Ship of Fools: Dangerous Sex

Thread: Dangerous Sex Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025256

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

“Sex for the Christian is sacred in a quite technical sense, it is something which contains and shows forth the creative power of God…But to be sacred means first of all to be dangerous… ‘No man can look upon God and live’”

“[Sex] is not dangerous because it is bad, it is dangerous because it is sacred, powerful, capable if it is divorced from the world of love of destroying the personality as effectively as a drug.”

The New Creation, Herbert McCabe, Contiunuum 2010 p 105 (1st published 1964)

Having just read the book in which this quote comes from I would be interested in other's views on this perspective on the morality of sex.

Perhaps I should not be surprised, but I had not previously heard the morality of sex expressed in this way (i.e. sex is "dangerous" because it is so close to God, not because it is bad).

I find this statement challenging, interesting, maybe helpful to understand the teaching of the church, and very "counter-cultural".

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Interesting. I often ask myself the question: 'why?' Why is God/the Bible so interested in sex, and especially its prohibitions.

Has anyone actually asked/answered the question, for example, WHY does God in the Bible regard homosexuality as an abomination?
Why does God hate divorce?
Why is fornication wrong?

Much of the time we tend to ignore prohibitions because we no longer see the reason for them - what exactly was God prohibiting?

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

Mudfrog, apart from the obvious DH issues you're begging questions by assuming here God does regard homosexuality as an abomination, hate divorce, and label fornication as wrong.

I'm curious, Bax: does McCabe see other sacred things (the sacraments, the books of the Bible, hymns, and so on) as dangerous in the same sense, in that they are capable of destroying the soul? It's a very interesting claim.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This is a common idea outside Christianity, that sex is sacred, and close to the divine, for example, see Blake, who also argued that it's repression that makes it dirty.

And in Christianity, it is perfectly proper to see sex as God-given. I'm not sure if Christians see it as leading to spiritual insights or experiences, but McCabe tends to put forward interesting ideas.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I think "powerful" might be a less scary way of expressing the same concept -- certainly it was the reason I was given, as a young Christian, for avoiding premarital sex. Not that sex was in any way bad or dirty but that it was too powerful a force to use casually -- it had to be properly harnessed within a committed monogamous relationship. I don't know if that's actually a good argument (I certainly don't think it's a bad one) but apart from the shock value of the word "dangerous" I don't think there's anything unusual about the view expressed in the OP.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

It's why I said "God in the Bible..."
Sex = dangerous? Why?
Similar question: (Some) Sex = abomination? Why?

Whether we believe it now or not, the fact is that the Bible says so. Why?

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I think "powerful" might be a less scary way of expressing the same concept

I really like that - enough so that I wish I had been aware of it when my children were young. But at least now I am aware of it in time for any grandchildren. Thank you.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I think the concept in the OP is rejectable and anachronistic. Sex has been dangerous because pregnancy and childbirth is so dangerous in history. It was then combined with the ideas of ownership of women, to be traded or collected as our ancestors wandered around with tribal god images and exterminated those who they could conquer. It is people who have translated their ideas about sex such that they came to assert that their ideas were God's.

We've come a long way, thank God, in our understanding of what the bible says, how it should be read and interpreted, and of sex. I believe it was Freud who first got the connection between sexuality and aggression, such that restrictive sexual attitudes and behaviour, oppression and control of women have led to so much suffering. There is a clear connection between restrictive sexual ideology, wars and misogyny. All of the moves to liberate sexuality, so it can be reconnected with love and disconnected from violence are what we must support as Christians.

[ 06. April 2013, 03:10: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Sex is dangerous because it's a nearly ungovernable impulse, and because it's the motor that drives so many of our activities.

If sex is close to God, it's because it's the way we create new life. An orgasm might convince you you're God for a few seconds, but the delusion passes. You can just as easily be taken "out of yourself" by drugs or a blow to the head.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

....be fruitful and multiply.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Sex is dangerous because it's a nearly ungovernable impulse, and because it's the motor that drives so many of our activities.

Is it an ungovernable impulse? I find I can avoid having sex when it's not aproprate.

quote:
If sex is close to God, it's because it's the way we create new life. An orgasm might convince you you're God for a few seconds, but the delusion passes. You can just as easily be taken "out of yourself" by drugs or a blow to the head.

Does this mean test tubes are close to God.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

AIUI many of the Church Fathers, and those who came after them, thought that sex was questionable because it causes you to act in irrational ways. Which as far as it goes is true: see Bill Clinton, Chris Huhne, John Profumo ...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The writer is 1000% right. Sex - like anything else, foreign policy for example - without love (the selfless, enlightened, patient, kind, humble, empowering, unconditional, thoughtful, generous, benevolent kind) is lethal. Now. Is hell. Now.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Good sex involves giving oneself completely to another in trust, love and abandonment - that's dangerous.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Like good foreign policy. Good neighbourliness. Good relations. Good parenting. Good shopping.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

In some Eastern religions, sex might be seen as non-dualistic, and this can be taken as a kind of sacred experience, going beyond the earthly ego-mind. By non-dualistic, I mean transcending the separateness of ego and ego, or if you like, becoming 'one flesh'.

But transcendent experiences do have danger in them, for example, that one might become over-identified with them, or one might abandon ordinary life.

But it would be strange to see such ideas in a Christian context, although not impossible.

Posted by Brother Oscar (# 17227) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I think the concept in the OP is rejectable and anachronistic. Sex has been dangerous because pregnancy and childbirth is so dangerous in history. It was then combined with the ideas of ownership of women, to be traded or collected as our ancestors wandered around with tribal god images and exterminated those who they could conquer. It is people who have translated their ideas about sex such that they came to assert that their ideas were God's.

We've come a long way, thank God, in our understanding of what the bible says, how it should be read and interpreted, and of sex. I believe it was Freud who first got the connection between sexuality and aggression, such that restrictive sexual attitudes and behaviour, oppression and control of women have led to so much suffering. There is a clear connection between restrictive sexual ideology, wars and misogyny. All of the moves to liberate sexuality, so it can be reconnected with love and disconnected from violence are what we must support as Christians.

There is a mix of truth and nonsense in what you say. Yes, the perceived danger of sexuality has been a reflection of the danger of pregnancy and childbirth. I think in this vein Girard notes how in early societies menstrual blood is often associated with death and danger. However, I think the danger of sex is more than this and is tied up with the life-givingness of sex. The power of sex to define my relationship to myself and to others for good or ill in everyday ways. Will he be faithful or leave me more alone than ever? Can I allow my vulnerability to show or will she reject me? Neither Freud nor Lacan are as easy going about sex as you suggest for just this reason. And it is in this sense that Freud understood all relationships to be sexual and understood sex to be intimately related to our mental wounds.

Secondly you are right that there is a connection between sex and aggression and this connection is sometimes reflected in restrictive sexual attitudes. However, what you fail to note is that permissive sexual attitudes don't seem to be in any way less aggressive. We live in a society with pervasively permissive attitudes to sex and in a society in which women are everywhere treated as objects of desire, in which advertising and media manipulate and exploit sexuality and the self-esteem and self-image of even young people, in which women are assumed to be sexually available and harassed, in which sexual violence is prevalent and often excused...

It seems to me that both sexual restrictiveness and sexual permissiveness are connected with aggression. I rather wonder if the answer has something more to do with sexual dignity, maturity and responsibility.

Oh, and I do think the chapter on marriage and sexuality in McCabe's New Creation is indeed worth reading.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Sex is dangerous because it's a nearly ungovernable impulse, and because it's the motor that drives so many of our activities.
Is it an ungovernable impulse? I find I can avoid having sex when it's not aproprate.

Maybe you just haven't been tested at a meaningful level? First, how easy would you find sticking to say Catholic sexual morality? No masturbation, no fornication, no adultery, no contraception, no abortion - sex strictly with your wife only, and if you want to limit the number of offspring, then stop having sex (possibly by having sex only in the infertile half of her period, but still). Perhaps you would find that more challenging than the sexual strictures that you observe now?

Second, a lack of sexual challenge often has to do simply with a lack of opportunity. Women are not exactly lining up in the street to challenge my sexual faithfulness by seducing me to adultery. I believe I could find someone to sin with if I tried, but generally quite some effort would be involved. Perhaps you have a lot more opportunities than I do, but I think for most people the actual opportunity for sexual sin is rather limited most of the time. And thank God for that...

So if you find the sexual impulse fairly easy to govern, then I would ask (a) by what standards of governance, and (b) against what level of opportunity. That said, like in all things we probably have a bell curve here, with some people finding it not challenging at all to deal with sex, some finding it near impossible, and most being somewhere in between...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The Church certainly knows how to make sinners.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

The physical 'becoming one flesh' may be translated to the spiritual 'I in you and you in me'. There is a lot in the NT about Christ as 'the bridegroom' and the people of his church as the bride.

I have heard the belief that sex with someone creates a spiritual link with them which may be psychologically harmful long term unless the two are connected by love. I'm not convinced, but do observe the long term harm caused to parents and their children when relationships break up, as well as cases of sti's, sex addicts, and abortions, all of which highlight the desirability for sex to be contained within stable loving relationships.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Sex burns. Fire is a good servant. A bad master.

Casual, impersonal, loveless, uncommitted, selfish, greedy, promiscuous, ungenerous, inappropriate, unkind, thoughtless shopping isn't good is it ?

Is spiritually degrading, addictive, dissatisfying. Creates unwholesome bonds. Associations. Bad memories. Regret. Intrusive thoughts. Worries.

Foreign policy too.

[ 06. April 2013, 12:17: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Sex can be likened to fire in terms of it's benefits and it's destructiveness .

A fire glowing to grate , regulated and contained, brings joy warmth and comfort, as can intimacy in the the right circumstances and mind-set .
A fire in other circumstances can destroy, cleanse and excite as can sex . Therein lies the danger, (leaving out STDs).

It's tempting to say these two scenarios are mutually exclusive , one good the other bad , one right the other wrong . We know it's not as simple as that . Freud got close to the answer .
I guess there is no hard and fast rule even though we Christians are supposed to be the ones with the rule book.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

IngoB

I humbly submit that a moral code that makes sex an ungovernable impulse then it is going wrong. This would be equally true of a code that taught that sexual impulse was ungovernable so you should not try.

Therefore I am suggesting that moral codes should act in such a way that it generally promotes better moral behaviour of those accepting it. A code that decrease the morality of the subjects, whether through promoting libertarian attitudes or through such strictness that a person can't help but break it, is a poor code.

Jengie

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The physical 'becoming one flesh' may be translated to the spiritual 'I in you and you in me'.

1 Corinthians 7:4 contains a very strong statement about the relationship between husband and wife.

quote:
For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

If the wife's body belongs to the husband and the husband's to the wife, then in the sex act each has control of the other's property for the purpose of giving pleasure to the other.

Moo

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
However, what you fail to note is that permissive sexual attitudes don't seem to be in any way less aggressive. We live in a society with pervasively permissive attitudes to sex and in a society in which women are everywhere treated as objects of desire, in which advertising and media manipulate and exploit sexuality and the self-esteem and self-image of even young people, in which women are assumed to be sexually available and harassed, in which sexual violence is prevalent and often excused...

It seems to me that both sexual restrictiveness and sexual permissiveness are connected with aggression. I rather wonder if the answer has something more to do with sexual dignity, maturity and responsibility.

Good points made, with this highlighted for me.

I think where we might need to discuss further is whether in fact there is permissiveness. The permissiveness comes only with the possibility of sex without pregnancy. But we are pushed to sexual imagery and frustration more than ever: sexualized media of all kinds, provocative sexualization of all sorts of consumer products, of advertising. But the divorce of sexuality from love and relationship is striking. It's not really permissive, it is a confinement, where we are told more and more what to do, how to do it, how often. So we can have more sex, but only as we're told how. It's a confinement and a stereotyping, sex as fast food, where I suppose there are calories and possibly some nutrition, but nil else.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The physical 'becoming one flesh' may be translated to the spiritual 'I in you and you in me'. There is a lot in the NT about Christ as 'the bridegroom' and the people of his church as the bride.

I have heard the belief that sex with someone creates a spiritual link with them which may be psychologically harmful long term unless the two are connected by love.

Roughly what I was going to say.

Because we are psycho-somatic unities, what we do with our bodies expresses what we feel in our 'minds'.

So one-night-stands can break the link between body and mind and harden our attitudes towards other people so that they become 'things' for our use.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Dangerous sex? I think a fairly utilitarian definition is consistent with scripture, in that dangerous sex can mess up relationships.

Screwing around (ie, fornication), not using contraception when it is wise to do so (choice of method is up to those involved), are the main causes of relationships failing on sexual grounds but within an established relationship it's dangerous to suddenly refuse or withdraw from the sexual element.

I don't think that's far off God's intention (and it's worked for us [Smile]

)

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Maybe you just haven't been tested at a meaningful level? First, how easy would you find sticking to say Catholic sexual morality? No masturbation, no fornication, no adultery, no contraception, no abortion - sex strictly with your wife only, and if you want to limit the number of offspring, then stop having sex (possibly by having sex only in the infertile half of her period, but still). Perhaps you would find that more challenging than the sexual strictures that you observe now?

Well for a start I wasn't thinking that sex meant masturbation. I've always thought that any definition of sex would have to include at least two people.

Also are we reading "ungovernable impulse" in different ways? The reason I commented was because although rape is a horrifically common occurrence, and arguably more about power and violence than sex, if sex truly were an ungovernable impulse then by defult wouldn't everyone be raping everyone else?

Case in point, I went through the entirety of puberty and adolescence up untill my late twenties not having sex. Did I want it? Of course. But I never once felt the urge to take, pay, beg or pester anyone for it. If sex truly were an ungovernable impulse then wouldn't I have been out doing everything in my power to get it?

[ 07. April 2013, 09:14: Message edited by: George Spigot ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I humbly submit that a moral code that makes sex an ungovernable impulse then it is going wrong. This would be equally true of a code that taught that sexual impulse was ungovernable so you should not try.

If sex was truly ungovernable, we would not be having this conversation. And if it were so, then a moral code that suggested we should not govern sex would be entirely correct. A rule cannot be moral if it asks the impossible. However, sex clearly is governable to a considerable degree. For example, no matter how attractive I find a woman and how needy I may be for sex, nobody claims that I can just force sex on a woman. We call that rape, consider it gravely evil and a crime. That means however that we think that even the strongest sexual impulse is ultimately under my control, and practically so, not just theoretically.

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Therefore I am suggesting that moral codes should act in such a way that it generally promotes better moral behaviour of those accepting it. A code that decrease the morality of the subjects, whether through promoting libertarian attitudes or through such strictness that a person can't help but break it, is a poor code.

This argument does not consider at all whether an action is right or wrong as such. It merely judges what people find easy or hard to do in a certain regard, and then proposes the mean as the rule. It says that morality will be increased best in the manner of a mild physical exercise regime, which is a mean between the couch potato and the fitness fanatic. But in contrast to the physical exercise, there is no real measure there of "better". Certainly, we can measure objectively that physical health and ability increase with mild exercise. But where is such an independent measure for morals then?

To return to my previous example, are we going to suggest that a "golden mean" of morality should be found between no rape and rape? A medium amount of rape (measured by frequency and severity?) is appropriate, given that I have to struggle to control myself around very attractive women when I haven't had sex in a long time? I assume that this will be rejected outright, and of course that's just what I think should happen. But that goes to show that the above "mean finding" is not what sets morality. That may help to find prudent regulations once one knows what is actually good and what is actually evil. But it cannot determine good and evil on its own.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Martin PC not & Ship's BioHazard
The Church certainly knows how to make sinners.

That it does. Nothing like casting stones and taking the joy out of life...

Reminded of a parson's child of my acquaintance: on their wedding day their Papa chose the journey to church as the ideal time to raise the subject of sex within Christian marriage: the bit that stuck with my friend was "it should only be approached after thought and prayer" (a bit like landing on an aircraft carrier, eh?). When the about-to-be-married asked where pleasure or enjoyment (mutual or otherwise) came into the equation they got the response "just because you can enjoy it doesn't mean you must or should".

God knows what effect this attitude had on the hundreds of couples this man prepared for marriage... [Eek!]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

When we all get to the pearly gates, the first question will be about all the love we gave and that which we failed to give and receive. The second question will be about all the experiences we failed to enjoy, including sexual ones. God being a lot less interested in sin than churches.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
God being a lot less interested in sin than churches.

And how would you know that, not being a prophet?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
God being a lot less interested in sin than churches.
And how would you know that, not being a prophet?

A very good question. I have absolutely no idea. God is actually not interested in either, having more focus on the individual than the action or the organization. I meant the "than" to be an "and".

Such stupidity of mine comes from baking bread, preparing an supper, typing, and trying to follow a recipe all at once. Or perhaps it is merely my nature to be idiotic.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

There's a lot more in the Bible about money than there is about sex. Does that mean economics is even more dangerous?

(For what it's worth, I happen to think it is!)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

no prophet : How do you know what God is interested in? Yes, we make guesses and, yes, we also use the scriptures to give us some of the prophets' ideas of what God is interested in - but we don't know .

I like to think that God is rather more concerned with how we treat the people we don't agree with and don't really like very much than whether or not to punish anyone.

Yes, sex can be dangerous: it's not called making love for nothing. IMHO if you continue to call it "sex" you probably aren't doing it right and with the right person: the church should be promoting love, rather than fulminating about sex. And weought to be trying to get a sensible debate going in the UK about the sexualisation of children and the all-pervasive porn on the internet.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I'm in agreement with Adeodatus here.

The Bible doesn't actually talk about sex as nearly as much as is assumed. What Mudfrog sees as 'facts' are fashions in translation. God is concerned with how we treat each other, and sex comes into that, but the Bible talks far more about money, the treatment of animals and statecraft than it talks about sex.

And at the end of the day, sex between consenting human adults who aren't related to each other is between the participants and God, and is nobody else's business. Certainly not the church's.

[ 08. April 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Well that's us ALL buggered then! We're all related.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Speak for yourself. Nobody buggers me!

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Sod you then leo.

[ 08. April 2013, 20:15: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, sex can be dangerous: it's not called making love for nothing.

It's called "making love" because people are too squeamish to say "sex."

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
....be fruitful and multiply.

But only if you intend to spend the next two decades or so together conscientiously raising any children who result.

The damage done to society, both in the present and in the future, by walking away from parental responsibilities is the paramount consideration in sexual ethics, it seems to me. All other issues pale by comparison. This should be merely belaboring the obvious, but sometimes I wonder if it is.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

SEE PREVIOUS POST BY ALOGON.

Alogon, thanks for taking my point seriously and for offering sound advice re offspring.
My observation, however, was not meant to be entirely flippant, and the bible is not necessarily supportive of your laudable position, which I generally share. The unqualified command to reproduce is paramount, as seen, for example, in the use made of Hagar by Sarai and Abram; the seduction of Lot by his daughters; and the injunction against homosexuality and the sin of Onan. As to the creation of stable families for the nurturing of children, what are we to make of the treatment of Hagar and Ishmael, Ezra’s insistance on the expulsion of foreign wives and their children; and St Paul’s easy attitude towards divorce involving non-Christian spouses?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
“Sex for the Christian is sacred in a quite technical sense, it is something which contains and shows forth the creative power of God…But to be sacred means first of all to be dangerous… ‘No man can look upon God and live’”

“[Sex] is not dangerous because it is bad, it is dangerous because it is sacred, powerful, capable if it is divorced from the world of love of destroying the personality as effectively as a drug.”

The New Creation, Herbert McCabe, Contiunuum 2010 p 105 (1st published 1964)

Having just read the book in which this quote comes from I would be interested in other's views on this perspective on the morality of sex.

Perhaps I should not be surprised, but I had not previously heard the morality of sex expressed in this way (i.e. sex is "dangerous" because it is so close to God, not because it is bad).

I find this statement challenging, interesting, maybe helpful to understand the teaching of the church, and very "counter-cultural".

I think the author is wrong. Sex is not any more sacred or closer to God than sleeping, eating, or washing the windows. It is a natural, morally neutral action in itself. And just as with other actions (sleeping, eating, washing the windows) it's the motive, context and result with which you do it that gives it a moral value. (Yes, I think it's possible to sin by washing windows!)

It is powerful, certainly. It probably has dimensions we don't fully understand, just as we don't fully understand the construction of the human organism (how body and spirit connect, what the "structure" or limits of the spirit bit are, etc.) It wouldn't surprise me to find out that just as sex has physical consequences, it has spiritual ones. Seems like pretty much everything we do does.

But if you [general you] are dealing with something powerful you don't fully understand, it's a good idea to listen to the developer. Read the manual. Or if you're someone who doesn't accept the Bible's authority, at least listen to the collective time-immemorial wisdom of the human race as a whole, and get a counterbalance to the rather unusual ideas current in modern western cultures. The details will differ from culture to culture, but the broad outlines seem pretty plain. Sex and marriage go together, you may not have sex with just anyone you please, you can expect Bad Things™ to happen if you allow your desires complete free rein, faithfulness is good and unfaithfulness is bad. There's a bunch others, of course.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Good sex involves giving oneself completely to another in trust, love and abandonment

I disagree. There are emotional and psychological components that make a committed relationship more satisfying in the long term, yes. However, to say only this results in good sex is inaccurate.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sex burns. Fire is a good servant. A bad master.

Totally agree.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It is a natural, morally neutral action in itself. And just as with other actions (sleeping, eating, washing the windows) it's the motive, context and result with which you do it that gives it a moral value.

Well said.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Good sex involves giving oneself completely to another in trust, love and abandonment - that's dangerous.

To quote Loudon Wainwright: "… it takes less than two".

K.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
“[Sex] is not dangerous because it is bad, it is dangerous because it is sacred, powerful, capable if it is divorced from the world of love of destroying the personality as effectively as a drug.”

This is precisely what I have always been taught.

The marriage metaphor is one of the central Biblical paradigms. Humanity in general and "God's people" in particular (however that is defined) are "married" to God. Fidelity within that relationship brings unlimited happiness, and infidelity brings the opposite.

The paradigm assumes that the power of this metaphor, both for good and for ill, is replicated wherever the metaphor applies. This is especially true of the sexual relationship, because it is its ultimate expression.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sod you then leo.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Interesting. I often ask myself the question: 'why?' Why is God/the Bible so interested in sex, and especially its prohibitions.

What Bible you reading? In the OT God seems a lot more interested in food than in sex. And more interested in exacxtly how to build tabernacles and sacrifice animals than in the two put together. In the NT there is about, what, twenty-five or thirty times as much teaching about money as about sex? Just a guess, but it sounds right.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is a common idea outside Christianity, that sex is sacred, and close to the divine, for example, see Blake, who also argued that it's repression that makes it dirty.

Not sure Blake counts as "outside Christianity". Maybe standing in the church door and hecking the preacher, but just about inside.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Second, a lack of sexual challenge often has to do simply with a lack of opportunity. Women are not exactly lining up in the street to challenge my sexual faithfulness by seducing me to adultery. I believe I could find someone to sin with if I tried, but generally quite some effort would be involved. Perhaps you have a lot more opportunities than I do, but I think for most people the actual opportunity for sexual sin is rather limited most of the time.

IngoB speaks the truth.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

You need to get out more Ken.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
(Yes, I think it's possible to sin by washing windows!)

How?!?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Like this perhaps ?

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Surely sex and money are both mentioned a lot in the Bible for the same reason -- both are central to human life, extremely powerful forces that can be used either for good or for evil. Not bad things in and of themselves -- necessary things in fact -- but things people often use to hurt each other, thus needing to be hedged about with lots of warnings.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

It is anachronistic to suppose that one can generally project the modern separation of marriage, sex and procreation onto the situation back then. The only ancient situation where such a split occurred regularly is among prostitutes, and scripture is rather harsh on whores... One can read the first nine books of 1 Chr as a more typical expression of the unity of these matters in the ancient mind, and as a testimonial of their importance by the sheer amount of text afforded to them. Scripture may not have sex in modern isolation on every page, but it sure a heck talks at great length about "family matters". And that was not "something else" than sex in the modern sense.

Scripture clearly prioritizes "family matters" - and thus according to modern ideology sex - before all other concerns but one's relationship to God. This is clear in Genesis, where it is the first command given to humans (Gen 1:28, Gen 2:24), part of the failure of maintaining the relationship to God (Gen 3:10-11, Gen 3:16), and the first command given to humans after restoration from corruption (Gen 9:1). This is clear in Christ, who uses this as the only instance where he flat out contradicts (rather than re-interprets) the Jewish law, and indeed Moses himself (Matt 19:1-12). It clearly is a sine qua non for Christ to restore the command of Genesis as part of His final restoration from corruption. And of course St Paul could be rather ferocious on sexual immorality (Rom 1:22-32, 1 Cor 6:9-20, etc.). The first council of the apostles also decided to maintain the condemnation of "porneia" for Christians (Acts 15:28-29). But again, I think it is not sufficient to look just for explicit condemnations of sexual acts as proof of importance. The genealogy of Christ (Matt 1) is in my mind as much "about sex" as St Paul fulminating about visiting prostitutes. It matters who fathered whom, and such a family tree is not some kind of independent matter in the ancient mind. In fact, the maintenance of the family line is just the argument given for the incest of Lot (Gen 19:30-38). This passage is actually one of condemnation, after all the Moabites and Ammonites were associated with it. Nevertheless, I think it shows that the neat separation the modern mind makes did not exist. This was a thinkable (if not sufficient) excuse.

Clearly, scripture is very much concerned with family matters ("sex"). It is not at all considered as a neutral activity among many other everyday concerns. That is also an absurd position to take both from a natural moral law type of analysis, and simple observation of everyday life. Family matters ("sex") are a fundamental concern of our lives. In fact, it is obvious that once the mere survival of an animal is guaranteed (air, water, food), this becomes a primary driver of behaviour, and particularly, a primary driver of relationships to other animals of the same kind. This is no different for humans, for all the cultural and social complexity that we have layered on top of this.

So yes, sex matters. Sex matters to us. Sex matters in scripture and nature. Sex matters to God. And all that much more deeply than most other things. But indeed, if we isolate sex, if we take it out of its context of "family matters", then I believe we are no longer listening to God, nature, scripture and ourselves. We can find quite a bit about that in scripture as well, namely wherever scripture talks about prostitutes, harlots, whores ... that's where scripture talks, roughly, about the modern "isolated" understanding of sex.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is anachronistic to suppose that one can generally project the modern separation of marriage, sex and procreation onto the situation back then. The only ancient situation where such a split occurred regularly is among prostitutes....

Probably true, but you can hardly use that situational argument to persuade someone living in a different situation of the rightness of traditional Catholic morality

Also early Christianity was in some ways rather anti-family by the standards of the time, seen as replacing loyalty to household and clan and city with loyalty to the newly constructed family of the Church

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Probably true, but you can hardly use that situational argument to persuade someone living in a different situation of the rightness of traditional Catholic morality

Sure. I'm hardly trying to proof-text Catholic sexual morals here. The one thing I would feel necessary to defend is that Catholic sexual morals is not incompatible with scripture. My point here was simply that "sex" is very important in scripture, and to God, and that simply counting the number of occurrences of "porneia" in scripture does not do this justice.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Also early Christianity was in some ways rather anti-family by the standards of the time, seen as replacing loyalty to household and clan and city with loyalty to the newly constructed family of the Church

I'm not so sure... I think ancient people had already quite some experience with juggling multiple loyalties, and for the most part Christianity did not directly undermine existing structures, but rather added new possibilities for alliances. One can possibly argue that the modern "nuclear family + large society" set-up is a logical outcome of Christian attitudes. But if so, then I think mostly as consequence of very slow and gradual change.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0