Christianity & Sexuality

Why must I always read these late at night when I am way too tired?

CAPAlert also lists "adults in underwear" repeatedly as "Sex". And this is everything from Nicole Kidman in lingerie to Mel Gibson in boxers and a t-shirt.

St. Paul tells us that the human body is corrupt and evil, and therefore any pleasure that comes from it is a product of evil and corruption, except in very special circumstances. So the "sex is filthy" view is not without scriptural backing.

1 Corinthians 7
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

So you don't burn if you're married, but it's still not anything to be proud of. If you can contain youself, stay a virgin, like Paul.

You do burn if you are married but you have a moral outlet for the natural God given sex drive. What he said is that he wished everyone could stay a virgin. A married man has divided interests. And this seems to be Pauls opinion largely.

I, for one, am glad someone is finally taking a stand against inappropriate rowdiness in movies.

So, Scott, you don't think Paul thought the body and sex were sinful? Is not a distraction from God sinful? He doesn't exactly seem to be subscribing to the "sex between married people is a beautiful gift from God" idea...more like, "If you can't help it, go ahead, but I really wish you wouldn't."

Just my take, obviously.

Here's another quote, btw:

1 Corinthians, Chapter 7

7:1
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

See above.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scott Standridge Will Eat You Alive:
<strong>So, Scott, you don't think Paul thought the body and sex were sinful?</strong>

No. Look at the quotes I gave you.

<strong>Is not a distraction from God sinful?</strong>

I don't think so.

<strong>He doesn't exactly seem to be subscribing to the "sex between married people is a beautiful gift from God" idea...more like, "If you can't help it, go ahead, but I really wish you wouldn't."</strong>

What he says is "If you can't abstain from sexual immorality get married. If you can abstain do, but don't get married because abstinence in marriage is wrong." So that seems to imply sex in marriage = good, sex outside of marriage = bad.

<strong>Just my take, obviously.Here's another quote, btw:

1 Corinthians, Chapter 7

7:1
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
</strong>

Very challenging. I would have to guess that the Corinthian Church asked him about sexual relations. That makes sense as there was a large temple to Aphrodite there and thus temple prostitutes. Verse 1 seems to answer the question, "Is it good for a man not to touch (have sex with) a woman?" I would imagine they ask this question because their culture taught them that sexual immorality was condoned and perhaps even expected. Paul says that yes it is good not to and to avoid fornication you should be married.

[quote]capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
To Paul's credit, he does say somewhere in there that he's speaking not for God, but as someone who b/c of his sanctioning by God is trustworthy...that is, this is just my opinion, not necessarily God's. However, people taking their cues from the scripture often assume that whatever is in the book is gospel, straight from God. That's why when they read things like "It is good for a man not to touch a woman", over the centuries it gets morphed into an attitude about sex being evil. Which is I think the question that the thread posed.

However, I do maintain that when Paul says "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," that's just what he means--he doesn't mean "It's good for you to touch your wife, but not other women." He means "It's good not to touch women, but if you have to do such a not-good thing, at least do it only with your wife." Now whether this is Paul's opinion only or the gospel, it's there in the book. And it's from passages like that I think this sex==evil idea arises.

That's all I'm sayn'.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scott Standridge Will Eat You Alive:
<strong>[QUOTE]To Paul's credit, he does say somewhere in there that he's speaking not for God, but as someone who b/c of his sanctioning by God is trustworthy...that is, this is just my opinion, not necessarily God's. However, people taking their cues from the scripture often assume that whatever is in the book is gospel, straight from God. That's why when they read things like "It is good for a man not to touch a woman", over the centuries it gets morphed into an attitude about sex being evil. Which is I think the question that the thread posed.</strong>

Right but you admit that it wasn't Paul's original intent to say sex is bad.

<strong>However, I do maintain that when Paul says "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," that's just what he means--he doesn't mean "It's good for you to touch your wife, but not other women." He means "It's good not to touch women, but if you have to do such a not-good thing, at least do it only with your wife." Now whether this is Paul's opinion only or the gospel, it's there in the book. And it's from passages like that I think this sex==evil idea arises.

That's all I'm sayn'. </strong>

Ahhh but when you say that this "It's good not to touch women, but if you have to do such a not-good thing, at least do it only with your wife."

You are adding to what he was saying. He says Not touching = Good. He does not say touching = bad. He was answering a specific question. We can assume the question was "Is not touching good?" because he answers very specifically. If the question had been, "Is touching bad?" then we would likely have gotten a different answer. That's my take anyway.

All I know is that I am Christian and damn am I sexy!

Now who's adding to what he was saying? Let's face it, Paul was never one to twiddle over shades of gray. He was strictly a black and white kind of guy. To me, him saying not touching = good implies touching = bad. Opposite sides of the coin. If touching was good, then the answer to the question would have been no. If touching was good in specific situations, then he'd have said, "It's good to touch your wife, but not others." At least having read Paul's epistles over the years leads me to believe that would be his attitude. If ever there was a moral absolutist, methinks it was Paul.

And I don't think I admitted that Paul's intent was not to say sex was bad, did I? I don't remember doing it anyway. But I have been blacking out and waking up with gold-foil-edged tissue thin paper pages in my teeth lately, so I guess anything's possible...

In short, he says it's good not to touch women. He says if you can avoid touching women, he thinks that's better, but if you can't, you should get married to avoid burning in hell for it. Any way you slice it, that's not a "sex is a gift from God" speech.

Are you sure it's not damned and sexy?

wink

E-GAD! eek!

You know, if Jesus really was a human being, he would average eight erections a night.

Makes ya wonder...

But there's 24 in the box!