Why is sex so interesting to God?

[nobspeople]

We see 'the church' actively trying, throughout history, to control the sex lives of humanity. From saying what's right or what's wrong, to birth control, it seems like 'the church' has an interest in the sex lives of everyone, even committed couples. People even use the bible to say what's right and wrong in the context of sex.
While we can guess why 'the church' is interested in the sex lives of people, what's God's deal?
If he can see everything you do, why does sex seem to be one of his (many) hot buttons? Why does God want to control who (and in some cases, what) people have sex with?
Or does he not care and it's 'the church' that's taking up the battle?


MODS: If this better suits the RELIGION AND SEXUALITY section, feel free to move as necessary.

[Miles]

Responding to Miles, Tcg, and Difflugia: If Miles standard is correct in asking "did their subject matter reference sexual topics?" then I agree that most of the 100 verses qualify.

However, if that is the standard then I am surprised how little the Bible says about sex. Compare the Bible to virtually any other collection of writings aimed at adults. Consider the works of Shakespeare or Dickens or Poe. Consider the collected works of virtually any modern author or TV show or group of movies. Consider any collection of works not aimed at children. Sex is a common topic.

For the most part, also works of fiction.

So indeed, you may have a valid point here.





.

[Difflugia]

Responding to Miles, Tcg, and Difflugia: If Miles standard is correct in asking "did their subject matter reference sexual topics?" then I agree that most of the 100 verses qualify.

However, if that is the standard then I am surprised how little the Bible says about sex. Compare the Bible to virtually any other collection of writings aimed at adults. Consider the works of Shakespeare or Dickens or Poe. Consider the collected works of virtually any modern author or TV show or group of movies. Consider any collection of works not aimed at children. Sex is a common topic.

Sex is part of the human experience, and when we are asking if passage referenced sexual topics then if anything it is surprising that the Bible does not mention sex even more than it does.

I'm not sure what your standard is for claiming that sex is underrepresented in the Bible. I hadn't looked through the "100 verses" (I was only commenting on your statement that the Song of Solomon wasn't about sex), but I did just now. It looks to me like the "100 verses" is seriously leaning on mere mentions of "sexual immorality" in the New Testament while ignoring most of the sexual content of the Old. In any case, I'm trying to figure out if you have yourself missed most of the sex in the Old Testament or if you just think it needs even more than what is already there. As far as just casual mentions, pretty much every time a married couple is introduced, sex figures into the story somewhere, at least in passing. More often than not, any part of the story involving a couple being married or having a child includes an explicit (though not graphic) mention of them having sex. The Abraham version of the Abimelech, "she is my sister" story implies that the King was punished for having sex with Sarah, while the Isaac version explicitly mentions sex, but as a dangerous near miss. Sex or sexuality factors as a plot device in the stories of Judah and Tamar (which reminds me of Amnon's rape of a different Tamar), the rape of Dinah and the subsequent destruction of Shechem, and Joseph and Potiphar's wife. The laws in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers all include various sections revolving around sex, including rules about the sexual use of women and girls as prisoners of war. Numbers has that weird (even for the Bible) test of a woman's sexual fidelity by making her drink contaminated water. The prophets routinely use sexual imagery to describe the relationship between Yahweh and His people, with Ezekiel's being particularly disturbing (again, even for the Bible). Finally, though translators miss it (or ignore it) the entire third chapter of Ruth is just one big, dirty joke when read in Hebrew.

If you don't think there's enough sex in the Bible, then you're just not looking hard enough.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to RightReason in post #40]

proves all the more the need and benefit and important role of family in teaching love.

Yes, love is learn, from many ways, but not through sex IMO.

Well, youre right we do see it as such. No one has to see a tornado as evil, but it would be odd to not see the destructive tornado that destroyed a town and killed people as a big deal. It is a big deal and we all know it.

Which proves what I said earlier. Sex isn't a big deal because it's a big deal, it's a big deal because SOME OF US make it a big deal (sometimes make it a bigger deal than it needs to be or is).

Hmmmm . . . like a tornado? Like rape? The holocaust (simply another act of life)?

Tornado yes. Rape and holocaust is man made and can be considered evil. Sex is not man made and thus, simply is another part of life. You're trying so hard to make it more than it is to prove your point, which, IMO, isn't valid.

Church teaching on moral law only confirms what all can know.

That's a grandiose statement. This would mean ALL churches teach morality appropriately. Which we all know is not a fact. Should they teach goodness? I suppose (depending on the church). Do all of them? No. And as such, your point is again invalid.

Im suggesting we try to see Gods laws as we would those from our own parents.

And I'm suggesting that flawed unless our parents are like God (all powerful, knowing, et al). Which they aren't. Another invalid point on your part as I see it anyway.

All that said, it seems this will continue without getting anywhere. It seems we will have to agree to disagree.

[JehovahsWitness]

The prophets routinely use sexual imagery to describe the relationship between Yahweh and His people, with Ezekiel's being particularly disturbing (again, even for the Bible).

The bible compares the intimacy of the marital contract to the relationship between God and his people. It does not "routinely use sexual imagery" to illustrate this relationship. Indeed the Mosaic law strictly forbade the use if sex in worship and there are no phallic symbols or holy sex rites in pure worship.

That said, there is nothing fundamentally "disturbing" about sex. We are no longer in the victorian age and most enlightened people shaken off the idea that sex is fundamentally "dirty" and ungodly. Sex is a gift from God and the means by which humans participate in one of life's great miracles procreation.

The bible isn't a book for prudes or Puritans, it condems misuse of our sexual organs and warn against the debased sexual practices that degrade humans.

The innuendo that the bible titillates or encourages loose conduct because it documents mankind's sorry conduct when they reject Gods high moral standards, is as ludicrous as the frankly pathetic feigned horror that it is "too too shocking" because it mentions genitalia or sex at all.



JW



RELATED POSTS

What bible principles are violated by the use of pornogrphy?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p844203

Is the Song of Solomon pornographic?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 37#p358037

[Difflugia]

The prophets routinely use sexual imagery to describe the relationship between Yahweh and His people, with Ezekiel's being particularly disturbing (again, even for the Bible).

It does not "routinely use sexual imagery" to illustrate this relationship.

Since this is the only sentence you wrote that addresses anything I said, it's the only one I'm going to address.

The hilarious irony is that you contradicted your second sentence when you wrote the first one:

The bible compares the intimacy of the marital contract to the relationship between God and his people.

Using a euphemism ("the intimacy of the marriage contract") doesn't change the imagery into something nonsexual, nor does the implication that the sexual union is part of a marriage. The Bible routinely compares worship of other gods to "playing the harlot," which can only be meaningful if that worship is imagined metaphorically as illicit intercourse as compared to marital congress with Israel's legitimate husband, Yahweh.

Or are we going to have yet another conversation about how sexuality isn't really sexuality or, apropos to the disturbing imagery of Ezekiel 16 (which, despite your implication, is disturbing for reasons quite aside from mere sexual allegory), that abusive behavior isn't really abusive behavior?

[JehovahsWitness]

The prophets routinely use sexual imagery to describe the relationship between Yahweh and His people, with Ezekiel's being particularly disturbing (again, even for the Bible).

Emphasis MINE

The bible compares the intimacy of the marital contract to the relationship between God and his people. It does not "routinely use sexual imagery" to illustrate this relationship. Indeed the Mosaic law strictly forbade the use if sex in worship and there are no phallic symbols or holy sex rites in pure worship.

Please support your claim of the contrary with evidence:

a) outline the specific "sexual imagery" (breasts, genitals, sexual foreplay, sexual intercourse,... ) you are referring to.

b) present the rationale to support the view the aforement how it is being used to {quote} "describe the relationship between Yahweh and His people"

c) provide enough references to merit the conclusion of the above being {quote} "routinely" done.


Regards,



JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX, SIN and ...HOMOSEXUALITY

[brunumb]

6 Judah chose a woman named Tamar to be the wife of his first son Er. 7 But Er did many bad things. The Lord was not happy with him, so the Lord killed him. 8 Then Judah said to Ers brother Onan, "Go and sleep with your dead brothers wife.[a] Become like a husband to her. If children are born, they will belong to your brother Er."
9 Onan knew that the children from this union would not belong to him. He had sexual relations with Tamar, but he did not allow himself to stay inside her. 10 This made the Lord angry. So he killed Onan also.

This whole passage is utterly disgusting. I can't believe that people willingly worship such a barbarian god.

[JehovahsWitness]

6 Judah chose a woman named Tamar to be the wife of his first son Er. 7 But Er did many bad things. The Lord was not happy with him, so the Lord killed him. 8 Then Judah said to Ers brother Onan, "Go and sleep with your dead brothers wife.[a] Become like a husband to her. If children are born, they will belong to your brother Er."
9 Onan knew that the children from this union would not belong to him. He had sexual relations with Tamar, but he did not allow himself to stay inside her. 10 This made the Lord angry. So he killed Onan also.

This whole passage is utterly disgusting. ...

I find nothing disgusting in the passage apart perhaps for Onan's behaviour. Perhaps you could find the words to explain what you view as "disgusting" and why.


JW

[brunumb]

I find nothing disgusting in the passage.....

Somehow I am not surprised. The Jehovah's Witnesses use the two witness rule to protect sexual predators and pedophiles. The leaders interrogate victims of abuse in the most probing, invasive and insensitive manner one can imagine. This passage with the abhorrent acts on the part of Jehovah and the people involved must inform the thinking of the leadership that sets such policies. Jehovah is never wrong.

[Purple Knight]

I do not have the same expectations. Do you have a problem with that?

It depends on whether or not you acknowledge the general pattern of higher-being-shouldn't-be-concerned-with-sexuality-of-lower-being.

If you're going to declare every cat breeder or member of a nature documentary crew a complicit bystander of rape then I would have a problem with it.

If there's a reason that God doesn't fit the pattern, but you still acknowledge that pattern as valid for other beings, then no. I'm fine with that.

If God has a special exception so be it. I'm most concerned with right and wrong in my life. If I'm a complicit bystander of rape for breeding mice or cats or any other animal where the male can get a little rough with the female, I ought to be concerned with that.

I find nothing disgusting in the passage apart perhaps for Onan's behaviour. Perhaps you could find the words to explain what you view as "disgusting" and why.

I don't find it too terribly disgusting either. I would imagine most people would because they're not bothered by pulling out. I happen to be. I don't know if I can agree with the idea that a puller-outer should be punished with death in our overpopulated society, but my thinking is that in an ancient society where you need every baby, because most of them die, letting him have that female is not only wasteful, but potentially damaging to every other member of that society when they've got to start marrying brother-to-sister because that sicko wouldn't do his part and multiply. If he won't, then at very least, a perfectly good female shouldn't be wasted on him.

I can't agree with the death penalty, but I also see that taking the female off him and letting him live would create a precedent that might be equally damaging to the society. It's, to my thinking, a case of necessary. I'll omit the "evil" bit because I genuinely don't know whether, if something is truly necessary, that excuses it from being evil or not. Libertarians would have me believe that imprisoning violent repeat offenders is evil, regardless of whether it is necessary, because it technically violates their rights (can provide reference upon request). I couldn't tell you whether they're right or not.