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)
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
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.How whole grains effect sexuality is beyond me. LOL
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."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.
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.
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.
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.Yeah, obviously I don't get that reasoning and logic. I'm sure it led to many miserable lives.
Much of that was based on the published works of the father of western medicine, Hypocrates who wrote circa 400 bc.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.
And who in this day and age would go for either a polygamous or arranged marriage?
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/
You may find this article interesting: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).
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.
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.And who in this day and age would go for either a polygamous or arranged marriage?
The officiant and the couple alike are breaking state law if they get married without a license.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?