3 "phobic" VALUES OF GOD

[Sammy-San]

At least, it's not something I find persuasive just based on the merits of hygene alone. Alot of other unhygenic things aren't sinful.

People end up in the emergency room from straight sex. Sometimes with serious injuries. You rarely hear about it though, perhaps for obvious reasons (we just don't talk alot about sex period). One reason I don't like the "yuck" and "hygene" arguments. The more you know about sex in general, the less appealing those arguments are.

What about degrading and disrespectful?

Is that applicable to heterosexuality too?

 

[FireDragon76]

What about degrading and disrespectful?

Is that applicable to heterosexuality too?

If you believe gay sex is immoral, then speaking of degradation or disresepect would be more relevant.

Straight sex could be degrading and disrespectful. Casual sex, for instance.

 

[Sammy-San]

If you believe gay sex is immoral, then speaking of degradation or disresepect would be more relevant.

Straight sex could be degrading and disrespectful. Casual sex, for instance.

I'm talking about sex itself.

I've read on one Christian site that one cannot truly respect a naked person. Doesn't mean there's anything sinful about it but still.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm talking about sex itself.

I've read on one Christian site that one cannot truly respect a naked person. Doesn't mean there's anything sinful about it but still.

Nakedness shows vulnerability. That's an image in the Bible and in the wider culture. But I wouldn't say seeing a person naked is automatically disrespectful.

 

[Sammy-San]

Nakedness shows vulnerability. That's an image in the Bible and in the wider culture. But I wouldn't say seeing a person naked is automatically disrespectful.

Meaning?

It said not truly respectful, not outright disrespect. It is indignity at least. Agree?

 

[FireDragon76]

I think you are trying to ask, do I think straight sex is gross or disrespectful? No. But keep in mind, it is seen as gross by some people, people that are asexual or gay, for instance.

 

[danstribe]

In America we have freedom of religion as a fundamental right, and it has always been so.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner". You know, that doesn't even appear in the Bible. Augustine said it. And in my experience, it never works that well.

You are quite right but the principle of hating the sin and loving the sinner is correct. When people first came to America it was for the freedom to worship the God of the Bible as they thought was appropriate since in European countries you could be killed for not adhering to the religion of the state, it was for the Christian religion not for every religion of the world although it has evolved to that condition today.

 

[FireDragon76]

Meaning?

It said not truly respectful, not outright disrespect. It is indignity at least. Agree?

Not all vulnerability is bad. Vulnerability can push us out of our comfort zone which is an important part of spiritual and mental growth. Think of Jesus washing Peter's feet. Jesus was making himself vulnerable, and challenging Peter to do the same as his master. He was challenging Peter to move out of his comfort zone, making him vulnerable in the process and exposing his discomfort with accepting humility (we see this repeatedly with Peter).

There's a really good bit of theology by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, called The Body's Grace, that I think is worth reading on this subject of how vulnerability in sex can be a good thing, even if the sex itself is less than morally praiseworthy.

BTW, the original baptismal rite in most churches involved nudity.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not all vulnerability is bad. Vulnerability can push us out of our comfort zone which is an important part of spiritual and mental growth. Think of Jesus washing Peter's feet. Jesus was making himself vulnerable, and challenging Peter to do the same as his master. He was challenging Peter to move out of his comfort zone, making him vulnerable in the process and exposing his discomfort with accepting humility (we see this repeatedly with Peter).

There's a really good bit of theology by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, called The Body's Grace, that I think is worth reading on this subject of how vulnerability in sex can be a good thing, even if the sex itself is less than morally praiseworthy.

BTW, the original baptismal rite in most churches involved nudity.

vulnerability meaning?

 

[Sammy-San]

I think you are trying to ask, do I think straight sex is gross or disrespectful? No. But keep in mind, it is seen as gross by some people, people that are asexual or gay, for instance.

It is indignity. Do you agree?

 

[FireDragon76]

You are quite right but the principle of hating the sin and loving the sinner is correct. When people first came to America

Excuse me, but the first people in America weren't even Christians. They were the ancestors of American Indians. But of the European settlers, not all were escaping religious persecution. In fact large sections of the south had a state church, usually the Church of England (what later became the Episcopal Church). So what you are describing is not typical of all early American settlers. In fact the earliest American colony was started in Virginia with profit as the only motive.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is indignity. Do you agree?

No, because indignity implies that something isn't worthy of respect and honor. Two married people having sex isn't unlawful or immoral, so it should be considered honorable and having dignity.

 

[Sammy-San]

No, because indignity implies that something isn't worthy of respect and honor. Two married people having sex isn't unlawful or immoral, so it should be considered honorable and having dignity.

What about indecent and improper?

 

[FireDragon76]

vulnerability meaning?

Potential emotional hurt or offense. That's what vulnerability is about. Stripping down naked, people can check you out. They could crack a joke about your figure, about your sexual desirability etc. You are making yourself vulnerable, and you are handing over your sense of dignity to them and trusting them not to hurt you in return. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself, it depends on the situation.

I guess I have read so much academic stuff, I am not used to having to try to define terms. I just understand them intuitively.

What about indecent and improper?

No

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

No, because indignity implies that something isn't worthy of respect and honor. Two married people having sex isn't unlawful or immoral, so it should be considered honorable and having dignity.

If the "two married people" are engaging in sexual perversion, then it should never be considered honorable, only anti-God and totally despicable. Pseudo"marriage" in that case, certainly not true marriage before God.

 

[Sammy-San]

No, because indignity implies that something isn't worthy of respect and honor. Two married people having sex isn't unlawful or immoral, so it should be considered honorable and having dignity.

What is your view on this article?

Gay Marriage & Christian Hypocrisy

When it says "united in law," it is talking about the law of the state, not the law of God. The "legal duties" are not referring to those listed out in God's Word, but those listed out in the contract concerning the protection of corporate assets with each spouse towards the state.

It seems flawed to me.

 

[Sammy-San]

If the "two married people" are engaging in sexual perversion, then it should never be considered honorable, only anti-God and totally despicable. Pseudo"marriage" in that case, certainly not true marriage before God.

What do you mean by sexual perversion?

 

[Sammy-San]

Potential emotional hurt or offense. That's what vulnerability is about. Stripping down naked, people can check you out. They could crack a joke about your figure, about your sexual desirability etc. You are making yourself vulnerable, and you are handing over your sense of dignity to them and trusting them not to hurt you in return. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself, it depends on the situation.

I guess I have read so much academic stuff, I am not used to having to try to define terms. I just understand them intuitively.



No

I've heard people say "improperly, before married".

 

[Sammy-San]

If the "two married people" are engaging in sexual perversion, then it should never be considered honorable, only anti-God and totally despicable. Pseudo"marriage" in that case, certainly not true marriage before God.

What is the difference between sinful and despicable?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What is the difference between sinful and despicable?

Sinful would be against God.

Disgusting rather minor habits might be the basis for categorizing someone/something as despicable, without the perhaps aesthetic features being anything against God.