Is sex really the greatest threat to Christianity?

[tugofwarstrum]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/removingth ... istianity/

So my understanding of sex within the compounds of Christianity is it is a very red hot nuke button, but to be the greatest threat I'm not sure of. I would argue that reason is more dangerous because with reason homophobia, racism, sexism, heck even the bible goes out the window. I say this because with sex being a red hot nuke button reason goes out the window as soon as it get's brought up. So my question for you is this, what do you think is the greatest threat to Christianity?

I want to quickly say fear mongering, debunking whether the christian god exists, or trying to edge someone into doing any of the previous is not the goal nor will I tolerate it.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by tugofwarstrum]

No, that would be the Devil.


Sex is a gift from God to married couples, not a threat at all.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Strider324]

[Replying to post 1 by tugofwarstrum]

No, that would be the Devil.


Sex is a gift from God to married couples, not a threat at all.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

And presumably the only acceptable sex is for procreation. Does that mean that Christians honor their religion by ceasing to have sex once they are in their early 40's and the women are no longer fertile?

[JehovahsWitness]

And presumably the only acceptable sex is for procreation.

No, that is not a biblical idea. From scripture sex is both for the procreation of the species and for the expression of love and affection and for procuring and giving sensual pleasure to one's marriage mate.

That, at least is the Jehovah's Witness view, I can't tell you what other Christian groups believe on that matter.


JW

[JLB32168]

And presumably the only acceptable sex is for procreation.

The Song of Songs/Solomon isn’t about procreation.

[Strider324]

And presumably the only acceptable sex is for procreation.

The Song of Songs/Solomon isn’t about procreation.

No, it isn't. It also isn't about sexual love - at least according to both Jewish and Christian dogma, as the former sees it as an allegory of the relationship between Israel and Yahweh, while the latter sees it an allegory of Christ and his church.

Regardless, you still cannot say that it allows for non-procreational sex, as the lovers involved would logically be assumed by the religious dogma to be celebrating their sexual love - in the context of having sex - for procreation only.

So we are still left with the 20 centuries of Christianity demonizing all sexual activity that was not for procreation only. The most stark example being Lev 21:18, which states that if a man and woman have sex during her menstruation (when procreation is not possible), they are to be cast out.

[bluethread]

And presumably the only acceptable sex is for procreation.

The Song of Songs/Solomon isn’t about procreation.

No, it isn't. It also isn't about sexual love - at least according to both Jewish and Christian dogma, as the former sees it as an allegory of the relationship between Israel and Yahweh, while the latter sees it an allegory of Christ and his church.

Regardless, you still cannot say that it allows for non-procreational sex, as the lovers involved would logically be assumed by the religious dogma to be celebrating their sexual love - in the context of having sex - for procreation only.

So we are still left with the 20 centuries of Christianity demonizing all sexual activity that was not for procreation only. The most stark example being Lev 21:18, which states that if a man and woman have sex during her menstruation (when procreation is not possible), they are to be cast out.

From what I see on this site, the Scriptures do not say enough about sex. Time and time again, detractors like to point out the Scriptures do not condemn polygamy and do not speak directly to all forms of homosexuality.

Your "logical conclusion" regarding the Song of Songs is not Scripture and would need to be established elsewhere. One can not discount the sensuous nature of SoS based on an unsubstantiated "logical" conclusion. Your reference to a symbolic interpretation is to the doctrine of the 1st and 2nd century rabbis, designed to gain favor for it's acceptance in the Haftorah. This was accepted and expanded upon by the RCC and it's offshoot. There is nothing that I can find in the book, or the entirety of Scriptures, that requires a symbolic interpretation.

Lev. 21:18 says, "No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;" What does that have to do with sex? If you mean Lev. 15, that is about blood, not sex. Also I don't see anywhere where one is cut off for having sex during niddah(menstruation). It just makes one unclean, so one can not go to the Temple until one undergoes a mikvah(baptism).

[Bust Nak]

Neither? We don't have road rules because we care about driving. We have them because care about people's safety without undue burden on drivers or pedestrians. I certainly would not come to the conclusion that the government is pro-drivers from looking at road rules.

Oh great so we agree - substitute road rules for sex rules. It's about concern for people without undue burden.

Only agree up to a point. It is undue burden on unmarried couples and same sex couples. [strike]Undue[/strike]Reasonable burden would be something like practice safe sex, or have one sexual partner at a time.

[Strider324]

And presumably the only acceptable sex is for procreation.

The Song of Songs/Solomon isn’t about procreation.

No, it isn't. It also isn't about sexual love - at least according to both Jewish and Christian dogma, as the former sees it as an allegory of the relationship between Israel and Yahweh, while the latter sees it an allegory of Christ and his church.

Regardless, you still cannot say that it allows for non-procreational sex, as the lovers involved would logically be assumed by the religious dogma to be celebrating their sexual love - in the context of having sex - for procreation only.

So we are still left with the 20 centuries of Christianity demonizing all sexual activity that was not for procreation only. The most stark example being Lev 21:18, which states that if a man and woman have sex during her menstruation (when procreation is not possible), they are to be cast out.

From what I see on this site, the Scriptures do not say enough about sex. Time and time again, detractors like to point out the Scriptures do not condemn polygamy and do not speak directly to all forms of homosexuality.

Your "logical conclusion" regarding the Song of Songs is not Scripture and would need to be established elsewhere. One can not discount the sensuous nature of SoS based on an unsubstantiated "logical" conclusion. Your reference to a symbolic interpretation is to the doctrine of the 1st and 2nd century rabbis, designed to gain favor for it's acceptance in the Haftorah. This was accepted and expanded upon by the RCC and it's offshoot. There is nothing that I can find in the book, or the entirety of Scriptures, that requires a symbolic interpretation.

Lev. 21:18 says, "No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;" What does that have to do with sex? If you mean Lev. 15, that is about blood, not sex. Also I don't see anywhere where one is cut off for having sex during niddah(menstruation). It just makes one unclean, so one can not go to the Temple until one undergoes a mikvah(baptism).

I am no way discounting the sensuality expressed in the SoS. I am pointing out that based on everything else that Christianity and Judaism teaches about the bible, we have to assume this instance of sensuality was pursuant to the desire to procreate. Sex happens to be quite sensuous regardless of the underlying reason for it. Therefore, pretending that the SoS somehow indicates that sex solely for pleasure is approved of is not supported. You said so yourself - the SoS had to be 'sold' as allegory in order to make it palatable.

Yeah, that's my bad. It's what I get for assuming that a Christian source would actually have bible verses tagged correctly.

The correct verse is Lev 20:18 - "If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people."

[JehovahsWitness]

No, it isn't. It also isn't about sexual love - at least according to both Jewish and Christian dogma, as the former sees it as an allegory of the relationship between Israel and Yahweh, while the latter sees it an allegory of Christ and his church.

You are aware I presume of the principle of prophetic dramas (types and antitypes) where bible characters and the real life situations they face (often unknowingly) are patterns for other spiritual applications? Abraham and Issac would be one, where the sacrifice Abraham was willing to make was a drama that illustrated how God would sacrifice his son (Jesus) for mankind.

The reason I ask is because you seem to be suggesting that if the love the Shulamite maiden had for her Shepherd boy was comparible to the love that Christians have for their God, then that love must have been ... "allegorical love" (whatever that is). But then did Abraham have an "allegorical" son? or perhaps you are suggesting that if the love the couple had for each other was romantic (erotic) in nature it was somehow "dirty" so it couldn't be used to picture the love of the born again Christians for their Groom?

Love is not just sex. The love the Shulamite had for her Shepherd boy wasn't just about "sex" , the book is about loyalty, morals and the ability for people to overcome obsticles to be together. Still the love was clearly romantic (sexual) in nature. Both of them speak of the others physical attributes and unashamedly praise the others beauty and express what effect that had on them. So the book is very clear about the motivation that draws them to each other and it's not to make babies. Indeed there is to my knowledge no reference to children at all and it stretches the imagination to believe that they only wanted to be together to procreate when they explicitly state they want to be together to express their love for each other.

Regardless, you still cannot say that it allows for non-procreational sex.

And you cannot say it does not. Besides, what is non-procreational sex? The distinction is arbitary and meaningless, especially in bible times.

To illustrate: If your doctor said you are too thin and must put on weight. If you enjoyed food and loved to eat when you ate is that "fat making eating' or "non-fatmaking eating"? Would that mean that you never eat just for the pleasure of eating. Maybe in some circumstances you'd eat when you didn't feel like it, but would that mean that you would never eat just because you wanted to? And if you ate because something looked and tasted good to you, what catagory of eating would that be?

Although women have always known their natural cyles (a woman is only fertile about 6 days a month) without modern means of contraception all sex would ultimately have been "procreational" even if the individual engaging was doing to because they wanted to express love and enjoy the physical closeness.

The lovers involved would logically be assumed by the religious dogma to be celebrating their sexual love - in the context of having sex - for procreation only.

This point is based on a false premise which scripturally has yet to be substantiated. Popular religious dogma aside, there is nothing in the bible that suggests that sex between married people is solely for the purpose of procreation.

(Note: while Adam and Eve were indeed told to procreate they were not told NOT to touch each other but for that purpose and given human make up such a prohibition would certainly be necessary if it were displeasing to God for them to have sex just for the pleasure of it. Humans are sexual in nature and the drive to have sex is very strong in most normal human beings. Given is fact it is logical that God would be explicit as to the prophibitions in this area; since ther bible is indeed quite clear as to the limits of sexual behaviour, it seems logical to assume that the lack of a prohibiton or at the very least a clear biblical principle that having sex just to express love to ones marriage mate is wrong, means there is no reason to conclude it is frowned upon by our Creator)

[bluethread]

I am no way discounting the sensuality expressed in the SoS. I am pointing out that based on everything else that Christianity and Judaism teaches about the bible, we have to assume this instance of sensuality was pursuant to the desire to procreate.

No, we don't. If one is not part of those doctrinal or rabbinic schools, one does not have to.

Sex happens to be quite sensuous regardless of the underlying reason for it. Therefore, pretending that the SoS somehow indicates that sex solely for pleasure is approved of is not supported. You said so yourself - the SoS had to be 'sold' as allegory in order to make it palatable.

That is not my argument. My argument is that the Scriptures do not discourage sex for pleasure, except in those cases where procreation is explicitly indicated. My reference to the doctrine being used to gain acceptance into the Septuagint was in a reference to SOME of the involved. The Hebrew Scriptures existed long before that and, apart from the same rabbinics that make practically every passage symbolic, there is no reason to ignore the narrative nature of the book.

The correct verse is Lev 20:18 - "If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people."

Thank you, I will make note of that. However, that chapter is speaking of various types of sexual relations, not the purpose. This verse is about an issue of blood, not pleasure.