Christianity and Sex

[gboy72590]

Let me start off by saying that "By no means am I claiming that I hold the right and/or wrong views and opinions on this topic," I am merely stating certain views that I've encountered from my Christian friends, and my views on them. Feel free to debate these views or try to disprove them.

Lets start this off with a big one: Christians view on Pre-marital sex and abstinance.

A major view that a lot of my friends hold is that the Bible forbids premarital sex and that it "makes God sad" for you to sleep with some one, whether out of love or lust, before you are married. My first view on this is obviously, why does it matter, especially if you love someone, to have sex with them before you marry them? First, marriage in a sense can mean to things: one is a "legal" marriage. The other is an "emotional" marriage. These two things are very similar but not the same. One major flaw I see with "no sex before marriage" is; which type of marriage does it mean. I can understand and agree with this policy if it means an "emotional" marriage, by which I mean a great attraction and love for a person who feels the same about you, and you treat him or her as your significant other. So in this since, you have everything that a legal marriage should have, except the legal document stating that you are legally binded to one another. In all senses, doesn't it make sense for it to mean an emotional marriage, because an emotional marriage actually involve love, where a legal marriage doesnt, unfortunately, always contain love. With that said, why is it that it is the current fad among teens and young adults to believe and practice the thoughts of that sex is immoral and wrong before young legally marry someone, and that it magically becomes beautiful and right as soon as you get a peice of legal paper. People marry, or don't marry, for many different reason. Some marry for love, others for money and benefits, and others because they are simply to afraid of commitment, or afraid of breaking a commitment. Now why does it seem to make any sense, that sex should only be enjoyed by two people who are legally binded, but may or may not love each other? It doesn't. Sex should be enjoyed by anyone who is emotionally attatched and devoted to one another, whether they are legally bound or not. On that note, it also should not matter if one has premarital sex, or sex in general, with some one they are not emotionally attatched too. What Im saying is that, casual sex between two consenting and reasonable adults, is not wrong. My main personal view is that I don't believe the view of premarital sex being wrong, because of my already stated reasons coupled with the fact that I have yet to see any solid statements in the Bible banning premarital sex.

My next view that I want to talk about is; why do Christians view sex in general as something sinful and disgusting. Did God not create us? And did He not also create sex between us? So why is it that something God created in us, is viewed as disgusting and wrong? Is sex really wrong, or is it more that we as a society are prone to be afraid of things, in this case; teen pregnancy and STD's? Did we just come up with this idea of sex to prevent these things? I think we did, because as we've lengthened our life times as time goes on, we are now looking down on a natural instinct, made by God, that is hitting us at an age that, a few hundred years ago, would be our sexual prime and we would be married and having kids. We need to look at these views and realize that sex is a natural thing that shouldn't be viewed as wrong or shameful.

With all that said, I open up the floor to you.

[Slopeshoulder]

The lingering and crusty old patriarchal aspects of RC hierarchy are a source of pain, controversy, and discussion. All but the most paleo-orthodox catholics disagree with the vatican, including many people actually In the vatican.
On the level of catholic in the pew, male headship is either unknown or abhorrent. Catholics pretty much feel the same way about it that secularists do: it's tragicomic. I'm offended that I'm actually having to burn a calorie discussing it.

I assumed the New Testament was an authority on the Christian worldview.

It is AN authority, but IMO it:
- is not THE authority
- is not to be interpreted in either a plain sense or ossified way. The jury is WAY out on whether the bible commands male headship, and if it does the jury is WAY out on whether this is core tradition or something to be jettisoned.
Are you arguing for sola scriptura AND for a literalist, plain sense, or unchanging reading and application of it? Are you sugegsting that because a few old chauvanists may have said some dumb stuff on this and many other topics that we invest their words with unchaning authority? Sorry, my faith journey doesn't get on that boat.

Actually I'm struggling to know what it is you are debating. Do you have a point, or just a series of quips?

[Adamoriens]

The jury is WAY out on whether the bible commands male headship, and if it does the jury is WAY out on whether this is core tradition or something to be jettisoned.

Eph 5:22-31:
"Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are members of his body. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh."

3:18-19:
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."

And so on. More similar passages in Titus and Corinthians. I don't think the jury's out on whether the bible commands male headship. It most certainly unambiguously does.

Are you arguing for sola scriptura AND for a literalist, plain sense, or unchanging reading and application of it? Are you suggesting that because a few old chauvinists may have said some dumb stuff on this and many other topics that we invest their words with unchanging authority? Sorry, my faith journey doesn't get on that boat.

Actually I'm struggling to know what it is you are debating. Do you have a point, or just a series of quips?

This isn't the first time I've been accused of a straightforward literalist reading of scripture, as if there's something primitive and naive about it. I'm not talking about a few old chauvinists, I'm saying that they were all old chauvinists. I'm not investing their words with unchanging authority, I simply assumed a Christian would invest them with at least some. If I had a point (or a series of quips, quipii if you like), it would be that Christianity is or has been for these two thousand years a crusty patriarchy and that it developed this doctrine at the very beginning. Actually, if you appeal to Genesis (as chauvinists frequently do), it was developed before the beginning ie. inherited from Judaism.

[Slopeshoulder]

The jury is WAY out on whether the bible commands male headship, and if it does the jury is WAY out on whether this is core tradition or something to be jettisoned.

Eph 5:22-31:
"Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are members of his body. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh."

3:18-19:
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."

And so on. More similar passages in Titus and Corinthians. I don't think the jury's out on whether the bible commands male headship. It most certainly unambiguously does.

Are you arguing for sola scriptura AND for a literalist, plain sense, or unchanging reading and application of it? Are you suggesting that because a few old chauvinists may have said some dumb stuff on this and many other topics that we invest their words with unchanging authority? Sorry, my faith journey doesn't get on that boat.

Actually I'm struggling to know what it is you are debating. Do you have a point, or just a series of quips?

This isn't the first time I've been accused of a straightforward literalist reading of scripture, as if there's something primitive and naive about it. I'm not talking about a few old chauvinists, I'm saying that they were all old chauvinists. I'm not investing their words with unchanging authority, I simply assumed a Christian would invest them with at least some. If I had a point (or a series of quips, quipii if you like), it would be that Christianity is or has been for these two thousand years a crusty patriarchy and that it developed this doctrine at the very beginning. Actually, if you appeal to Genesis (as chauvinists frequently do), it was developed before the beginning ie. inherited from Judaism.

That's helpful, and I think I better understand your position. You may be right. I'm no apologist for those dudes on these issues.

But please consider this: For many modern Christians (and if you've read my other posts around here, you can see that my own "christianness" is pretty goddam fluid), there are some questions and a choice:

- Is the plain sense reading the only or the best reading? is this what many Christians do? I say no, and I know there are many superb feminist theologians doing great work in this area. And in this regard, the jury is, I assure you, way out. If anything, headship is down 99-1 in the ninth. Unless you're a ultra-conservative protestant. I used to know those guys. Don't get me started. Nd it is "primitive or naive" to read scrpture in a literal or straighforward way if 1. you ignoire then evidence tha many christians do not do so, and . you thereby intend to indict the religion. there is not a single tradition, country, religion, or belief system that could survuve that approach. If, because Jefferson, Hamilton, or Paine got a bunch or stuff wrong, should I emigrate?

- Should we follow the letter or the spirit of the text? Shoud we take it proscriptively or thematically? I vote for spirit and thematically. In that way, the text and tradition become a resource, not a liability or laughingstock

- is the text an idol, or is the starting point of a living tradition? (BTW, Jews are very good at this). I suggest starting point.

- do things like reason, conscience, learning, data, expertise, culture, doctrine, the work of theologians, ethicsts, social scientists, etc have an equally normative role? I think so. If scrpture is supposed to remain ultimately normative, then maybe they get 49%, but that only works if they are free to interpret the text in a way that is workable today. Otherwise it dies and should die.

- is it OK to disagree with Paul? Yes. Who nominated him to be mr. perfect? His genius is obscured if he is thought to be infallible.

Ultimately, it raises the question of whether or not Christianity should be defined or indicted based on the NT alone, and a particluar reading of it. I say no on both counts. Otherwise I'd be long gone.

Back on topic, my view is that sex is unchristian (or against most religions and ethical systems) if it lacks consent, freedom, honesty, responibility, mutuality, a sense of the possible, etc. I have no concerns about what one puts where, or with whom, or what they do with it once it's there. This exludes some things, but leaves room for many.

[TheFoolForHimAboveAll]

Okay, to start from the beginning: My beliefs, based on my interpretation of scripture, and personal ideas therefrom.

No, I would not have sex before marriage. If you love them, and God, and vice versa, you should both understand, and abstain until after marriage. I would not marry anyone who did not believe this, regardless of how infatuated I was with them. Several have tried and that was the end right there.

The creation of marriage is recorded in Genesis 2:23-24: "The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman,� for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." God created man and then made woman to complement him. Marriage is God’s “fix� for the fact that “it is not good for the man to be alone� (Genesis 2:18).

The word “helper� used to describe Eve in Genesis 2:20 means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.� Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become "one flesh." This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy. The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:6).

There are several epistles written by the apostle Paul that refer to marriage and how believers are to operate within the marriage relationship. One such passage is 1 Corinthians chapter 7, and another is Ephesians 5:22-33. When studied together, these two passages provide biblical principles that form a framework for a God-pleasing marriage relationship.

The Ephesians passage is especially profound in reference to a successful biblical marriage. "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior" (Ephesians 5:22-23). "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church� (Ephesians 5:28-29). “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh� (Ephesians 5:31).

When a believing husband and wife institute God’s principles, a biblical marriage results. A biblically based marriage is one that is in balance, with Christ as the head of the man and the wife together. The biblical concept of marriage is a oneness between two individuals that pictures the oneness of Christ with His church.