saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/10/84)
In one of my articles I said "I believe that the idea behind circumcision is very related to the judeo- christian belief that there is something very wrong with sex" I have been getting a lot of mail pointing out 1/ that judaism doesn't think that there is anything wrong with sex as long as it is done a certain way 2/ that christianity doesn't think that there is something wrong with sex as long as it is done a certain way. The "certain way" for judaism is that 1/ the people engaging in this activity must be: one female and one male. 2/ they must be married, 3/ the sex must be done at night (evenings?) 4/ sex should not be done while the woman is menstruating or right after she has finished menstruating. The restrictions for christian sex are (as far as I know) 1/ and 2/ like for judaism, 3/ Roman catholics are not supposed to use any "non-natural" methods of birth control. I am ignorant about other conditions except that some "guidelines" have recently being published by the catholic church which, among other things, tried to explain to catholics in which spirit they should conduct themselves sexually. One of these guidelines was the infamous "thou shall not lust after thou own wife" (my wording) which was apparently was greatly misinterpreted to mean that one should not feel sexual desire for one's spouse, when the actual meaning was closer to "one should not view one's spouse as a sexual object, but respect him/her as a person" (again my own feminist wording). So these are the "official" restrictions. If I have got some wrong, please correct me on the net. I am not too knowledgeable about any of this, really. As I do not really know much about judaism or about the jewish way of life, I will now turn my attention to the christian part of the problem. Not believing in God, I see the bible not as a holy book, but as a book containing very good advice on how to behave as individuals and as members of a society, so as to benefit the well-being of that society. I think most of the sexual rules in the bible have been placed there as they are good guidelines, which, if respected, will make most people reasonnably happy, and will create less problems for society. I think, however, there is a great discrepancy between this point of view, and the point of view of those who have vulgarised Christianity to bring it to the masses. It is the latest who has had the most profound effect on people's lives, and the latest to which I was refering in my original quote. For a long time, most people did not know about christianity, but simply about "churchality", an overly simplified version of christianity consisting of very simple black and white rules that people are to follow if they want to go to heaven. One of these rules is that sex is bad, except for procreation. This is the background we are now working on; the judeo-christian belief I was refering to is really more a church-rule that has been passed into the consciousness of our society for many centuries, and out of which we are barely emerging nowadays.
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (01/11/84)
A principal reason that the popular image in Christianity of sex being "bad" has to do with the attitudes of St. Augustine of Hippo. Augustine (354-430), before he converted to Catholicism, was a member of a sect called the Manichaeans. The Manichaeans were a syncretistic group merging Christianity with Zoroastrianism. The particular belief of theirs that is relevant to this discussion is the that things of the spirit are good, and things of the flesh are evil. Also, they believed that the spirit could be liberated from the material body through ascetic practices. It obviously follows from this that sex, even between husbands and wives, is especially sinful. They went so far as to ban marriage among members, and married persons joining the sect were obliged to separate from their spouses. Augustine, while he was a member of the Manichaeans, had a long term affair with a woman (whose name escapes me), which, keeping in mind his beliefs about sex, understandably gave him deep seated guilt feelings. He enjoyed sex too much to give it up, and he felt guilty about that too. He says that during that time his prayer was "Oh Lord, let me repent; but not yet." Augustine's mistress gave him a son, whom he named Adeodatus (Latin for "Gift of God", Theodore means the same in Greek, Nathaniel in Hebrew). When Adeodatus died at the age of five, Augustine was heart-broken, and felt that God was punishing him for his sins (I know what you are thinking, Maroney, you don't have to say it). After Augustine's conversion, he never really gave up his attitudes towards sex, and had some not very nice things to say about it in some of his letters and sermons that he wrote after he became a bishop. Now, I can hear those of you who are not really familiar with church history saying "So what." Augustine was probably the most influential Latin ecclesiastical writer (and the only real rivals he had on the Greek side are John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria) of the millenium between about 200 and 1200. He was a master of Latin prose (his CONFESSIONS, from which I got the biographical information, is generally considered to be one of the finest books written in the Latin language, another is his CITY OF GOD) and his theological opinions have influenced virtually every Christian theologian since his time. Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century Catholic theologian, bases his opinion that every sexual act, even between married couples, is at least venially sinful (if anyone wants to know what "venially sinful" means, send me your question--if there are enough inquiries, I'll post my response to the net) upon Augustine. It also didn't help that celibacy was recommended for at least the Western Christian clergy since well before the time of Augustine, and made mandatory not too long afterwards and really strongly enforced in the Catholic church since the time of the reformation. I am sure that all of you have had enough exposure to Freud to guess some of the consequences of that. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-7293 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
scc@mgweed.UUCP (Steve Collins) (01/12/84)
For information on sex look at: I Corinthians:7 It explains the attitude of sex given to the Corithians by Paul. It does say that no sex is better if you are able to handle it, if not you should be married. It explains the reasons for this statement. It does condone sex with married couples. I sure there are many other places that refer to this subject, but check this out and see what you think..
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (01/13/84)
> For information on sex look at: > > I Corinthians:7 > > It explains the attitude of sex given to the Corithians by Paul. > It does say that no sex is better if you are able to handle it, > if not you should be married. It explains the reasons for this > statement. It does condone sex with married couples. NO! NO! NO! Paul is saying that being *single* is better than being *married*, because if you are single you can spend more time and energy working for Christ. He claims married people spend more time working at making their spouse happy, which leaves less time for Christ. *This* is why he urges single persons to stay single, not because not having sex is better. Note that he does not say married people should get divorced. He says that married persons should not deny themselves sexually to their spouse. => sex is ok, and not just for making babies. Singles are urged to remain single, but if they are lusting after each other too strongly, to go ahead and get married. People are not all the same, for some being single is better, for others being married is better. Note that Paul thought that the second coming would occur during their lifetimes. I wonder if the knowledge that it wouldn't ( E.g. the need for at least some people to get married and have kids.) might change his mind. -- _____ /_____\ from the flying doghouse of /_______\ Snoopy |___| ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/16/84)
there is another problem about St. Augustine and John Crysostom. A lot of the writings of John Crysostom were discovered in an old monastery in 195?. Nobody had known that they were there. Thus all through the middle ages, people were reading Augustine and *not* Crysostom because they didn't even know it was available. John Crysostom's life is pretty parallel with Augustine's -- they both had Christian mothers and pagan fathers and underwent a conversion after a youth spent in what they later considered "sinful ways". Crysostom does not appear to feel as guilty as Augustine -- he writes about forgiveness in a way that make you thinkt hat he thinks that he has been forgiven, where as Augustine writes with less conviction upon the subject. You get the impression that Augustine thinks that God had to make a heroic effort to forgive Augustine -- possibly because Augustine was very lousy (as he admitted) at forgiving other people. John Crysostom, on the other hand, was not as terrible at it (which is a good thing, because the Church eventually took away his position as Bishop and he had to do a lot of forgiving) so he didn't think that forgiving was something that God ought to find all that difficult. Jesus had died, after all -- forgiving John Crysotom can't have been all that difficult in comparison. But Christianity read Augustine rather than Crysostom, and thereby gained the repuation of being obsessed with guilt. I think that Christianity today would have been radically different if it had been Augustine who was buried until the 1950s and Crysostom who was studied all through the dark and middle ages. laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura