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.

[Lux]

Sex out of wedlock is called fornication. The Bible says that fornication is a sin. Sins are violations of moral law. Therefore, those of us that believe the Bible believe that it is wrong (immoral) to have sex out of wedlock.

The problem I'm having is that I feel like I'm missing some part of your logic. I may just be misunderstanding your question. The purpose of sex doesn't tell us much about sexual sins.

I apologize, I was certainly unclear.
My point was that all christians I know pretty much choose which parts of the Bible they follow and which they don't, based on their own morals or logic conclusions. If the Bible says it is wrong to have sex out of wedlock, and it also says sex is exclusively for procreation, you must have some reason why you believe the former but not the latter.

I've heard people say that homosexuality is sinful because it violates nature (which God created, therefore it violates God's will). They say heterosexual couples who are infertile or use protection to prevent pregnancy are not violating nature, but are subduing it. Psalm 8:6, for example, says "You made (man) ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet."

The cause of homosexuality is still in dispute, as far as I know. I believe one is homosexual or heterosexual from birth, because most homosexuals I've met tell me they've felt attracted to people of their same sex since very young ages. Therefore, I conclude that homosexuality is indeed natural. Of course this is just a personal opinion based on observation.

Nature is violated when we act contrary to it. Nature is subdued when we exercise control over it, without doing something contrary to it. If sex is meant to be the means of procreation, then nature demands that it be between a man and a woman. If that is true, then sex between two men or two women violates nature. I'm only vaguely familiar with this line of thinking, so give it a skeptical (but charitable) reading.

Yet humans are not the only creatures that have sex only for pleasure. Also, other animals practice homosexual sex. So how can we think either are unnatural?

[Euphrates]

If the Bible says it is wrong to have sex out of wedlock, and it also says sex is exclusively for procreation, you must have some reason why you believe the former but not the latter.

I think I need to clarify, the Bible doesn't say that sex is exclusively for procreation. I said sex is for the purpose of procreation (not exclusively, though) based on my observations of nature. But, it is entirely consistent to believe that sex is exclusively for procreation and is wrong out of wedlock. They are not mutually exclusive.

I believe one is homosexual or heterosexual from birth, because most homosexuals I've met tell me they've felt attracted to people of their same sex since very young ages. Therefore, I conclude that homosexuality is indeed natural.

That makes sense to me, but Christians believe that sin is natural. The best way I can think to describe why homosexuality is contrary to nature (and not just in a Christian worldview) is by talking about hoses. When you buy a garden hose, it comes with two ends. One is sometimes called a "female" end and the other is the "male" end. The male end is meant to be joined with the female end. That's how they were made... that's how they work. You can put two male ends together and tape it up, but that goes contrary to the way the nature of the hoses.

Yet humans are not the only creatures that have sex only for pleasure. Also, other animals practice homosexual sex. So how can we think either are unnatural?

I'm speaking from the Christian perspective: Having sex for pleasure isn't wrong... if it is done within the context God gave it... marriage. Some animals eat their babies. Would you say that's natural? Dogs eat poop. Is that a good idea? Animals don't always follow nature. They do whatever they want.

[Lux]

I think I need to clarify, the Bible doesn't say that sex is exclusively for procreation. I said sex is for the purpose of procreation (not exclusively, though) based on my observations of nature. But, it is entirely consistent to believe that sex is exclusively for procreation and is wrong out of wedlock. They are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, I see your point now.
You still misunderstand me though, I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I was just wondering why you accepted one but not the other, as I always thought the Bible speaks against sex other than for procreation, since many denominations of christianity oppose contraception and claim that sex should be for reproductive purposes only.

That makes sense to me, but Christians believe that sin is natural. The best way I can think to describe why homosexuality is contrary to nature (and not just in a Christian worldview) is by talking about hoses. When you buy a garden hose, it comes with two ends. One is sometimes called a "female" end and the other is the "male" end. The male end is meant to be joined with the female end. That's how they were made... that's how they work. You can put two male ends together and tape it up, but that goes contrary to the way the nature of the hoses.

I understand. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, I think it's perfectly natural. Perhaps it's because I don't believe in sin.

I'm speaking from the Christian perspective: Having sex for pleasure isn't wrong... if it is done within the context God gave it... marriage. Some animals eat their babies. Would you say that's natural? Dogs eat poop. Is that a good idea? Animals don't always follow nature. They do whatever they want.

Yes, it is natural for some animals to eat their babies. Acceptable for humans? No, not in my society at least, although there are cannibal groups of humans, I believe.
I think the reason some dogs eat poop is because they're starving. I've never seen a dog eat poop if it had a better choice. Humans eat things in order to stay alive that you and I, speaking from the comfort of our homes with fridges and proper food, don't even want to think about. Survival is the first instinct of all animals.

[ChaosBorders]

I think I need to clarify, the Bible doesn't say that sex is exclusively for procreation. I said sex is for the purpose of procreation (not exclusively, though) based on my observations of nature. But, it is entirely consistent to believe that sex is exclusively for procreation and is wrong out of wedlock. They are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, I see your point now.
You still misunderstand me though, I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I was just wondering why you accepted one but not the other, as I always thought the Bible speaks against sex other than for procreation, since many denominations of christianity oppose contraception and claim that sex should be for reproductive purposes only.

Read to the Song of Solomon sometime. Just because some denominations have become prudish (and extremely hypocritical) does not mean the Bible actually speaks against sex other than for procreation. It does speak against sex outside of marriage, but within marriage Paul makes it pretty clear in 1 Corinthians you should actually be having it pretty regularly so you don't get tempted.

2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

[Lux]

Read to the Song of Solomon sometime. Just because some denominations have become prudish (and extremely hypocritical) does not mean the Bible actually speaks against sex other than for procreation. It does speak against sex outside of marriage, but within marriage Paul makes it pretty clear in 1 Corinthians you should actually be having it pretty regularly so you don't get tempted.

2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

That's interesting, thanks for the info.
I wonder where all that "sex is only for reproduction" stuff came from, then...

[Adamoriens]

Male "spiritual headship" (authority) is not THE Christian view, it is only the fundamentalist, ultra-orthodox view. It is never spoken of outside those cricles, and most non-extreme-conservative christians have never heard of it.

The idea is tha the male is in charge, but he needs to love his wife as God loves the church. That's a pretty slim insurance policy given that these same Christians think that all men sin and fall short of the mark.

Is this a No True Scotsman fallacy? There`s biblical evidence that male headship is the Christian view. The story of Adam and Eve, the recurring imagery of Jesus being the head of his bride the Church, Paul`s letters etc.

[Slopeshoulder]

Male "spiritual headship" (authority) is not THE Christian view, it is only the fundamentalist, ultra-orthodox view. It is never spoken of outside those cricles, and most non-extreme-conservative christians have never heard of it.

The idea is tha the male is in charge, but he needs to love his wife as God loves the church. That's a pretty slim insurance policy given that these same Christians think that all men sin and fall short of the mark.

Is this a No True Scotsman fallacy? There`s biblical evidence that male headship is the Christian view. The story of Adam and Eve, the recurring imagery of Jesus being the head of his bride the Church, Paul`s letters etc.

Whether or not it is the consistent view of the sum of biblical authors and their writings is a topic for debate, but sadly outside my expertise. But I was including tradition, theology, and practice in addition to the alleged "biblical view."

[Adamoriens]

Whether or not it is the consistent view of the sum of biblical authors and their writings is a topic for debate, but sadly outside my expertise. But I was including tradition, theology, and practice in addition to the alleged "biblical view."

Ah, I see you're a Catholic. I come from a Protestant background, where Sola Scriptura is the operative principle. Even so, I should think that Catholicism stands on the spiritual headship of the male, given that women are allowed no place in the authoritative hierarchy of the Church, no?

If one reads Paul's epistles and studies early Christianity, one finds that the attitude is somewhat anti-sex and apathetic towards marriage. Paul teaches that celibacy is preferable to marriage (and sex), but that marriage is still an lesser alternative (1 Corinthians 7:1-9, 25-40). One gets the feeling that he thought sex was a necessary evil. This is of course the root of the celibate priest and nun, and this sort of thinking pervades the views of the Church Fathers.

The history of Catholic marriage is very interesting. Apparently the Church didn't have a formal ceremony for marriage (ie. priest leading and blessing the ritual) until the Council of Trent in 1563. Before that, all you needed was witnesses.

[Slopeshoulder]

Whether or not it is the consistent view of the sum of biblical authors and their writings is a topic for debate, but sadly outside my expertise. But I was including tradition, theology, and practice in addition to the alleged "biblical view."

Ah, I see you're a Catholic. I come from a Protestant background, where Sola Scriptura is the operative principle. Even so, I should think that Catholicism stands on the spiritual headship of the male, given that women are allowed no place in the authoritative hierarchy of the Church, no?

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.

FWIW I've NEVER once heard it mentioned outside of american evangelical and biblicist circles.

I can assure you, wife has three degrees in religion, from catholic, protestant, and interfaith universities (I have 2, one C, one P) and if I tried to pull a male headship stunt on her, I'd be dead before I could say "as christ loved the church."

[Adamoriens]

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. Burning calories is defensive, not offensive