On sex and purity

[circuitrider]

Indeed.

Have you ever seen the drawings for anti-masturbation devices submitted for US patent office approval during the last half of the 19th century? Google it only if you have a very strong stomach. Most of the inventors were SDA (a wesleyan holiness offshoot). Drs Kellogg and Graham (along with Post) invented whole grain foods for the same purpose. (corn flakes, graham crackers)

I've not. I think I'll avoid looking. How whole grains effect sexuality is beyond me. LOL

 

[farout]

Hello,

I've been on a different site that has been discussing pre-marital sex and purity. When I was a kid my family went to a Baptist church where I learned pre-marital sex is absolutely a sin, and purity meant no lustful thoughts, no masturbation, and nothing beyond light kissing in a relationship. I figured that was what all Christians thought until I met a girl in college from a different denomination who felt pre-marital sex was not a sin and that was a misinterpretation, and all the other restrictions that I mentioned above for purity were moot as well. She believed however that promiscuity and sex for the sake of just personal gratification was not something that lined up with God's attitude towards sex.

I understand that particularly with purity, there's a lot of variation in beliefs, and from what I understand of the Bible, it can be pretty vague. I'm curious what is the Methodist take on pre-marital sex and purity? How does one navigate through the Bible on these topics in a careful and thoughtful manner?

Thanks,
Wonder

The Bible is not vague in the least! May I suggest that you real 1 Corinthians 6:12 to7:31. I honestly know once you read these verses you will KNOW for your self what GOD has designed you for and for the best life you can have.

However who ever taught you in the Baptist church you went to as kid gave you some poor advice. All to often unhealthy physically and spiritually opinions are passed on as being Biblically authoritive, when in fact it is misinformation passed on from many generations passed just kept passing it along as being a sin when it is not. 1 Thessalonians 4:4 "that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable." Self pleasuring is not a sin, if you are not involved in inappropriate content or thinking wrong thoughts. That is what the Bible says we must learn to control our body. Unless we learn that God has given human's the ability to relieve sexual tensions, especially when young we can become easy prey for Satan's traps. Learning to control our thoughts and mind is very important in becoming a person that is not constantly thinking of lusting for someone who will submit to our sexual needs. When a person has learned to control their own body, and is learning what the LORD expects, us to be pure before marriage, then it is not as impossible as the world thinks it is.

We all know that when we are young and not married we do pleasure our selves. To suggest we don't is a lie. The lie that self pleasuring is a sin when we are not married is wrong. Does it seem reasonable that a man or woman never has done so, and then gets married and then sexual pleasure is perfectly fine, but learning about ones self before marriage was wrong, is unreasonable and mentally unhealthy. God gave us the body we have, and honest answers to serious questions, deserve direct pure answers, not avoiding these questions by calling self pleasuring a sin...that's a lie!

 

[Qyöt27]

How whole grains effect sexuality is beyond me. LOL

It was the idea that food with a lot of flavor ignited sexual passion, so bland food (like corn flakes and graham crackers...at the time; they'd likely have a heart attack looking at the foods that bear those names today) wouldn't trigger it.

It's hard to wrap your head around the fact that these were doctors peddling in that sort of nonsense, but considering we still have problems with snake oil salesmen - sorry, 'alternative medicine' practitioners/gurus/whatnot - it's not all that surprising.

 

[Dave-W]

so bland food (like corn flakes and graham crackers...at the time; they'd likely have a heart attack looking at the foods that bear those names today) wouldn't trigger it.

Dr Kellogg and his brother (who started the Kellogg company) had a great dispute. The good doctor thought his brother was a total huckster for trying to mass market a "medicine."

 

[dayhiker]

As I have come to understand the message of the Bible the main message seems to me to be that worshiping idols is what makes one impure.
Many of the comments that are used to control single people and their sexual habits I don't find really being taught in the Bible. There seems to be a whole
theology/philosophy that has grown up around sex and marriage that one can't find in the Bible.

The other interesting thing I've found myself thinking about is that there is often the same teaching for singles in their 50's and older who never will have kids
and many who will never marry with the idea of building a family nest egg. Indeed many older singes don't want to mix their finances because they don't want
their kids to have to fight get their inheritance from an other family. With much of the sexual theology of the church being toward single kids as teenagers
and now looking at that message in my 60's I really see most of it no being logical to my situation.

 

[dayhiker]

Food and sex go way back to the early church. Church teachers in the 1st few centuries taught that food did indeed ignite the passions. So Jerome praised one sister
in Christ for her meager diet that was so small she was living in malnutrition of less than 700 calories a day. Which of course meant her body was just trying to stay alive and had no energy to reproduce so all sexual fucntions were shut down. That is the only way I know to shut down what God created us to do: starve ourself to almost death. Or I guess one could do what Origin did and cut himself(some form of castration). But the church did condemn that solution.

Purity is following Jesus. Jesus is our righteousness and sanctification(purity), some some moral standard of sexuality.
That said sexuality is sinful anytime it is used to hurt anyone.

 

[JCFantasy23]

They taught that before you said "I DO," any and all sexual feelings were sinful lust and perversion.

IMO it was a fleshly over-reaction to the "evangelical" efforts of one or more "evangelists" that came to our congregation when the local Children of God cult group folded.

Yeah, obviously I don't get that reasoning and logic. I'm sure it led to many miserable lives.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Food and sex go way back to the early church. Church teachers in the 1st few centuries taught that food did indeed ignite the passions. So Jerome praised one sister
in Christ for her meager diet that was so small she was living in malnutrition of less than 700 calories a day. Which of course meant her body was just trying to stay alive and had no energy to reproduce so all sexual fucntions were shut down. That is the only way I know to shut down what God created us to do: starve ourself to almost death. Or I guess one could do what Origin did and cut himself(some form of castration). But the church did condemn that solution.

Purity is following Jesus. Jesus is our righteousness and sanctification(purity), some some moral standard of sexuality.
That said sexuality is sinful anytime it is used to hurt anyone.

They considered it igniting the passions as seriously as that? Kind of like the oyster being an aphrodisiac thing? Or were they comparing it to giving in to temptations, such as gluttony on food? Whatever the explanation, I wouldn't agree with their reasoning anyway, so I guess there's little point.

 

[dayhiker]

They considered it igniting the passions as seriously as that? Kind of like the oyster being an aphrodisiac thing? Or were they comparing it to giving in to temptations, such as gluttony on food? Whatever the explanation, I wouldn't agree with their reasoning anyway, so I guess there's little point.

Jerome, wrote the Latin Vulgate that was THE Bible in the west for over 1000 years, felt that any sex was sinful. Even married sex. But did make some exception
for married sex that created a baby because the baby would be a virgin.

Back then they had very different understanding of how the body worked and their medical understanding was very different. Galen was an ancient writer that who was an authority. Hard to read as his world view is so different from ours. I find it a miracle That God kept all those ideas out of the Bible so we don't find conflicts with modern medicine today.

In modern terms those that saw all sex as sinful in the early church has one solution to sexual desire. Eat so little that there was energy in our bodies to have sexual feelings. But back then there were hot food and cold food. Men's bodies were hot and woman's bodies were cool. There were whole theories around those and other ideas. This all effected what ones diet should be not just for sexual reasons. Even reading about that stuff left me feeling I couldn't really get into their mind set. At least not with the amount of time I was willing to put into it.

 

[Dave-W]

Yeah, obviously I don't get that reasoning and logic. I'm sure it led to many miserable lives.

We singles were all very miserable. The "morality police" that came around from time to time with their questions were to be dreaded. And I am sure those that were made to stand in front of the congregation and publicly shamed as perverts and sex fiends for masturbating were especially miserable.

 

[Dave-W]

Back then they had very different understanding of how the body worked and their medical understanding was very different. Galen was an ancient writer that who was an authority. Hard to read as his world view is so different from ours. I find it a miracle That God kept all those ideas out of the Bible so we don't find conflicts with modern medicine today.

Much of that was based on the published works of the father of western medicine, Hypocrates who wrote circa 400 bc.

He taught that women had no sexual drive or feelings whatsoever. And men's sexual feelings were somewhat evil. Western medicine took the first part as gospel until about ad 1900 when science "discovered" that women had sexual feelings too.

The denial of that led to a host of symptoms that Hypocrates called "hysteria" from the Greek word for uterus. It was not until about 1950 that the term was removed from medical journals as a diagnosis.

For that history:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480686/

 

[RomansFiveEight]

And who in this day and age would go for either a polygamous or arranged marriage?

In the recent scandal surrounding businesses wanting to refuse gay persons there were some pranksters who ordered wedding cakes featuring a man and three women, "Happy Divorce" cakes ordered, etc., and none were (reportedly) objected to. It is interesting how "Biblical Marriage" has come to mean "almost anything but gays". While I know the issue of homosexuality, specifically, is tumultuous and difficult; the reality is first century marriage was most commonly a man of working age (late teens, early 20's, established enough to be able to provide for a family) married off to a girl who had begun her period (as young as 11 or 13). No courtship, no real engagement period; even the notion of a state sanctioned license or even a wedding ceremony. Yes wedding ceremonies did happen (Jesus was at one after all!); though they look more like what we'd call a "reception" and were largely a secular event and not one the poor often participated it. Quite literally, when you had sex, you were married. For example, when scripture uses language that Mary and Joseph were "engaged to be married" it makes clear that they were committed (likely arranged), but had not yet had sex (preserving the virgin narrative). If they were 'married', they'd have had sex. There was no such thing as being married without having sex. (In the Roman Catholic Church and in the law of many states; if you don't have sex, your marriage isn't truly 'valid'. So if neither challenges the notion that there was no consummation; the marriage can be annulled without the need for a divorce.)

Clearly marriage today is something wildly different than it once was. Even though wedding rings are blessed and a part of our liturgies in most Christian churches; that's a relatively new tradition. Engagement rings don't go any farther back than World War II. Courting was not a reality in the first century. Women, quite simply, were property to be bought and sold. You might buy your wife, or your father might buy one for you. In scripture; there are plenty of examples of wives being given as gifts. Remember the women saved from thieves and the father says, basically, "Take any one you want?". Not that fathers didn't love their daughters; surely they did, but clearly the cultural context was giving one of the daughters to the man who saved them was tantamount to if a man has his wallet stolen and someone else retrieves it, it might be appropriate to grab a bill out and give it to the good samaritan as a thank you for their good deeds. This wasn't a case of "You should meet my daughter Zipporah, you'd like her, tell you what, I'll buy you dinner". It was a case of "Here, pick one". Then you go have sex and you're married. Period.

Circuitwriter has it right that one of the issues with purity is wondering where we draw the line. Should we really be letting the state tell us who is permitted to have sex or not? To reiterate; I still think sexual commitment to ones spouse is the right thing to do. There's a lot of research, aside from the scriptural arguments, to suggest that sexual promiscuity challenges later long-term relationships. Comparisons and expectations are made. People who have few or no sexual partners prior to their spouse actually have healthier, longer marriages. BUT; it is a very valid point that the state might not be the one to decide. Like it or not; Marriage in the Church today is a service of the state with the church acting as the states officer. Some churches do 'blessings of marriages' without a license; are they 'married' if they aren't legally? Inversely, what about someone who just goes to the courthouse, there's no language about God, and there's absolutely no commitment made before God; are they just as married?

At some point we have to recognize that marriage is this incredibly complex, constantly evolving thing.

To answer the obvious question about my perspective; it comes down to commitment. If you know that your expectation is getting married legally and in the church; then I think the right thing to do is to not consider a sexual relationship with someone who you aren't committed enough with to get married. I also know people who are just as committed and 'married' but have never had a wedding or a marriage license. My own parents are that way. My mom married a very dangerous person (My biological father). He was abusive, but our fundamentalist church told her she had a duty to us kids (also victims) to 'stay married'. When she finally figured it out; she divorced him, and realized it was never for the best that she stay married. (And leading research suggests that while divorce is harmful for kids; unhealthy marriages are even more harmful). However she has been so 'soured' on the notion of marriage that the man I call my dad, who I refer to as my stepdad, is not her husband. He's also divorced, twice actually. Both times he was cheated on and left. He's a very gentle trusting guy and, unfortunately, he's been taken advantage of. He also has significantly more assets than my mom and while I don't think that's a motivation in this case, that is actually a motivation to not get married.

Personally? I'd rather see they get married. I'd rather they trust and love each other so much they'd trust each other to the point of facing an institution they've grown to distrust. However, I don't think they are "living in sin", and I don't think that God demands a license from the state in order to consider them married. I'm sure even the most hardened fundamentalist would agree that God is not bound by the actions of the state.

It's also worth mentioning that in most U.S. states, it's illegal to perform a wedding without a license (just like it's illegal to drive a car on a public road without a license). While not often enforced; a Church actually is not "free" to just have a wedding without a license. In the United Methodist Church, that's also a violation of the Book of Discipline.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Much of that was based on the published works of the father of western medicine, Hypocrates who wrote circa 400 bc.

He taught that women had no sexual drive or feelings whatsoever. And men's sexual feelings were somewhat evil. Western medicine took the first part as gospel until about ad 1900 when science "discovered" that women had sexual feelings too.

The denial of that led to a host of symptoms that Hypocrates called "hysteria" from the Greek word for uterus. It was not until about 1950 that the term was removed from medical journals as a diagnosis.

For that history:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480686/

The fascination with sex and sexual organs is bizarre. An while it goes back that far, it's still ever evolving. Today, for example, with breasts and breast feeding. 100 years ago, while women didn't necessarily walk around topless; breastfeeding in public was common. I've even seen old black and white pictures of churches and women can be clearly seen breast feeding right in the pews. Not a special pew behind a screen either; sitting right next to their husbands and other children. It was just seen as a natural reality (and it is).

As CW mentioned; it's also very one-sided. The woman Jesus had spared for stoning for adultery was alone; the man she was caught with was not in the story. And whenever men or boys have sexual desires; it's the responsibility of the women to cover it up. As you noted; if a woman felt sexual desire; she was crazy. If a man felt sexual desire; the women needed to cover up! Women sure have had a hard time catching a break.

 

[Dave-W]

when scripture uses language that Mary and Joseph were "engaged to be married" it makes clear that they were committed (likely arranged), but had not yet had sex (preserving the virgin narrative).

You may find this article interesting:

Was Mary a Virgin?

 

[RomansFiveEight]

You may find this article interesting:

Was Mary a Virgin?

I recognize there is quite a lot of challenge to Mary's virginity; including whether she needed to be and even whether the first Disciples even believed she was (there's a lot of suggestion that the virgin mary is a 'later invention'). My comment was really about the use of language in the scriptures as we have them today and why it's that way.

I will check the article out though!

 

[farout]

In the recent scandal surrounding businesses wanting to refuse gay persons there were some pranksters who ordered wedding cakes featuring a man and three women, "Happy Divorce" cakes ordered, etc., and none were (reportedly) objected to. It is interesting how "Biblical Marriage" has come to mean "almost anything but gays". While I know the issue of homosexuality, specifically, is tumultuous and difficult; the reality is first century marriage was most commonly a man of working age (late teens, early 20's, established enough to be able to provide for a family) married off to a girl who had begun her period (as young as 11 or 13). No courtship, no real engagement period; even the notion of a state sanctioned license or even a wedding ceremony. Yes wedding ceremonies did happen (Jesus was at one after all!); though they look more like what we'd call a "reception" and were largely a secular event and not one the poor often participated it. Quite literally, when you had sex, you were married. For example, when scripture uses language that Mary and Joseph were "engaged to be married" it makes clear that they were committed (likely arranged), but had not yet had sex (preserving the virgin narrative). If they were 'married', they'd have had sex. There was no such thing as being married without having sex. (In the Roman Catholic Church and in the law of many states; if you don't have sex, your marriage isn't truly 'valid'. So if neither challenges the notion that there was no consummation; the marriage can be annulled without the need for a divorce.)

Clearly marriage today is something wildly different than it once was. Even though wedding rings are blessed and a part of our liturgies in most Christian churches; that's a relatively new tradition. Engagement rings don't go any farther back than World War II. Courting was not a reality in the first century. Women, quite simply, were property to be bought and sold. You might buy your wife, or your father might buy one for you. In scripture; there are plenty of examples of wives being given as gifts. Remember the women saved from thieves and the father says, basically, "Take any one you want?". Not that fathers didn't love their daughters; surely they did, but clearly the cultural context was giving one of the daughters to the man who saved them was tantamount to if a man has his wallet stolen and someone else retrieves it, it might be appropriate to grab a bill out and give it to the good samaritan as a thank you for their good deeds. This wasn't a case of "You should meet my daughter Zipporah, you'd like her, tell you what, I'll buy you dinner". It was a case of "Here, pick one". Then you go have sex and you're married. Period.

Circuitwriter has it right that one of the issues with purity is wondering where we draw the line. Should we really be letting the state tell us who is permitted to have sex or not? To reiterate; I still think sexual commitment to ones spouse is the right thing to do. There's a lot of research, aside from the scriptural arguments, to suggest that sexual promiscuity challenges later long-term relationships. Comparisons and expectations are made. People who have few or no sexual partners prior to their spouse actually have healthier, longer marriages. BUT; it is a very valid point that the state might not be the one to decide. Like it or not; Marriage in the Church today is a service of the state with the church acting as the states officer. Some churches do 'blessings of marriages' without a license; are they 'married' if they aren't legally? Inversely, what about someone who just goes to the courthouse, there's no language about God, and there's absolutely no commitment made before God; are they just as married?

At some point we have to recognize that marriage is this incredibly complex, constantly evolving thing.

To answer the obvious question about my perspective; it comes down to commitment. If you know that your expectation is getting married legally and in the church; then I think the right thing to do is to not consider a sexual relationship with someone who you aren't committed enough with to get married. I also know people who are just as committed and 'married' but have never had a wedding or a marriage license. My own parents are that way. My mom married a very dangerous person (My biological father). He was abusive, but our fundamentalist church told her she had a duty to us kids (also victims) to 'stay married'. When she finally figured it out; she divorced him, and realized it was never for the best that she stay married. (And leading research suggests that while divorce is harmful for kids; unhealthy marriages are even more harmful). However she has been so 'soured' on the notion of marriage that the man I call my dad, who I refer to as my stepdad, is not her husband. He's also divorced, twice actually. Both times he was cheated on and left. He's a very gentle trusting guy and, unfortunately, he's been taken advantage of. He also has significantly more assets than my mom and while I don't think that's a motivation in this case, that is actually a motivation to not get married.

Personally? I'd rather see they get married. I'd rather they trust and love each other so much they'd trust each other to the point of facing an institution they've grown to distrust. However, I don't think they are "living in sin", and I don't think that God demands a license from the state in order to consider them married. I'm sure even the most hardened fundamentalist would agree that God is not bound by the actions of the state.

It's also worth mentioning that in most U.S. states, it's illegal to perform a wedding without a license (just like it's illegal to drive a car on a public road without a license). While not often enforced; a Church actually is not "free" to just have a wedding without a license. In the United Methodist Church, that's also a violation of the Book of Discipline.

In some states anyone can do a ceremony but the marriage forms must be filled out and sent back to the issuing agency.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

In some states anyone can do a ceremony but the marriage forms must be filled out and sent back to the issuing agency.

Correct. In Missouri you either have to be a judge or a wedding officiant. The latter is wide open. Anyone can be a 'church' and anyone can claim to be a 'minister'. In a sense, it's as it should be; the state doesn't need to be in the business of deciding which religious institutions are 'valid'.

But my point was rather the inverse. Churches can not, in most states, perform weddings WITHOUT the license. Just like you can't fish without a fishing license or drive without a drivers license; you must have a marriage license. The officiant and the couple alike are breaking state law if they get married without a license. For the purposes of this discussion; that makes this pretty complicated. After all, does the state decide who can morally have sex? That's where the complication is and why I brought that up. Since the state decides who can and cannot be married in modern marriage (as opposed to OT times when, quite literally, when you had sex you were married! And most marriages were arranged, usually through the sale of a daughter or sister. It was also common for a father to give a daughter to one of his sons to use to sell to build a business or travel.)

 

[GraceSeeker]

And who in this day and age would go for either a polygamous or arranged marriage?

I actually think arranged marriages are worth considering. Many people do a poor job of discerning who would/would not be a good mate for them. Oh, they know who they are enamored with, but they have not even thought about what it takes for a healthy, mutually supportive long-term relationship. When things go south, society has told them they can get divorced so many simply take that route. But others desire to make their marriage work, they are as committed to the concept of marriage as the person they are married to, and these people through counseling often go on to have exceptionally strong marriages that are a blessing to both partners. That same commitment that makes a bad marriage work, could be used to build a good marriage from the start if one was in an arranged marriage.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The officiant and the couple alike are breaking state law if they get married without a license.

No they're are not breaking any law. It is that just without the marriage license, the marriage won't be recognized by the state. Thus one is not entitled to file a joint tax return. But there is nothing in the law that says that such a marriage can't be recognized by others parties, such as the church.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I actually think arranged marriages are worth considering. Many people do a poor job of discerning who would/would not be a good mate for them. Oh, they know who they are enamored with, but they have not even thought about what it takes for a healthy, mutually supportive long-term relationship. When things go south, society has told them they can get divorced so many simply take that route. But others desire to make their marriage work, they are as committed to the concept of marriage as the person they are married to, and these people through counseling often go on to have exceptionally strong marriages that are a blessing to both partners. That same commitment that makes a bad marriage work, could be used to build a good marriage from the start if one was in an arranged marriage.

They certainly have a better success rate! I think we need to get away from the notion that EVERYONE needs to be married / have children / etc. Even if most are, not all are called to such things.

But it's hard to ignore the reality that arranged marriages tend to last longer; and that Christians have an above-average divorce rate.