[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to the whole "sex isn't sacred" hubbub...WARNING:LONG.
To all,
Several things occurred to me after my initial post...
1st, listservs are great. They let you write all your thoughts out, rather
than chopping them up in conversation.
2nd, listservs are terrible. They let you write all your thoughts out,
rather than chopping them up in conversation.
I _love_ conversation. Most of my "assertions" are really questions.
Aren't questions the basis of this life? Even to the school that uses the
Bible to defend their thoughts and says, "Stick that in your pipe and smoke
it"?
I wish I could just sit down and _talk_ with y'all sometimes. My feelings
on this subject are extremely conflicted. I was raised lukewarm Lutheran,
took a teenage trip through Existential Buddhist Christianity, made a
college pitstop in charismatic (and I daresay, self-righteous?) Baptist
leanings, and finally ended up here... Where is _here_ again? Oh, yeah,
Christ saved me, and I love and try to obey Him for it.
And you know what? I think a lot of us probably talk about sex in very
certain terms, but have no idea what the hell we _really_ believe now, much
less what we'll believe in 20 years...
Sorry to anyone who is stolidly self-assured...
I'm about to "answer" a lot of questions posed to me in replies; however, I
must share a couple complications first...
1. What responsibilities _does_ the Christian artist have to unbelievers?
Do we ascribe to art for art's sake, or art for God's sake?
2. Is this whole discussion over "Hey You" really about the Christian view
of sex within marriage? If so, can desire for one's spouse ever be sinful?
If so, is the word "fuck" the epitome of that? If not, where's the Biblical
basis for that? After all, if marriage is truly the symbol of the union of
Christ and the Church, then isn't one spouse supposed to submit to the
other?
On to the "answers"...
>aren't gifts from God able to be used as a means of worship?
You are absolutely right. As long as we remember that they're never TRULY
ours. Sex... used as means for private worship... Yeah, I'm warming to
that thought, on some shaky grounds...
>it's a temple, which means it should be treated well.
IF the heart is in it for God. The body should not be treated well all the
time. What on earth would fasting from food be for, then? Why was Christ
crucified by choice--an awfully nasty way to treat one's body? Why does the
Bible say to "not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a
time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer." 1Cor7:5 Isn't that not
treating the body well? Personally, I believe that it is necessary to
consistently recognize that one's sprit is more important than one's flesh.
Also, why would Paul say it's better to remain single?
>if we are to joy in the things
>that God has given us, that means sex, too. you can't just drop it outside
>the loop because it is tabu; it doesn't work like that.
I hope you don't believe me a prude, because I am FAR from that... I
actually have thought a bit, and I was erroneous in my assertion that sex
shouldn't be used in worship... The truth is, EVERYTHING should...
With--and I thank the gent who brought this up--the right _HEART_. Should
sex be just a form of _private_ worship, rather than public worship,
perhaps?
If this is true, does that mean that sex should really be held in more
private regard, if it should be used as a form of public worship?
>i think worship can be gritty and solid, that it's not all about prayer
>and holy mutterings to the ceiling in the dark, and that some forms of
>worship are not eternal in expression, but in meaning. a man will not stop
>loving his wife when they go to heaven.
I agree with the first part, wholeheartedly. You trampled on my
shot-in-the-dark verbal vomit. However, I must request a clarification,
here, Rhys? Do you believe that we retain our marriage-brand of love in
heaven?
>It sounds like you're walking dangerously close to a sort of
>Gnosticism...Jesus was raised in a physical body, else, we
>would've had his spirit walking around, but his body still in the
>tomb...and it says "we will be raised like him"...like Jesus we will
>be raised in a spiritual body (it won't be tainted by sin), but it
>will be PHYSICAL. I really see Jesus as God with skin on, meaning
>that the physical world IS SACRED.
>perhaps it's due to the pluralistic society
>and the greek influences on our own modern day christianity
>to believe that we are split in half.
I've never thought I'd be accused of Gnosticism, but okay... I humbly ask
that you notice my assertion that we are _married_ to our physical bodies,
not _divorced_ from them. I also believe that our resurrection-bodies will
be physical, but not necessarily in our current form. Most theologists with
any humility will tell you that the Bible gives us no basis to believe that
our resurrection bodies will certainly be like our current ones... We just
don't know...
If the physical world were truly sacred, would it need redemption?
Also to consider: "As was the earthly man, so are those who are of earth;
and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And
just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the
likeness of the man from heaven." --1Cor:48-49 (better in context)
>i'd have to fall along
>with mr. lewis here and say "say what?"
>perhaps it's due to the pluralistic society
>and the greek influences on our own modern day christianity
>to believe that we are split in half. at the same
>time plodding and fleshy, yet flitting and pure.
Actually, my thoughts on the matter were largely taken from a C.S. Lewis
piece entitled, "Eros." In fact, he said,
"There's no living with (the body) till we recognise that one of its
functions in our lives is to play the part of buffoon...The fact that we
have bodies is the oldest joke there is... The highest does not stand
without the lowest. There is indeed at certain moments a high poetry in the
flesh itseelf; but also, by your leave, an irreducible element of obstinate
and ludicrous unpoetry... When natural things look most divine, the demoniac
is just round the corner."
>(ephesians 5:31-32) the relationship between husband
>and wife is a mystery compared to christ and his
>church. stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Paul is actually careful to say that he is "talking about Christ and the
church" here, when he refers to It All as a profound mystery... I think we
all need to be careful about interpreting that particular passage.
>all throughout scripture god sets himself up
>as a jealous lover.
A jealous lover... I'm not sure I see that in "throughout" the Bible... I
see more of a parent. But that's a matter of an individual's perception of
the Lord, which I'm sure will change throughout life.
>to think that the human act
>of sex doesn't connect you spiritually to whomever
>you've done it with it, i'm here to tell you,
>is hopeful yes, but not true.
I never said that sex wasn't an act that spiritually connected one with
someone else. You misread me.
>Making love is the deepest, most moving experience sex-wise, that two
>people can share. But occasionally, rough and tumble physical
>gratification is what those two people most desire at the moment. And
>that is okay. *between two people who honestly care about eachother*
Okay, this is where I would _really_ like this conversation to go... _Is_
it okay to focus on fulfilling one's desire through another? Or is it more
correct to focus on fulfilling _another's_ desire? Isn't denying self, and
fulfilling others, the heart of Christianity? These are my prime questions
in this. (I don't even PRESUME to have an answer to this awfully complex
question; I would just like someone to bite.)
>I think responsible exploration of ones sexuality
>is a very healthy thing to do...All of that can be
>incredibly destructive too. It just depends on attitude.
Where does the dangerous nature of sex dwell? Vulnerability? I must
disagree with these particular views of sex, because I've led myself through
incredibly destructive paths with sex, all in the name of being "healthy."
I denied that my experimentation was anything but unhealthy until it was too
late.
I feel--in my life, at least--that it's much easier to convince myself that
something is permissable, than to convince myself that it is wrong.
>if the body wasn't so important
>to God, then why would he bother glorifying it in Heaven?
Are you talking about the resurrection body? Where is earthly flesh
glorified in heaven?
I appreciate, by the way, the comments on Song of Solomon.
I take comfort in the fact that someday, all will be made known...
Thank you all for your passionate thinking...
Sherry
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/