeanor yet isn't harmed by some crazy fool running around killing people with a donkey jawbone.
How does anyone know for sure that God is/isn't giving them a pass on this particular sexual misdemeanor?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
The problem with upholding marriage as being of great importance in society is that it can hit the mark some of the time and be a distraction at other times. For instance, I'm much more pleased to see a committed couple who love each other, who are chaste with each other, practice fidelity, who are charitable to each other and deeply respect one another, than the couple who are married, abusive, miserable and locked into that misery by the social pressure of remaining married. The loving couple who live together have a better understanding and experience of marriage than the ones who are in a living hell. It is possible to make an idol of the institution without ever actually knowing what it really should be. The flip side is that the social pressure to be married can be so immense that people rebel against it, and thats always going to happen. But there are others still who simply can't live up to social expectation and can't afford the big wedding and party afterwards. They can barely afford a flat together, let alone the bill for a wedding; and yes, you can argue that they can do it on the cheap in a registry office, but I've seen this happen and the family fall out can be truly terrible, and its a perfect example of how the institution of marriage can be held up to such an extent that it no longer resembles what marriage actually is.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To pick up on what Leon said, I think that liberals (if indeed that is their mindset) need to include God (and their relationship with Him*) in the list of 'who might be harmed by this'.
*Well, for those who are Christians as well
Go on then, let me in on the secret of how you know whether God is going to be harmed by a sexual misdemeanor yet isn't harmed by some crazy fool running around killing people with a donkey jawbone.
How does anyone know for sure that God is/isn't giving them a pass on this particular sexual misdemeanor?
I didn't suggest the answer, just that it was a valid question.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To pick up on what Leon said, I think that liberals (if indeed that is their mindset) need to include God (and their relationship with Him*) in the list of 'who might be harmed by this'.
I said 'reasons in this world' because I think this position excludes the idea of harming God. I think it's right in this regard; we can't harm God.
quote:
*Well, for those who are Christians as well
But I would strongly agree that we should consider harm to our relationship with Him. Of course, if we believe something is a sin because it harms our relationship with God then, as you suggest, this rule would only apply to Christians. It would be improper to suggest that a non-Christian was wrong for doing it (although we should honestly point out that they'd have to give it up along with Sunday morning TV if they convert)
And I also feel it's possible to have a rational conversation about how an action might or might not have harmed our relationship with God; it's not just a matter of 'your relationship with God is harmed because you did something on the naughty list'.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
For instance, we know that God doesn't like it when I look at a woman lustfully. Merely looking at her doesn't actually harm her, but I know that it upsets (perhaps a better word than 'harms') God and therefore I shouldn't do it.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I didn't suggest the answer, just that it was a valid question.
I, for one, think it is a useless and totally incomprehensible question which is entirely useless for assisting with moral decisions.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
For instance, we know that God doesn't like it when I look at a woman lustfully. Merely looking at her doesn't actually harm her, but I know that it upsets (perhaps a better word than 'harms') God and therefore I shouldn't do it.
How do you know that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Er...because Jesus said so? I would have thought that that was quite obvious. quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I didn't suggest the answer, just that it was a valid question.
I, for one, think it is a useless and totally incomprehensible question which is entirely useless for assisting with moral decisions.
For me as a Christian, it is central.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
For me as a Christian, it is central.
Then for you the question remains: how do you know what harms God?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I have just given one example. 'Hurt' is perhaps a better word than 'harms'.
[cp with Justinian]
[ 28. November 2012, 11:16: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have just given one example. 'Hurt' is perhaps a better word than 'harms'.
No you haven't. Jesus said that was a sin, not that it harms/hurts God.
How does God experience that pain compared to someone committing mass murder with a jawbone?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...because Jesus said so? I would have thought that that was quite obvious. quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I didn't suggest the answer, just that it was a valid question.
I, for one, think it is a useless and totally incomprehensible question which is entirely useless for assisting with moral decisions.
For me as a Christian, it is central.
I'm just querying whether you can actually know that God does not like something. I can see that you believe it, but how does belief turn into knowledge?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think God is concerned about what we do in the bedroom (or wherever else we might do what we do in the bedroom).
I also think he is concerned that we aren't all judgemental about what other people do or don't do in their bedrooms - either in a prurient way or in a judgemental thou-shalt-not way (within certain boundaries and limits).
I also agree with Freddy that marriage is special and should be taken more seriously in society than appears to be the case at present.
None of which is contradictory.
I think the Orthodox principle of 'ekonomeia' is a good one and can be applied in various ways by the rest of us.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To pick up on what Leon said, I think that liberals (if indeed that is their mindset) need to include God (and their relationship with Him*) in the list of 'who might be harmed by this'.
*Well, for those who are Christians as well
And I think those who believe in the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth should realise that those that are easiest to hurt are the weakest. If you've an omnipotent being you can not hurt said being so hurting God is the least important factor anywhere.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have just given one example. 'Hurt' is perhaps a better word than 'harms'.
No you haven't. Jesus said that was a sin, not that it harms/hurts God.
How does God experience that pain compared to someone committing mass murder with a jawbone?
Sin is against God's nature, therefore by definition it is going to upset him a tad.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...because Jesus said so? I would have thought that that was quite obvious. quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I didn't suggest the answer, just that it was a valid question.
I, for one, think it is a useless and totally incomprehensible question which is entirely useless for assisting with moral decisions.
For me as a Christian, it is central.
I'm just querying whether you can actually know that God does not like something. I can see that you believe it, but how does belief turn into knowledge?
I suppose that we can't really, truly, 'know' anything. By faith, we are told that we can be certain of things we cannot see; I guess that's the closest we can get, and that has to be good enough for me!
My sin does hurt God: Jesus was nailed to a tree because of it.
[ 28. November 2012, 11:30: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
When Christians obsess about the minutiae of theft, injustice or covetousness with the same enthusiasm as they do over sex, then I'll believe that they are driven by a thirst for righteousness. Until then I am just seeing prurience, repression and displacement.
This. God is concerned about what we do regardless of where we're doing it. He's also concerned about our attitudes - the whole putting him first and loving our neighbour as ourself thing.
However, as God appears to have not supplied a list of sins in order of sinfulness, some people in the church have decided to help Him out by telling us repeatedly that God is really worried about who we're shagging ...
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Of the Ten Commandments (depending on which list one uses) roughly half are concerned with our relationship with God and the other our relationships with other people. Of those, only one relates to sex. That seems a fairly good rule of thumb to me...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To pick up on what Leon said, I think that liberals (if indeed that is their mindset) need to include God (and their relationship with Him*) in the list of 'who might be harmed by this'.
*Well, for those who are Christians as well
Can I back up to this a bit?
I think my "liberal" (if you like) answer to this is "seeing as God himself cannot be harmed, why would he have an objection to something that doesn't hurt anyone in the first place?"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
It depends what you mean by 'harm'. God the Almighty cannot be 'damaged' by our sin. I do believe however that He finds it deeply wounding. And then of course you have the small matter of the Crucifixion...
[ETA - without wishing to derail the thread with a whole "what did the Cross do: PSA, Christus Victor, etc etc" debate]
[ 28. November 2012, 11:48: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I'm struggling with the idea of God being harmed, not so much from the point of view of liberalism, but classical theism, where God seems to be 'without body, parts or passions'. However, I think Matt Black's reply was a cogent one.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Doesn't quite answer the question of why God would put a prohibition on something - i.e. declare it a sin - if it harms no-one.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sin is against God's nature, therefore by definition it is going to upset him a tad.
Really. It is apparently 'God's nature' to allow Abijah to take 14 wives, Solomon to have countless concubines and others to own - and dispose of - slaves.
That doesn't even include the apparent directions from God to soldiers to kill all men, women and children in various massacres, to consider women as unclean and/or non-people and so on.
Or is that lot all against 'God's nature'?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Depends whether it's sin or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Doesn't quite answer the question of why God would put a prohibition on something - i.e. declare it a sin - if it harms no-one.
Does it harm me? Does it mar the imago Dei within me?
[ 28. November 2012, 12:00: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Depends whether it's sin or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Doesn't quite answer the question of why God would put a prohibition on something - i.e. declare it a sin - if it harms no-one.
Does it harm me? Does it mar the imago Dei within me?
Isn't that circular? Why would an action mar the imago Deil? Why, because it's a sin and that's what sin does! Why is it a sin? Because it mars the imago Dei...
[ 28. November 2012, 12:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Because it goes against the Creator's design and intention?
...and that's before we get onto the whole 'my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit' schtick.
[ 28. November 2012, 12:04: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
