|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Postponing Sex
|
Reuben
Shipmate
# 11361
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl said:
quote:
It's just rather irritating when someone states that the Christian view is that sex before marriage is wrong. That's not correct.
I am intrigued. When you say 'the Christian view' do you mean:
- individuals you know
- denominational positions
or something else?
Most tertiary seminary/bible colleges I know of and most denominations I know of would say that sex before marriage is wrong. (Not to say that most Christians then actually live up to this ideal).
Maybe as you say it isn't correct to say 'the Christian view [is celibacy before marriage]' but I would hazard to say you could readily state 'the vast majority view for churches across the world [is celibacy before marriage]'
We do get hung up on the sex question though. If only we were so concerned about the poor, our gluttony, our gambling, our coveting and all those other sins also discussed in the Bible.
[ 25. June 2013, 12:32: Message edited by: Reuben ]
--------------------
"I got nothing." Barrie Unsworth
Posts: 227 | From: New South Wales | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, that begs the question, doesn't it? What is 'the Christian view'?
If you define this organizationally, then yes, most churches do see sex before marriage as immoral.
However, I have a strong suspicion that measured in terms of individuals, you would get a different result.
I can't find any stats on this actually.
However, in this thread individuals are putting forward different viewpoints, and it's a bit odd if someone says, 'the Christian view' is X, when someone else has just said -X.
Thankfully, nobody has said you're not a true Christian™.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Reuben
Shipmate
# 11361
|
Posted
Yeah I found that study as well but didn't bother linking it as a sample of US evangelicals is a drop in the ocean in some respects on world Christian views.
Just to clarify though the study (the copy I read) stated that 76% of the same GLEs thought sex before marriage was wrong (whilst 80% of them had actually done the deed). And as you say they are not at all far behind the 'secular' youth of whom 88% had sex.
What does it prove? In this study the Christians aren't any different to everyone else.
--------------------
"I got nothing." Barrie Unsworth
Posts: 227 | From: New South Wales | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
How about teaching love, respect for self and others, showing the value of sex as a uniquely unifying and strengthening bond between a committed couple. That is what was modelled to me, and I am glad that I took it on board, and therefore will model the same to my children.
Exactly right. This was also modelled to me and by me to my children.
But there is no need for marriage for any of this - commitment to each other, yes certainly.
Well, this is where we discuss what "commitment" means, because to me, commitment is commmitment for all time, not just for a while, until I change my mind or something changes. Being committed to a cause means being willing to see it through to the end. Being committed to another person means being willing to see the relationship through to the end, and that must exclude an end brought about by me, otherwise it makes no sense. So to me conmitment is another word for marriage.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Laurelin - do you not know any Christians in real life who decided not to wait until marriage? Surely you must have realised even before this that there's a variety of views on the matter? Even individual members of churches who officially teach celibacy before marriage may disagree with the official teaching.
And yes, of course Christians are called to be different, but since our sex lives are nobody's business anyway, why is this area of importance? I mean, Christians aren't called to be different in *every* way anyway, we're not called to dress differently or use different entertainment for example. Some Christians would disagree with me there, but very few. It's our public lives that are supposed to be different, mostly our economic and political lives. Christians following a different economic structure, for instance, seems to be a more pressing concern in the New Testament than making sure everyone keeps in line sexually speaking. Our sex lives are private, or should be.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
But I'm not talking here about Christianity inflicting frightful consequences/punishments on sexual transgressors. I don't harbour any secret sadistic desires to 'punish' people who merrily engage in premarital sex and quite understandably couldn't give a **** about my opinion. Neither am I necessarily horrified by people 'shagging without permission'.
Then why did you couch your position in terms of "consequences" and "permission"? If you're really not interested in that sort of thing, it seems an unfortunate choice of words.
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
What I am saying is that the Christian faith offers a different take on all of this, one that is diametrically opposed to the surrounding culture and which seems to be very austere, i.e. no sex before marriage and remaining forever faithful to one's spouse once married. When a person decides to follow Christ, and is filled with the Holy Spirit, their hearts are changed. No matter what their past has been, or whatever temptations assail them in the present.
That seems like something that could be easily put to the test using demographic data. Do Christians have lower rates of pre-marital sex, marital infidelity, or divorce than members of other faiths or those with no religious affiliation? To the best of my knowledge most data on this indicates either that self-described Christians are either no different than the general population or slightly more likely to engage in the aforementioned behaviors. If I've missed a significant study on this, please let me know.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, I have a strong suspicion that measured in terms of individuals, you would get a different result.
I can't find any stats on this actually.
There was a fairly broad study a few years back titled Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003. It found that virtually all Americans (~95%) engage in premarital sex, and have done so for decades. From a press release on the paper:
quote:
The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.
There was no breakdown by religious affiliation, but given that the U.S. is one of the most self-avowedly religious (and Christian) nations in the developed world I can't think there are significant numbers of U.S. Christians abstaining from premarital sex. Certainly no more than 5% of the adult U.S. population.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Laurelin - do you not know any Christians in real life who decided not to wait until marriage?
Yes. But my friends who - as they would put it - messed up, pretty much take the line that they wish they'd waited, for a variety of reasons.
quote:
Surely you must have realised even before this that there's a variety of views on the matter?
Yes, obviously. Amongst non-Christians. And amongst some Christians who are more liberal, if we must use that word, than I am. The overwhelming majority of my friends and contacts in evangelical circles take exactly the same line as I do.
quote:
Even individual members of churches who officially teach celibacy before marriage may disagree with the official teaching.
In my circles, they don't. And I'm not impressed by people who don't practice what they preach. If people don't actually believe what they're teaching others, they've got no place in spiritual leadership.
Do people mess up? Sure they do. Should the church react with grace and compassion? Absolutely. One of the church's big mistakes in the past - and present - is to react as if sexual sin is the Worst Sin Evah. Of course it isn't.
quote:
And yes, of course Christians are called to be different, but since our sex lives are nobody's business anyway, why is this area of importance?
It seems that many Shipmates hate St Paul, but I don't: I take his teaching as part of the whole counsel of God. Because sex is more than a handshake. Because what we do with our bodies, and how we honour God with them, matters. To Him.
No, we don't go around blaring it from the rooftops. You're right: sex is private. I do take it on trust, though, that my fellow Christians are seeking to live holy lives, including sexual holy lives, whether married or single.
quote:
It's our public lives that are supposed to be different, mostly our economic and political lives.
Not just the public life. Spiritual transformation begins from within. The new heart of flesh replaces the heart of stone. Christ talks a lot about the integrity of the interior life. He gently confronts the Samaritan woman about her relationships with men. Paul gets hot under the collar about the sexual laxity of the Corinthian Christians. You are right about the importance of economic integrity, but is the Holy Spirit only concerned about our public/corporate lives? God wants us to be whole and holy on all levels.
As I said earlier: if I ever started a sexual relationship with someone else outside marriage, I would resign my office as lay minister. My convictions would not allow me to live what I would regard as a contradiction. Other people might wonder why I was making such a fuss about it, but that wouldn't be my concern. I'm not accountable to them.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Well, there are doubts about whether all of the Pauline letters ARE written by Paul, so I think using 'his' writings is always going to be difficult.
Regarding individual members of churches not agreeing with official teaching, I wasn't talking about anyone in a leadership position, just that people are in churches for a lot of different reasons and for some people disagreeing about sex is a small price to pay for the things they like about their church. The RCC springs to mind immediately! Most Western RCs will disagree with the RCC on some doctrines on sex, but they don't want to leave the church over it. I would agree with you that the leadership should practice what they preach, if there is an official position.
I am honestly quite surprised that you don't know any Christians in real life who are fine with pre-marital sex - it's not uncommon. But then perhaps it's a denominational emphasis thing? Most of my Christian friends I know either through church or through SCM things, with a few CU friends - so most of them I know because of their stance on Christianity and politics/social justice, which seems to lead naturally into not considering sex before marriage to be a huge deal. Campaigning against drone strikes would put other people's bedroom activities on the back-burner.
The problem again is that I can't see what is so unholy about having sex before marriage - particularly for couples who can't get married for legal or social reasons, pre-marital sex can be part of living a holy life, because it's loving each other.
Re hating St Paul - I don't hate him, I just think he's been wildly misinterpreted and also a man of his time. I don't hate Shakespeare because of his anti-Semitism, so it seems a bit harsh to hate St Paul just because he's misogynistic at times. God made him a saint, for all his faults.
[ 25. June 2013, 15:25: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Most of my Christian friends I know either through church or through SCM things, with a few CU friends - so most of them I know because of their stance on Christianity and politics/social justice, which seems to lead naturally into not considering sex before marriage to be a huge deal. Campaigning against drone strikes would put other people's bedroom activities on the back-burner.[/QB]
This is a huge non-sequitur. The two issues are not related, and being right on one issue does not give anyone the license to be wrong on the other. Furthermore, a reduced emphasis on something does not mean a change of opinion. "This is not the most important issue in Christianity" does not mean "I think this is not a sin".
Do I wish that some people would spend a bit more time carping on about massive worldwide injustices and less about sex? Yes. Does that make them wrong on sex? No.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It just seems like an argument between evangelical and liberal versions of Christianity, doesn't it? Well, OK, there appear to be some liberal evangelicals, just to muddy the waters.
I'm not sure if these arguments ever get anywhere, as people end up saying, well, you're wrong.
It boils down to interpretation, and it seems tempting to say 'I teach what the Bible says', or some such phrase. Of course, liberals will now become all postmodern and dispute that there is a single correct interpretation, true for all times and places.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, liberals will now become all postmodern and dispute that there is a single correct interpretation, true for all times and places.
My understanding is that liberals started that way, not that they have any need to become so.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, liberals will now become all postmodern and dispute that there is a single correct interpretation, true for all times and places.
My understanding is that liberals started that way, not that they have any need to become so.
I meant 'will now become' in the idiomatic sense of 'will now express the idea of'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Well, there are doubts about whether all of the Pauline letters ARE written by Paul, so I think using 'his' writings is always going to be difficult.
That's really an academic question which has no bearing on the authority of the epistles which we refer to as Pauline. The salient point is that the church has received them as Scripture and authoritative. For convenience, we can continue to refer to their author as "Paul".
I have to wonder whether quibbles over authorship, the specific meanings of certain obscure Greek words, etc. aren't really the thin end of a wedge intentionally driven into Scripture, with the specific aim of discrediting Paul so that the church is no longer bound by what he has written. I have, of course, no way of proving that.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Surely, liberal Christians have often said that they disagree with some elements in 'Paul'. Nothing new here, is there?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, liberals will now become all postmodern and dispute that there is a single correct interpretation, true for all times and places.
My understanding is that liberals started that way, not that they have any need to become so.
My impression is closer to quetzalcoatl's, actually. Not all liberal theology is postmodern, and not all liberal theologians are able to deal with all forms of interpretation. I have an amateur's interest in black British theology, and the black theologians I know have told me that white liberal theology still finds it difficult to accept the validity of black theological insights.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, good point. I'm not sure how many liberals are really all that much into pluralist views - after all, some of them get hot under the collar about evangelicals!
I think also postmodernism is often known through caricature. It's French, wordy, and deconstructs everything, and really, John Bull is better off without it.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, liberal Christians have often said that they disagree with some elements in 'Paul'. Nothing new here, is there?
TBH, I've yet to meet anyone who takes the blindest bit of notice of Paul when he's talking about long hair on men and women. There are a few who look askance at long haired blokes, but that's generally more cultural than theological, but I've yet to find a church that mandates a minimum hair length for women. Similarly, anti-OoW types like to point to Paul, but they don't actually take him at his word when he says that women shouldn't talk in church at all.
It's one of those irregular verbs:
I take culture and context into account when interpreting Scripture;
You're a liberal revisionist;
He's not really a Christian at all.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, and a larger point, the phrase 'this is what the Bible teaches' will have postmodernists drooling with anticipation, as it is so chock-full of assumptions, begging to be uprooted. Can one really have transparent and unmediated access to what the Bible teaches?
How can one determine that one's own interpretation has this mirror-like reflection of the original meaning or intent? And that one is not, whether consciously or unconsciously, using some element of non-Biblical thinking as a tincture?
And in any case, who is to say that we cannot recalibrate some ideas according to our age? But no, that way lies secular heresy!
Going off-topic, but maybe one bright day, I will start a thread on it.
[ 26. June 2013, 09:51: 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Sorry, Karl, that wasn't a larger point, it was the same point!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Can one really have transparent and unmediated access to what the Bible teaches?
Of course not. This is the prime idiocy of some brands of Christian fundamentalism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Can one really have transparent and unmediated access to what the Bible teaches?
Of course not. This is the prime idiocy of some brands of Christian fundamentalism.
Well, that's why it's expressed as a rhetorical question.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
So, are these teachings a matter of pragmatic best practice, or rules that are followed on authority regardless of the consequences?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Can one really have transparent and unmediated access to what the Bible teaches?
Of course not. This is the prime idiocy of some brands of Christian fundamentalism.
Well, that's why it's expressed as a rhetorical question.
Sorry to agree with you. Didn't realize it would cause such pain.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Ooh, sarcasm, get you.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
Even for those of us who do see it as desirable to wait until marriage and in our young adult days likened lack of sexperience to low miles on a used car - whether in ourselves or in a prospective partner - we also want young people to understand the opposite gender well. The two wishes are in conflict.
I'm thankful that my 19 year old son's avoided the three letter word so far - as far as I know. But at the same time I'm a little concerned that he's never been close to a girl. But then I didn't meet my first girlfriend until 26. A generation ago universities/polytechnics contained far more single blokes than girls, as did all six of the churches I attended in the cities I lived in.
I wonder what we do see as the ideal balance - there must be few young people indeed in that situation, and probably always have been.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
I'm thankful that my 19 year old son's avoided the three letter word so far - as far as I know. But at the same time I'm a little concerned that he's never been close to a girl.
If your son's been in mixed-sex education during his school career, he's been close to a very great number of girls, and probably has a very good idea both of what he wants in a girlfriend, and what girls want in a boyfriend.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
contained far more single blokes than girls, as did all six of the churches I attended in the cities I lived in.
Wow, that's completely the opposite to all the churches I have ever known, in which there have invariably been more single females than males.
As a general thing (we have had Ship discussions on the causes) there are more Christian women than men - not sure whether that is the case for all religions.
[ 28. June 2013, 04:02: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
contained far more single blokes than girls, as did all six of the churches I attended in the cities I lived in.
Wow, that's completely the opposite to all the churches I have ever known, in which there have invariably been more single females than males.
Same here. Or rather certainly more women than men - how many are single I wouldn't always know. Lots of them have husbands or boyfriends who don't go to church.
Universities and further education colleges in Britain mostly now have slightly more women than men.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I think a question to ask is why virginity was such an important issue for Paul et al. Scripture doesn't exist in a vacuum; it has historical and cultural contexts.
Of course, there's the patriarchal concern about women as chattel who become "spoiled goods" in those systems if they engage in sexual activity with anyone other than their arranged spouses, and the concurrent concern with children's paternity issues. Another concern in those times was maternal mortality, which was significant (a few contemporary authors compared childbirth to warfare in terms of peril, and at least grudgingly noted that it was one opportunity for women to exhibit the same bravery and self-sacrifice as soldiers on the battlefield). Another concern was STDs, which in those pre-antibiotics days were also life-threatening things.
All those concerns probably played into questions of sexual morality in the early Christian community.
Fast-forward to our time and culture. Unless you're into that sort of thing ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) , claiming male dominion over a woman and her reproductive system isn't an issue. Pregnancy can be an issue; I think it's fair to ponder the ethics of engaging in behavior that has the potential to bring new life into the world without pre-planning and without a stable support system in place to bring it up. STDs are still an issue.
To me, it all comes down to cases. There's a difference between pre-marital sex involving two impulsive teenagers and between widowed older adults on meager retirement incomes who are not able to marry because if they do the female partner will lose her first husband's benefits. (At least in my denomination, most pastors wouldn't give a whit about the latter couple "doing it" sans benefit of marriage.) There's a difference between a couple [trying to veer away from the Dead Horse borderline] postponing marriage in order to earn enough money to throw some spectacular quasi-royal wedding extravaganza and a couple who has to postpone marriage until it becomes legal for them. And there's a difference between love-em-and-leave-em sexual hedonism as a lifestyle and a situation where a committed/faithful couple, for a variety of reasons that are important to them, may delay a public commitment.
I'm not a slave to Pauline social pronouncements, and I also don't tend to be comfortable with blanket "always," "never," "must," "mustn't" pronouncements.
And...who is the designated enforcer of sexual mores in a faith community? I mean, I can't imagine my pastor or our church council birddogging the adults of the congregation monitoring their sex lives. In Lutheran theology we leave a lot of room for the informed Christian conscience, as well as for the fact that we are all simul iustus et peccator, in a world where "the next right thing" is not always clear.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think we should also bear in mind the issue of setting an example.
It's quite possible that you and your well-educated, well-adjusted friends are perfectly able to engage in serial monogamy without any problems. But that might not be the case for everyone in your church, or for everyone in other churches. In the cultural background I come from serial sexual relationships have caused problems, and they also bear the taint of historical injustice. For the churches that exist as part of that culture it's a reality they have to understand and live with rather than ruthlessly condemn, yet it would be unwise of them to dismiss it as a harmless way of life and something to be utterly laid-back about.
So at the very least, Christians should consider 1 Corinthians 8*. Don't lead astray other Christians who aren't as tough, self-confident and self-assured as yourself. Perhaps you can justify sexual licence from your knowledge of theology; what about those Christians who can't? You have the wherewithal to avoid pregnancy, or have the means to raise a happy, motivated child single-handedly - and do so in a Christian environment, training that child in the way s/he should go. What about those Christians who would find it much harder to succeed?
I'm not convinced that sexual licence generally serves the cause of Christianity, and many educated commentators say that it undermines it, on the whole. It would be interesting to be proved wrong.
* http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/8.htm
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Svitlana: Are you addressing me personally? I don't see where I was suggesting "sexual license" anywhere in my post. What I was suggesting is that sexual ethics are by nature situational.
I'd also point out that entering into a faithful committed relationship with another person is on a level different from, saying, choosing to wear one style of clothing over another. Do you think it's fair for, say, two lonely elderly people to be denied the abllity to live as a committed couple in the context of a faith community because it might send the wrong message to horny 14-year-olds? We had just such a situation in our church, for a couple of decades; I doubt that our teenagers (most of whom I'm sure were aware of the family dynamics anyway) were looking to this couple as a role model, except perhaps as a positive role model of faithfulness through old age and infirmity. (They were a couple obviously very much in love with one another, in a cultural milieu where married couples tend to barely look at one another during worship, let alone hold hands!)
In the interest of full disclosure, my partner of six-plus years and I are not legally married because we CAN'T be in our state. I don't think our presence as active members of our parish is giving people license to engage in serial affairs, orgies or whatever you might imagine that it does. My pastor told us that we're one of the most mature and well-adjusted couples in the congregation; I'd hope THAT was the image we're projecting to others.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
LutheranChik
No, I wasn't responding to your post and I wasn't thinking of gay relationships.
[ 28. June 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
LutheranChik wrote: quote:
Of course, there's the patriarchal concern about women as chattel who become "spoiled goods" in those systems if they engage in sexual activity with anyone other than their arranged spouses
Whilst the idea of chattel was probably where the idea of the mohar came from, it had long been replaced by the ketubah - whereby payment was delayed and was made to the wife directly in the event of divorce or death of the husband. And since the new form was seen as fulfilling the needs of the old form, it's likely that things had been seen that way for a while before that. I doubt if patriarchal chattel forms part of Pauline thought in this instance.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Whilst the idea of chattel was probably where the idea of the mohar came from, it had long been replaced by the ketubah - whereby payment was delayed and was made to the wife directly in the event of divorce or death of the husband.
One form of this in European custom is called the dower (not "dowry"), and was customarily give to the bride on the morning after the wedding, and for that reason called a "morning gift." For a land-owning groom, it would be a parcel of land capable of supporting the widow should the groom die.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think a question to ask is why virginity was such an important issue for Paul et al.
Who says it was? How often does Paul write about virginity? Or sex outside marriage? Not very often it seems to me. Arguably not at all.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I wonder how frequently Christian teens postpone "sex" by resorting to blowjobs, saddlebacking, or other things we'd normally consider to be sex but which teenagers regard as a loophole (definitely NSFW) in God's rules? Given the typical fine parsing of technicalities the typical teen will engage in to get around inconvenient rules, I'd guess it's a pretty significant number.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given the typical fine parsing of technicalities the typical teen will engage in to get around inconvenient rules, I'd guess it's a pretty significant number.
Could I venture to suggest that if you're playing the rules lawyer with God, you're doing it wrong.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Could I venture to suggest that if you're playing the rules lawyer with God, you're doing it wrong.
I guess. Though the difference between "rules lawyering" and "following the rules" is largely subjective. For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex or (heterosexual) anal sex?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that begs the question, doesn't it? What is 'the Christian view'?
If you define this organizationally, then yes, most churches do see sex before marriage as immoral.
However, I have a strong suspicion that measured in terms of individuals, you would get a different result.
Even there, you're going to have the divide between opinions and actions. The studies I've seen (possibly outdated) have indicated that the majority of Christians would state that premartial sex is immoral, even though the majority of Christians engaged in premarital sex. Note that it's easier for a happily married Christian to condemn premarital sex, even if they engaged in it long ago ("when I was young & spiritually immature") then it is for a single Christian."
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Could I venture to suggest that if you're playing the rules lawyer with God, you're doing it wrong.
I guess. Though the difference between "rules lawyering" and "following the rules" is largely subjective. For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex or (heterosexual) anal sex?
The Song of Songs encourages heterosexual oral sex. Never seen any reference to heterosexual anal sex in the Bible.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex
If its mentioned at all, and it might not be, it is highly allusively in the Song of Songs where it seems to be approved of. All that stuff abotu sweetness dripping down and opening the door. But then so is the young man who may or may not be a king or prince of some sort having it off with all sorts of even younger girls who may or may not be in the harem of another king. It really is a very, very, heavily coded and metaphorical book.
quote:
For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against [...] (heterosexual) anal sex?
I have a vague feeling there is one verse that seems to disapprove of it somewhere. Not sure where though.
I don't think it makes much difference really. I mean there is no Biblical injunction against adults who aren't married to anyone at all having sex. Its nowhere in the Bible at all, never mind in Paul. But I don't think we can use that to imagine that Paul or wouldn't have thought it was a Bad Thing. It probably went without saying.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex
If its mentioned at all, and it might not be, it is highly allusively in the Song of Songs where it seems to be approved of. All that stuff abotu sweetness dripping down and opening the door. But then so is the young man who may or may not be a king or prince of some sort having it off with all sorts of even younger girls who may or may not be in the harem of another king. It really is a very, very, heavily coded and metaphorical book.
quote:
For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against [...] (heterosexual) anal sex?
I have a vague feeling there is one verse that seems to disapprove of it somewhere. Not sure where though.
I don't think it makes much difference really. I mean there is no Biblical injunction against adults who aren't married to anyone at all having sex. Its nowhere in the Bible at all, never mind in Paul. But I don't think we can use that to imagine that Paul or wouldn't have thought it was a Bad Thing. It probably went without saying.
Re Song of Songs and oral sex - the navel of the Bride filled with wine wasn't her navel...
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It really is a very, very, heavily coded and metaphorical book.
Or simply a paean to the pleasures of sex.
quote:
I don't think it makes much difference really. I mean there is no Biblical injunction against adults who aren't married to anyone at all having sex. Its nowhere in the Bible at all, never mind in Paul. But I don't think we can use that to imagine that Paul or wouldn't have thought it was a Bad Thing. It probably went without saying.
There's dangerous territory. Pick whatever you want to condemn, and in the absence of any Biblical data at all, claim "it went without saying."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
In my past experience and in another life entirely, a visit to the genito-urinary medicine clinic and all its hellish instruments of torture was quite enough.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As Bel Mooney found in making a documentary on the subject, you will never find a happy adulterer.
Certainly not when you have a journalist present who divorced an adulterous husband.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That was years before 2003 Palimpsest and mousethief, it goes without saying and Svitlana2 you're proved right in every case, no exceptions.
None.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
Doesn't sex, like much else, come down to a dialogue with your conscience? Some things are clearly fixed and immutable, such as, most obviously, that thou shall not kill, which I'd imagine that most Christians will accept fairly uncritically, but in the absence of anything that clearly condemns it, then it's about your own perceptions and understanding of where your faith leads you.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nowt ter do wi'it DTO. Consciences are for sale to the lowest bidder. What would Jesus do?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
