But.

In the Phillips translation somewhere Paul says something like "and they received in their personalities the consequences of their perversions". There are social consequences and there are psychological consequences for anything sex-related, and right now the consequences of church-inspired social control efforts seem to be the dominant effect. Clearly, a social policy that causes more pain and suffering than it prevents is disfunctional and to be modified. However, are there psychological issues to be seen under the social controls?

For example, social standards fence casual contact between members of the opposite sex, inadvertant touching producing instantaneous apology. Is that because our otherwise raging hormones would have us mating at random in the street, the males displaying like farm animals and fighting like wild animals for the opportnuity to procreate?

*cheering loudly*

Have as much rum as you can manage and, if you ever wanna be pope, you've got my vote.

More seriously, I just don't understand why everyone is so obsessed with sex. It isn't particularly interesting. It isn't even particularly enjoyable. Frankly I'd much rather have a really good meal and stimulating conversation with someone than have to go to bed with them. The discomfort, infections, and the way I was treated by a series of men over 10 years convinced me 15 years ago that I was never going to put myself through this again for anybody and I have kept that rule without any problems and have no desire to break it.

In short I am disagreeing with Erin's fundamental premise that it's beautiful and fun. Nor do I agree that it is a basic human need. It might be for some people but I'm far happier as a celibate and I'm sure I'm not alone.

The word purile springs to mind. I realize that a rant is not supposed to be a reasoned argument, but is it supposed to be stupid? I'd like to see any real evidence that there is any greater degree of sexual malfeasence within the church than outside it? Or is it true just because you'd like it to be true? But I realize that rants are not supposed to represent any real information, just from the gut (or in this case, slightly lower down) opinions.

Still, one would think that even a rant would not descent to this level of shoddy thinking. But I'll take the bait. Sure, the church is trying to control us. Sure, it is trying to interfere with our private lives? Sure, it is trying to make us worry about oursexual behavior. But what's wrong with that? Jesus and his disciples interfered with folks private lives all the time. Jesus told the woman taken in so-called "adultery" to "sin" no more. [Irony]Who the hell did he think he was, laying such a moral judgement on her? That bastard Jesus even told people what to do with their money! Hadn't he read John Locke? Didn't he know that property was an inalienable right? [/Irony]

Probably the saddest thing is that you think you're being daring and provacative, when in fact you're simply being exactly like everyone else. It's not the church that controls people's live these days. It is the media. And you believe exactly what they tell you.

The Church uses it's teaching on stealing to control. Don't do it, this limits my freedom to get the things I want and need.

The Church teaches us not to envy, it even is trying to control the way we think.

Is it the Church that is trying to control us or God? Being a Christian should not be a matter of man made rules but of living to please God. We are guided in how to do this by both inner impression (the leading of the Spirit) and by the Bible (inspired by the Spirit).

The bible has a lot to say on human sexuality not all expressed equally by church leaders, but the over riding clearly expressed view throughout is that sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed, within the bounds of a covenant relationship. This is not control by the church but control by God. I would agree that an unbalanced teaching on this subject has been unhelpful but the free for all thinking of this generation has huge social impact which we have not fully come to terms with yet.

Unless, of course, you are "the church", in which case we've got way bigger problems than just my rant.

I like the idea of not having to feel guilty all the damn time because I happen to favour the fairer sex, but El Cooto's right - a little more focus on monogamy etc might be needed.

Sex is not - at least not to the individual - a

quote:

---

basic human need – as vital as food, water, and shelter

---

Noone ever died because they didn't have sex. Plenty of people are dying right now because they - or more likely their boyfriend or husband - thought they would die if they had to hold off from having sex when their regular partner was away.

I think the church should certainly clean up its act, and I think it could find much better ways to talk about sex. But if people are not to keep on dying, and leaving orphans, and having their children die, we all need to talk about the fact that sex doesn't just happen between two people who feel like enjoying themselves. And that includes the church.

My definition of sex involves me being happy inside my own skin. My female skin. Somedays I even want to proudly show the world my female skin.(well carefully, tastefully selected areas)(and not that often I assure you) and I guess that is my problem. What is wrong with celebrating who I am? Afterall God created this voluptous woman. (Ok I have modified it as the years go on....)

Yet I feel guilty, uncomfortable saying the above. I know I got some of that thinking from the church.

I'd like the church to distinguish between sex as in the verb and sex as in the noun.

The church has a place in the discussion because God created sex and sexuality. Just as long as the church doesn't see itself as God!

It's only in the last 2 years that I realised that the bible was right about sex. Note, not the church. Because the no church has a monopoly on truth.

Not wholly right, but the 80% that I agree with convinces me that the 20% I disagree with has to be worth considering.

There is no basic right or need to sex. There is a need for freedom of choice about sex.

But God created sex for us to enjoy it. We seem to be suckered into the media representation of what they think it ought to be. We seldom see real marriages on tv, because that sort of intimacy is near impossible to portray.
So they try to fob us off with this pale imitation. And, suckers that we are, we believe it.

It's not sex which is vital for humans, surely, but love, and for most, a means by which that love may be expressed. Even celibate people I know have an outlet for their love.....Christians especially.

Watched Moulin Rouge again last night, and a line stuck, something like "The greatest thing that we can learn is to love, and be loved in return" (From another song?)

And isn't it the case that the condemnation we read in the Bible is related to practices which are either exploitative and unloving or have health risks?

I think the Church has for too long been hung up on the practices themselves, when the context has changed. That some denominations (which have married clergy of both genders) consider gay clergy acceptable only if they are celibate is clear evidence for me that it's the sexual act which continues to be a problem and that the proper focus - on loving relationships - is considered secondary.

I see no conflict with Scripture if we got back to condemning exploitation and supporting relationships founded on love.

of course, if that wall were to come down, there'd have to be other changes...and some basic Christian tenets would have to be dusted off.

SOrry. But I found the argument that just because a number of Priests abuse their position sexually, the church cannot teach on sex is mistaken.

Many priests abuse their positions of power - does this mean that the church can't teach about humility? Many priests abuse religion - does this mean that we can't tell people about spiritual matters?

quote:

---

As a bisexual divorcée who is called to neither celibacy nor marriage...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
It's worth noting that any argument based on "the Bible says so" is not going to get a response from me.

---

So what is?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Angel of the North:
So what is?

angel

---

Sorry, just feeling punchy today.

Sex is a gift. I think we would be wise not to misuse it. Is there a "better way" or a "better time" for sex? I think so. Is there an "only way" or an "only time" for sex? I think so, but I'm certainly not always right.

Don't blame it on the church, blame it on the imperfection of particular humans (some of whom make are in the church). Should the church take action when one of its leaders sins (whether sexually or otherwise)? Yes. Is the church wrong to let continued sin go on without correction? Yes. But I don't think the church's error was the first (that would belong to the person who sinned, not the one who failed to correct it) or the worst.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh, I dunno... something that actually addresses my Rant, perhaps. You know, the topic of "the church needs to just shut up about sex because it has done far more damage than good"?

---

so it's not meant to preach what it finds from the bible? Or we're not meant to expect it to?

What about the help that the church has given for those having problems with sexual relationships? the definition of News is something out of the ordinary. Abuse by churches is news precisely because of that - it is out of the ordinary. Most of the time churches have at least made an effort to nurture and care for people.

So, because, so far, mankind has singularly made a mess of the planet*, we should give up existing, and commit mass suicide?

The church as whole has a duty to its members. A priest speaks on the Word of God with reference to the needs of the congregation and the wider community. And where ideas of the grass is greener is wrecking marriages, as one issue among many, maybe it does need to be addressed. Just as the church needs to address communication problems between people.

And we are the church. And we are meant to take care of our neighbours - not to the point of outright nosiness, but we have a responsibility to them. And they have a responsibility to us. So we run shelters, feed the homeless and so on. But we are all broken human beings, and if we are not addressing our own needs, the need to be loved and cherished, then how can we help others without accusations of rank hypocrisy.

Love
Angel

quote:

---

It's worth noting that any argument based on "the Bible says so" is not going to get a response from me.

---

In that case how do you know what God wants you to do is it by an inner impression alone? If so how can you be sure that is God speaking and that impression is not the result of too much cheese for supper? What standard do you use to judge the teaching of the church? Modern public opinion, that will be different tomorrow. If the authority of the church does not come from the bible is the opinion of it's teachers any more authoritative than the opinions expressed by people on The Oprah Show?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
The church has an unhealthy obsession with sex, to the detriment of just about everyone it comes in contact with. If it would expend just 1/100th of that energy on more immediate, pressing concerns than whether or not my having a girlfriend is an abomination unto the Lord, then I'd actually care what it had to say about the subject. The fact that it puts what I do in my own bedroom at the top of its list of concerns illustrates to me that the church, as a whole, simply does not get it.

---

Has that more to do with society's perceptions of the church's message? For example I read on the anglican news service four interesting announcements - relating to the Holy Land, supporting the family, and poverty. The fourth, on sex, was the shortest, and not particularly important one, and that was the one that I saw reported on the secular news.

It becomes a vicious cycle. And one the church can't win at.

Is this the local church, or the national church? If local - change church if you feel that strongly, and vote with your feet.

And with national church, often it's the national media picks things up. The church then gets the message that all the news media cares about is sex, and may be doing a lot of other things, but the only thing that will get any attention is sex.
If they don't say anything, then they're accused of brushing perceived problems under the carpet, if they do, then they're preaching on the wrong thing. However much they're talking about anything else.

And then there's the question of personal selective attention to the church's message, as opposed to news media.

quote:

---

The church has an unhealthy obsession with sex,

---

The reason news media focuses on sex is because it sells. And it sells because we, the public buy it.

One thing occured to me - we're not "allowed" to say how much we give away: "let not the trumpets go before you". Why can't this just apply to sex as well so we can all be left alone to make the choices we're most comfortable with in ourselves? Speaking as someone who has had all levels of heterosexual celibate and married sex-lives flaunted smugly at me (and no, that's not just paranoia). Or have I missed the point again?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
The church has an unhealthy obsession with sex, to the detriment of just about everyone it comes in contact with.

---

You see, this is where I disagree. The Church has had an unhealthy obsession with control, and power, of which sexuality is a significant tool. But I think the church, in it's teachings, has has much less an obsession with sex as with many other things - to the detriment of all. It has not, in general, been able or prepared to provide teaching on sexual matters, because we have been scared of them.

IMO, the church has a right and a duty to be interested in what you do in your bedroom. Not to the exclusion of all else, or over and above other issues. And not simply to say "NO". But to be concerned with you as a whole person. That includes the bedroom, the loo, and the kitchen.

Usually sex is the one picked up on, but mostly there will be nice documents that outline a range of things - c.f. origin of species - Darwin wrote about a sentence on evolution but that's what it's remembered for

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh, I dunno... something that actually addresses my Rant, perhaps. You know, the topic of "the church needs to just shut up about sex because it has done far more damage than good"?

---

What is the most important passage in relation to sexual morality? The same as any other moral question - Love the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbour as yourself. Going overboard on sex is unloving towards those who seek affirmation of their worth before God, unloving towards those who would otherwise be helped if the Church diverted that energy to helping them.

I'm not one for the letter of the law, but I do think a very important principle can be gathered from the Scriptures.
-don't fuck around. It never comes without painful(or itchy) consequences.
-don't screw with sex. It's not to be taken lightly.
-don't screw with a couple other things... animals, your mom, vacuum cleaners(ok so the vacuum cleaner passages are ambiguous)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
The fact that it puts what I do in my own bedroom at the top of its list of concerns illustrates to me that the church, as a whole, simply does not get it.

---

Churches say a lot of misguided, crazy things to control us (or lead us). But in truth; don't we use a measure of reasoning to filter this stuff through our own insight, knowledge, experience...? We aren't like little lambs being led off to slaughter.
Or zombie robots. We hear what the church says; and make our own decisions still. Sometimes with good consequences and sometimes bad.

Sex as a weapon is a true concept, but I don't see the church as the one firing most of the bullets. The media, the capitalistic money market - even the sinful power of one abusive person over another seem a bigger threat.

Sorry, Erin - I don't see that the argument has been developed enough to state that the church has done more damage than good. It's a leap I can't make to come to that conclusion.

Plank..............(sigh)
Because my heart and soul is in this issue......

IMO the reason why the church's comments on sex are so much the focus of the media's attention is that we are almost the only people opposing the general legitimacy of promiscuity and homosexuality (well, some of us!). By contrast the comments on world hunger, the environment etc are echoes of many other groups in society - so the 'media interest' in the view is far less significant.

However I would like to pick up on another point:

quote:

---

Bishop Spong of Newark has attracted MUCH more attention for his views on homosexuality than his denial of Jesus' bodily Resurrection from the dead!

---

Talking to a bishop who has now retired, he was unwilling to act on any of the complete tosh from the likes of Don Cupid on the ground that it wasn't affecting people's behaviour so let the theologians play in their sand pit. 15 years on and the traditional beliefs of the church in sexual morality are in big trouble because the theologians in their sand pit have actually all but demolished the foundation of the church's authority (and vast swathes of the church are ignoring traditional teaching for the views of the world....)

[edited to fix scroll lock]
[tried again]

[ 11 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

Talking to a bishop who has now retired, he was unwilling to act on any of the complete tosh from the likes of Don Cupid on the ground that it wasn't affecting people's behaviour so let the theologians play in their sand pit. 15 years on and the traditional beliefs of the church in sexual morality are in big trouble because the theologians in their sand pit have actually all but demolished the foundation of the church's authority (and vast swathes of the church are ignoring traditional teaching for the views of the world....)

---

ES, I think this is simplistic. It's very easy to divide the Church up into 'liberal' pantomine villains and 'orthodox' heroes. I, though, and many like me [including at least one person hotly tipped for the top job in the CofE], would want to take a progressive line of lesbian/gay relationships NOT because I have abandoned credal Christianity, but because I think that belief in Creation and Incarnation demands a rethink of "traditional teaching."

In actual fact very little of Christian homophobia is well grounded in Tradition (understood, as it must be, with reference to God's act of self-communication in Christ.) Rather the (SECULAR) notions of family values, social stability, gender roles etc. are made to do a lot of the argumentative donkey-work, and the very dubious (and again, secular, albeit old and secular) notion of natural law is invoked.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

...from the likes of Don Cupid...

---

ROTFLMAO!!!

*snort* *giggle*

Perhaps the reason that the church seems to harbour such an "unhealthy obsession with sex" is because so many of its adherants hold to such unhealthily liberal anything goes views of sex. So it becomes a question of cleaning up your own back yard so that you can reach out to the rest of the world more effectively.

Church, yes it can be a bit screwed up in regard to sex, but not all of the Church is the same.

Is the Church hurting people, or are they hurting themselves.

So Erin, its the plank from me (But I bet you sent ME down the plank last year!)