Christians and viewing "sex for enjoyment" as sinful

[redleghunter]

I'm convinced some people don't actually read threads or people's arguments, they just find posts they can throw scripture at.

There may be a reason some people respond with Scriptures on Christian Forums.

 

[SnowyMacie]

There may be a reason some people respond with Scriptures on Christian Forums.

Yes, but I'm talking about people who several days after a conversation has died come into a thread and post the exact same verses at someone that said person already addressed in other posts in the thread.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, but I'm talking about people who several days after a conversation has died come into a thread and post the exact same verses at someone that said person already addressed in other posts in the thread.

Could be two reasons IMO.

1. The passages are valid as plainly written. Which means you will have similar arguments expressed.

2. There is some Fundamentalist Biblical collusion going on here on CF and perhaps the staff should assign a "special moderator" to investigate.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Could be two reasons IMO.

1. The passages are valid as plainly written. Which means you will have similar arguments expressed.

2. There is some Fundamentalist Biblical collusion going on here on CF and perhaps the staff should assign a "special moderator" to investigate.

Yeah, I don't really care about the reasons, I'm just making an observation about a behavior I've noticed on CF.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I believe I have supported my ideas well using the Bible. Paul appealed to the Law of Christ as a determinant for what was moral. I do not think loving God and others is an ambiguous concept.

Even your second assertion refutes the former. Like love itself, the Law of Christ which Paul referred to ("Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." Galatians 6:2) is indeed an ambiguous concept by itself apart from the moral foundation which defines what Christ taught as being law, and thus what love and obedience for Christ meant.

As explained before and ignored, the second commandment (love thy neighbor as thyself) is after the first by necessity. Apart from what love for God means, which is obedience, then all sort of sinful actions can be justified under the rubric of love.

And thus i am sure it is easy to justify premarital sex under the premise that you are helping a person with their sexual burdens, blasphemous asserting this is fulfilling the law of Christ. However, what the Lord Jesus Christ taught while on earth and by His Spirit elsewhere in Scripture is that that the only sanctioned sexual union (that "God hath joined together") is that between male and female in marriage, and that all sexual unions outside of marriage are are only condemned wherever they are manifestly dealt with, then your heretical assertion that "it is not a sin to have non-marital sex - of any kind" is contrary to the Law of Christ.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)

 

[redleghunter]

Yeah, I don't really care about the reasons, I'm just making an observation about a behavior I've noticed on CF.

Quoting from the Bible and providing exegesis is a 'behavior' which should be seen on a Christian site. If some did not do so, then all we would have are opinions.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Quoting from the Bible and providing exegesis is a 'behavior' which should be seen on a Christian site. If some did not do so, then all we would have are opinions.

What point are you making exactly, because I'm not sure you understand my point. My point isn't that I'm surprised, it's wrong, or whatever to quote from the Bible, just simply that come people come into a discussion after it's finished and quote the same passages at a person after that person has already addressed them. It's redundant at that point, that's all I'm saying.

 

[redleghunter]

What point are you making exactly, because I'm not sure you understand my point. My point isn't that I'm surprised, it's wrong, or whatever to quote from the Bible, just simply that come people come into a discussion after it's finished and quote the same passages at a person after that person has already addressed them. It's redundant at that point, that's all I'm saying.

Ah, see what you are saying. Unfortunately, not everyone is on the same schedule and perhaps would like to opine. Is there a rule in this sub-forum I am unaware of which prohibits someone from addressing a particular post already addressed by another?

 

[Apex]

Even your second assertion refutes the former. Like love itself, the Law of Christ which Paul referred to ("Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." Galatians 6:2) is indeed an ambiguous concept by itself apart from the moral foundation which defines what Christ taught as being law, and thus what love and obedience for Christ meant.

As explained before and ignored, the second commandment (love thy neighbor as thyself) is after the first by necessity. Apart from what love for God means, which is obedience, then all sort of sinful actions can be justified under the rubric of love.

And thus i am sure it is easy to justify premarital sex under the premise that you are helping a person with their sexual burdens, blasphemous asserting this is fulfilling the law of Christ. However, what the Lord Jesus Christ taught while on earth and by His Spirit elsewhere in Scripture is that that the only sanctioned sexual union (that "God hath joined together") is that between male and female in marriage, and that all sexual unions outside of marriage are are only condemned wherever they are manifestly dealt with, then your heretical assertion that "it is not a sin to have non-marital sex - of any kind" is contrary to the Law of Christ.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)

I had a very in-depth discussion about this already in this thread. I will respond to your comment, but I will go no further with you. I'm not sure if you noticed, but many of my posts were deleted (maybe even altered) by CF staff. Many here don't care about having an open debate, they just care about winning at any cost and censoring dissenting opinions. This has been quite disheartening.

I'm here to learn and explore my faith - not to fight or insult others.

As for your comment, you said:

Apart from what love for God means, which is obedience, then all sort of sinful actions can be justified under the rubric of love.

I disagree. This only appears to be true when you believe certain behaviors are innately wrong regardless of context. I don't think we can take such black and white stances with sexual behavior. Even within marriage there exists contexts where sex is not lawful, such as coercive or forcible sex. Pretending that the inclusion of context into ethical consideration is too "ambiguous" appears rather contrived.

I'm sorry we disagree on this, but I am not any less of a Christian than you are. I care about what God thinks about my behavior and I want to honor him with my actions.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I had a very in-depth discussion about this already in this thread. I will respond to your comment, but I will go no further with you. I'm not sure if you noticed, but many of my posts were deleted (maybe even altered) by CF staff. Many here don't care about having an open debate, they just care about winning at any cost and censoring dissenting opinions. This has been quite disheartening.

Sounds so self-righteous, but likely the censoring was due to your radical heretical absurdity. If the Christianity of the 1st century taught what you do, that "it is not a sin to have non-marital sex - of any kind," it would justly have been relegated to the heap of unScriptural movements, that's how radical your position is.

I'm here to learn and explore my faith - not to fight or insult others.

You may think that is what you are doing under the guise of exploring "your" faith , but it is an attack on Scripture and the hermeneutics it reveals, and the faith of the ages in it.

As for your comment, you said:
Apart from what love for God means, which is obedience, then all sort of sinful actions can be justified under the rubric of love.

I disagree. This only appears to be true when you believe certain behaviors are innately wrong regardless of context. I don't think we can take such black and white stances with sexual behavior. Even within marriage there exists contexts where sex is not lawful, such as coercive or forcible sex. Pretending that the inclusion of context into ethical consideration is too "ambiguous" appears rather contrived.

That is simply sophistry, for the fact is that there are certain behaviors are innately wrong regardless of context (homosexual relations for one) as well as certain behaviors are wrong only in a certain context(sexual relations in general), but the reality of both does not negate either.

Your damnable error is to reduce a behavior that is always wrong (even before the Law, as shown) and never shown to be sanctioned in Scripture (and as showed, concubinage is marriage) - that of sexual relations btwn unmarried persons - and make it into something that is merely contextually sinful.

I'm sorry we disagree on this, but I am not any less of a Christian than you are. I care about what God thinks about my behavior and I want to honor him with my actions.

Which is also sounds so self-righteous, but you can only imagine that one honors God with fornication - and your justification of it, and playing word games with it will not take away your guilt.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

This much is clear.

Indeed. One can find the like manner of reasoning away the Scriptures in the arguments of prohomosexual polemicists.

 

[Sammy-San]

Augustine and other Church Fathers who believed that sex itself was vile and defiling. In fact, I've heard, I think Justinian, apparently even said the only reason sex is even allowed for procreation is to create more virgins for the church.

Is that totally false? A lot of natural functions aren't supposed to be pretty.

I think sex is allowed temporarily to populate the world.

Church Fathers & Doctors

Having sex with one's pregnant wife was unacceptable. In fact, Ambrose called for his congregation to 'either emulate the beasts or fear God'. Animals, he explained, are only 'animated by the urge to preserve their kind, not by the desire for sexual union. For, as soon as they perceive that the womb is gravid, they cease to indulge in sexual intercourse.' If his audience was not convinced by the parallels to the animal kingdom, Ambrose exhorted them to 'Control your lust and look upon the hands of your Creator, who fashions a human being within the maternal body. If he be at work, will you profane the peaceful sanctuary of the maternal body with carnal desire?'

 

[Sammy-San]

I'm not an expert on patristics, so I'm basing this on secondary literature.

Before Augustine, the church valued virginity. My impression is that they didn't exactly think there was anything wrong with sex, but they believed that being free from the obligations of family and community allowed a higher form of life focused on God. (I note that "family values," as popularized by US Christians, in fact characterized pagan society. A good Roman pagan was characterized by commitment to his family, his city and has country -- though not necessarily his wife. Christians in the early church considered these obligations as something to be transcended.)

Augustine, however, seems to have seen sex as inherently opposed to Christian ideals of self-control, in part because sexual arousal wasn't under voluntary control.

Both led to valuing virginity and considering sexual relationships second-class, and to some extent justified only by the need for procreation. However Augustine and some after him had a darker version of this.

Do you think what he said was definitely unbibical?

 

[SnowyMacie]

Is that totally false? A lot of natural functions aren't supposed to be pretty.

I think sex is allowed temporarily to populate the world.

Church Fathers & Doctors

Yes, I think so. I think that you only need to look no further than the Songs of Solomon to get an understanding of how the Jewish people viewed sex between a married couple as a beautiful expression of love.

 

[Sammy-San]

Yes, I think so. I think that you only need to look no further than the Songs of Solomon to get an understanding of how the Jewish people viewed sex between a married couple as a beautiful expression of love.

Since sex between husband and wife wont exist forever and that may have been the original plan, can't you say it is a temporary thing that God allowed, like incest, to populate the world?

 

[hedrick]

Do you think what he said was definitely unbibical?

Yes. I think it violates the goodness of creation.

In my previous post I was quoting from secondary literature. For this response I’ve taken a look at the most relevant sections of the City of God.

First, it has to be said that Augustine acknowledged that prior to the fall, sex was good. It was, in his view, a purely rational act intended to create children, with our sexual members being moved just as we move an arm or a leg. However the fall corrupted our nature, sex with it. He seems bothered that the movements of sexual organs aren’t rationally controlled but respond to our emotional state. This is true even in sex between married couples, so even there he considers it lust, and even when properly used he considers the sexual parts of our body shameful.

Here’s his description of how it would have been without the fall: “Far be it from us to imagine that, in the midst of such material ease and such human happiness, the seed of offspring could not have been sown without the disease of lust. Rather, the sexual members would have been moved at the will’s command, as the other members are; and, without the enticing goad of sexual heat, the husband would have poured his seed into his wife’s womb with tranquility of mind and with no corruption of her bodily integrity.” … “the male seed could have been discharged into the wife’s womb without harm to the woman’s genital integrity, just as the flow of menstrual blood can now be discharged from a virgin’s womb without any such harm.”

It should not be surprising that given such a view, he prefers virginity, although clearly a married person with faith is preferred to a virgin without. In giving an allegorical interpretation of Gen 6:16, he notes that "Again, and far more suitably, the three stories could be the three abundant harvests of the Gospel— thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and a hundredfold; and in this case marital chastity would occupy the bottom story, the chastity of widowhood the story above, and virginity the highest story.”

I don’t think there’s any Biblical reason to believe that the fall reversed the goodness of creation to the extent that it made parts of our body inherently lustful, even when used properly. Furthermore, I would consider the emotional side of our nature good. It's an inherent part of how we're built. (Augustine probably didn't know that, however, since in his time details of the brain and nervous system weren't known.) God is described in the Bible as having emotional reactions to people and events. Christ wept and got angry. I think his views are a violation of God calling creation good, and that it leads to a serious misreading of the Biblical criticisms of lust, since it transforms them into criticisms of sex itself rather than its misuse.

 

[Sammy-San]

Yes. I think it violates the goodness of creation.

In my previous post I was quoting from secondary literature. For this response I’ve taken a look at the most relevant sections of the City of God.

First, it has to be said that Augustine acknowledged that prior to the fall, sex was good. It was, in his view, a purely rational act intended to create children, with our sexual members being moved just as we move an arm or a leg. However the fall corrupted our nature, sex with it. He seems bothered that the movements of sexual organs aren’t rationally controlled but respond to our emotional state. This is true even in sex between married couples, so even there he considers it lust, and even when properly used he considers the sexual parts of our body shameful.

Here’s his description of how it would have been without the fall: “Far be it from us to imagine that, in the midst of such material ease and such human happiness, the seed of offspring could not have been sown without the disease of lust. Rather, the sexual members would have been moved at the will’s command, as the other members are; and, without the enticing goad of sexual heat, the husband would have poured his seed into his wife’s womb with tranquility of mind and with no corruption of her bodily integrity.” … “the male seed could have been discharged into the wife’s womb without harm to the woman’s genital integrity, just as the flow of menstrual blood can now be discharged from a virgin’s womb without any such harm.”

It should not be surprising that given such a view, he prefers virginity, although clearly a married person with faith is preferred to a virgin without. In giving an allegorical interpretation of Gen 6:16, he notes that "Again, and far more suitably, the three stories could be the three abundant harvests of the Gospel— thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and a hundredfold; and in this case marital chastity would occupy the bottom story, the chastity of widowhood the story above, and virginity the highest story.”

I don’t think there’s any Biblical reason to believe that the fall reversed the goodness of creation to the extent that it made parts of our body inherently lustful, even when used properly. Furthermore, I would consider the emotional side of our nature good. It's an inherent part of how we're built. (Augustine probably didn't know that, however, since in his time details of the brain and nervous system weren't known.) God is described in the Bible as having emotional reactions to people and events. Christ wept and got angry. I think his views are a violation of God calling creation good, and that it leads to a serious misreading of the Biblical criticisms of lust, since it transforms them into criticisms of sex itself rather than its misuse.

So this article is false or a mystery? Was there Sex Before the Fall? A Biblical Analysis.

But what about reproduction? Did not God command Adam before the Fall to be fruitful and multiply? He did. Did they reproduce non-sexually? I think the best analogy here is with death. We know that death is the result of the Fall. Yet, in Paradise, Adam went into a “deep sleep” and awoke with Eve at his side. The Hebrew for “deep sleep” is completely different than the Hebrew for simple sleep, and it refers to death-sleep. This is why Adam’s wakening typifies Christ’s resurrection. Christ dies, and when He “awakes”, He has the Church, the New Eve, at his side.

What we find, then, is that there was no death before the fall, but there was a blessing that is analogous to death. The same, I believe, is true of sex. There was no sex before the Fall, but there was a proces analogous to sex.

 

[hedrick]

So this article is false or a mystery? Was there Sex Before the Fall? A Biblical Analysis.

I can't speak for all the Fathers. I was giving you Augustine. Augustine is really the father of theology in the West. You also need to read that article carefully. It says that there was no sex before the fall, but there was something analogous to sex, to carry out the command to be fruitful and multiply. I think this is the same thing as Augustine's view of purely rational, unfallen sex.

Of course the question is purely hypothetical, since in fact the fall occurred before they got around to having sex (as far as we can tell from the story).

 

[Sammy-San]

I can't speak for all the Fathers. I was giving you Augustine. Augustine is really the father of theology in the West. You also need to read that article carefully. It says that there was no sex before the fall, but there was something analogous to sex, to carry out the command to be fruitful and multiply. I think this is the same thing as Augustine's view of purely rational, unfallen sex.

Of course the question is purely hypothetical, since in fact the fall occurred before they got around to having sex (as far as we can tell from the story).

So impurity doesn't necessarily mean it came after the fall?

 

[hedrick]

So impurity doesn't necessarily mean it came after the fall?

I'm not sure of the exact connection. One major cause of ritual impurity is childbirth. It's pretty clear that this would have existed before the fall, since people were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. I'd say the same thing for sex.

One Jewish understanding is that impurity is the aftermath of holiness, that is, where holiness has been present but no longer is. Hence after childbirth, when life has departed (touching a dead body), after sex or sexual discharges. That understanding would presumably be based on the idea that sex is holy. (The idea that it's corruption is Christian, so it seems odd to read it into Leviticus.)

And remember, the article didn't say there was nothing like sex before the fall. That would violate "be fruitful and multiply." It said it was different than it is now, so that it was like sex but isn't called the same.