What is the purpose of "sexual morality"?

[talitha]

I have seen the results of widespread wanna-be long-term relationships without covenant..... it usually ends up with single mothers and dead-beat dads. In the States or here in Central America, or probably anywhere. It seems that covenant is a necessary component.....

 

[Hestha]

I have seen the results of widespread wanna-be long-term relationships without covenant..... it usually ends up with single mothers and dead-beat dads. In the States or here in Central America, or probably anywhere. It seems that covenant is a necessary component.....

Not if you are an atheist. Atheists do marry, and they marry without God.

 

[hedrick]

Why do you think many Christians treat sexuality specially and think it is unjustified? Like what I said about the obsession with sexual sins?

My feeling has always been that it's closet Gnosticism. Despite theoretically accepting sex as good, Christian teachings and emphases suggest to me a fear and distrust of sex. This is sometimes pretty explicit, going back to the early church.

I'm not denying that sex is an area where we need strong ethics. I'm answering your question about why there seems to be a paranoia.

But there's more going on than Gnosticism I think lot of our preoccupations seem hard to explain without looking at sex and gender roles in traditional cultures. All religions tend to enshrine the cultural values of the people who started them. Christianity is no exception. In fact we've probably done a better job than many religions in extricating ourselves from that. Part of it has to do with Jesus, whose message seems almost carefully designed not to be too tied to a specific culture. But modern Christianity has strong remnants of the cultures in which it developed.

The reason I think it's cultural is the comparison of typical Christian preoccupations with Jesus' own. His biggest concerns are adultery and divorce. I'm actually glad that the church has mostly moved to a non-legalistic approach to handling divorce, but it's instructive to consider why we've been willing to do it there and not in areas where Jesus didn't speak.

Since you are a Christian, would you consider yourself a chaste person? Does a Catholic priest who has spent his entire life, from childhood to death, in a cathedral count as "chaste"? I recall Thomas Aquinas did something like that, so such a thing might apply in Christianity's early days when religious men were expected to be chaste and away from society.

Yes to both. But it's easy for me to be chaste. The Catholic priest in your example is surely chaste as well, barring odd occurrences that I think you're not assuming. But I don't expect everyone to be like those two examples. Chastity applies to anyone who is having only appropriate sexual relations. So it includes many married folks.

CF is not an appropriate venue for a more detailed discussion of this.

----------------------

later addition:

Some of Augustine's remarks suggest that he was offended by the fact that in sex some of our body's reactions are involuntary. To him this violated the ideal of having ourselves completely under control. I'm not sure whether this was just him, or reflects a larger concern.

 

[Hestha]

CF is not an appropriate venue for a more detailed discussion of this.

Of course. The topic of sex is a private issue, unless the private issue raises public concerns, like a widespread epidemic involving a contagious pathogen.

Some of Augustine's remarks suggest that he was offended by the fact that in sex some of our body's reactions are involuntary. To him this violated the ideal of having ourselves completely under control. I'm not sure whether this was just him, or reflects a larger concern.

I have studied Physiology. I think the body's reaction you are referring to is spinal reflex? A reflex is an involuntary movement, like the spinal reflex or the knee-jerk reflex. The spinal reflex is also associated with the copulative process.

I think it is just him. Augustine probably lived in a different time period and had a different thinking about sex. On the other hand, allowing involuntary actions to occur may suggest a lack of self-control. I wonder if one can stop a knee-jerk reaction and how much that would hurt on one's knee.

 

[Voluntary Joe]

Ah, now I know why they are called "sexual immorality"!

From the sexual immoral behavior you listed:

1. inappropriate contentography
2. fantasies
3. physical sex acts
4. adultery

If a man and a woman is in a loving, committed relationship, but for some reason cannot or do not marry, and they have sex with each other to reproduce children, then would that still count as sexually immoral? What if the man and the woman are very faithful to each other but not married to each other? I am not sure if that is possible or has ever happened before, but if such an event happened, would the faithful man and woman have committed sexual immorality? What legitimizes a marriage? A marriage license or a religious wedding ceremony in a church?

When Jesus taught that looking at a women lustfully was the same as adultery and that hatred was the same as murder, He was pointing out the OT law represented standards of the heart and mind not just actions. I certainly would not say a marriage license or state approved marriage is required, but I think the commitment God is looking for is a commitment to each other before God, preferably preformed by a pastor. It's a matter of the heart more than a matter of the world. The world invented the marriage license, but God invented the marriage. I also don't think a married couple must have sex solely for the purpose of reproduction. God gave those people (who would make the commitment) this gift which is enjoyable so within the parameters that God has given this gift then it is meant to be enjoyed.

 

[Hestha]

When Jesus taught that looking at a women lustfully was the same as adultery and that hatred was the same as murder, He was pointing out the OT law represented standards of the heart and mind not just actions. I certainly would not say a marriage license or state approved marriage is required, but I think the commitment God is looking for is a commitment to each other before God, preferably preformed by a pastor. It's a matter of the heart more than a matter of the world. The world invented the marriage license, but God invented the marriage. I also don't think a married couple must have sex solely for the purpose of reproduction. God gave those people (who would make the commitment) this gift which is enjoyable so within the parameters that God has given this gift then it is meant to be enjoyed.

So, from that perspective, that would make atheists' marriages completely null under God? Since atheists do not believe in God or worship God, I would presume that atheists require a marriage license or state-approved marriage to claim that their marriage is legitimate and legal under the country's law. Under God, atheists' marriages would not be legitimate or valid, because atheists do not believe in God or worship God.

On the other hand, from that same perspective, does that imply that Christians do not value holding a marriage license? Hmmm... now I understand why certain Mormon fundamentalists hold multiple marriages. Since the state of Utah recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, I suppose Mormon fundamentalists can still practice their religion, which allows a man to marry more than one woman. The state just does not recognize those unions as husband-wife, but rather, a series of single mothers.

 

[Johnnz]

So, from that perspective, that would make atheists' marriages completely null under God? Since atheists do not believe in God or worship God, I would presume that atheists require a marriage license or state-approved marriage to claim that their marriage is legitimate and legal under the country's law. Under God, atheists' marriages would not be legitimate or valid, because atheists do not believe in God or worship God.

On the other hand, from that same perspective, does that imply that Christians do not value holding a marriage license? Hmmm... now I understand why certain Mormon fundamentalists hold multiple marriages. Since the state of Utah recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, I suppose Mormon fundamentalists can still practice their religion, which allows a man to marry more than one woman. The state just does not recognize those unions as husband-wife, but rather, a series of single mothers.

From the Scriptures Christians accept God as the Creator. Thus, people and marriage are part of that Divine activity. We are male and female, reproduce and provide intergenerational support through family to form our societies.

The interface between the religious and the civil can vary depending on a society at the time. Thus, its not primarily about whether a couple just 'shacks up', has a religious ceremony, or some other recognition of a union, each will either fulfil or fail to fulfil what God intended such relationships to be. For example, there are empty Christian (i.e. did all the right things) marriages and very vital long term but never 'legally married' relationships. In my books the latter comes nearest to fulfilling God's designs for such a relationship.

John
NZ

 

[ViaCrucis]

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. [1 Corinthians 6:18-20]

• What is the purpose of sexual immorality?
• Why are Christians expected to be "chaste"?
• Why is God so concerned about human sexuality?
• Has God set up an unrealistic expectation - chastity?
• How come chastity is considered a virtue when there are non-Christian people who voluntarily remain celibate for other reasons other than God? Or are celibate non-Christians spiritually unchaste but carnally chaste?
• Sir Isaac Newton died a virgin. St. Thomas Aquinas is described or hinted by the Catholic encyclopedia as having died a virgin. He presumably experienced sexual temptation, but he did not succumb to it. What's the big deal with virginity? What is wrong with having sexual thoughts? From a secular perspective, having sexual thoughts is not harmful. If you are merely thinking about sex, who would you harm? Is it a victimless crime or something?
• Does being a "bride of Christ" mean you are wedded to Christ and so being unwedded and idolizing a false god would mean spiritual fornication?

In my humble opinion the purpose of sexual morality is the non-objectification of another human being for self-gratification. A person is a person, not an object; and thus sexual ethics must--like all inter-human ethics--involve the right and good treatment of our fellow human beings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Musicc]

^good post.

Besides, preoccupation with sex may close our minds to other things in life that are beautiful.

 

[Dreamer8]

Well when I look at my girl, I like to not think that she has had sex with 900 guys before me

 

[Voluntary Joe]

So, from that perspective, that would make atheists' marriages completely null under God? Since atheists do not believe in God or worship God, I would presume that atheists require a marriage license or state-approved marriage to claim that their marriage is legitimate and legal under the country's law. Under God, atheists' marriages would not be legitimate or valid, because atheists do not believe in God or worship God.

On the other hand, from that same perspective, does that imply that Christians do not value holding a marriage license? Hmmm... now I understand why certain Mormon fundamentalists hold multiple marriages. Since the state of Utah recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, I suppose Mormon fundamentalists can still practice their religion, which allows a man to marry more than one woman. The state just does not recognize those unions as husband-wife, but rather, a series of single mothers.

Non-Christian marriages are still performed in a ceremony in which both make a vow to each other, so it's still a marriage, but as far as preventing sex from being a sin, this doesn't matter one bit, without faith in Christ sins can't be forgiven so even if sex in an atheist marriage is not a sin, the other sins the atheists commit still warrants divine retribution.

As far as the marriage license, I wish more Christians would place less emphasis on it. I mean it's still okay to get one, honor the governing authorities and all that, but as far as it being a requirement for God to recognize the marriage, I think that is ridiculous. In fact OT law tries to lessen the it's significance by giving the marriage license less power, since the license makes divorce so much easier.

 

[Voluntary Joe]

In my humble opinion the purpose of sexual morality is the non-objectification of another human being for self-gratification. A person is a person, not an object; and thus sexual ethics must--like all inter-human ethics--involve the right and good treatment of our fellow human beings.

-CryptoLutheran

I totally agree, but I place a litter more emphasis on sex being a gift that must be earned and once earned it is owned by the one who earned it.

I think you are absolutely right that objectification places the value of the act of sex above the person being objectified and any lessing of the value of a being created in the image of God is horrendous.

I think once you make that marriage commitment to someone you have earned the right to have sex with them and that right is now owned by you. That is why adultery is like theft because it is giving the right that is owned by your spouse to someone else. It is also why pre-marital sex is wrong because giving sex to someone who has not married you is giving them something that they have not right to accept.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

I'm not so sure. The many fraught posts here on sexual matters, the virtual equation of of 'lust' with simple arousal, the terrible misunderstanding of Matt 5:28, the incidence of inappropriate contentography amongst Christians and the abandonment of traditional sexual moral values by a younger generation suggest to me a real disconnect out there within sections of the Christian community.

Having said that, there is some really good things too.

John
NZ

When you speak of the Christian Community....you have to differentiate between those quasi-christians and real committed Born Again Christians . If youre including all those who profess to be Christians , then its going to throw off the accuracy of your assertions . Do u understand this John ? HOW do you know that the people who have inappropriate content addictions are in fact Born Again Believers in Christ (which is what a true authentic Christian is according to the Bibles mandate to be a CHristian ) ?

 

[Johnnz]

When you speak of the Christian Community....you have to differentiate between those quasi-christians and real committed Born Again Christians . If youre including all those who profess to be Christians , then its going to throw off the accuracy of your assertions . Do u understand this John ? HOW do you know that the people who have inappropriate content addictions are in fact Born Again Believers in Christ (which is what a true authentic Christian is according to the Bibles mandate to be a CHristian ) ?

Read posts here on the Forum on any sexual issue and you will soon recognise what I have referred to.

And, if you are implying that anyone with a sexual issue they are struggling with may not really be a Christian, then we have no common ground.

John
NZ

 

[Hestha]

In my humble opinion the purpose of sexual morality is the non-objectification of another human being for self-gratification. A person is a person, not an object; and thus sexual ethics must--like all inter-human ethics--involve the right and good treatment of our fellow human beings.

-CryptoLutheran

At that point, it sounds like no different from other kinds of ethical behavior, huh?