[soc.religion.christian] sex, marriage, sin

henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl isochronal Henning) (03/20/91)

Tim ARNOLD writes:

>Jeff Fields writes:

>>I personally know non-promiscous monogamous couples who would die for each
>>other their love is so strong. They make sexual love, but are not married.
>>I see no sin in this.

>Who cares whether you see sin in it or not? The crucial question is does God?

Am I the only person on the net to read Tim's response as a self-righteous
snub?

Tim, I take it you know no such couples, or that if you do you criticize
them with as little delicacy as this your response evinces?  Well, this
is certainly a lesson in love ...

Although it is up to Mr Fields to account for his own phrasing, I interpreted
it as a tactful way of expressing an opinion, of acceding that there is
room for discussion.

Tact is something of which I would not accuse Mr Arnold in his response; and
there hardly seems room for discussion in Mr Arnold's world.

>>We should not hasten in our pronouncements of sin based solely on outward
>>social appearances. 

>Unless of course the Bible is quite clear on the matter ...

The bible is "quite clear" on relatively little;  and there are few
truly "objective tests" regarding the reception of texts of the bible
popular among practicing xians (IMHO).

>... We should be reluctant to play God but never-the-less
>there are some objective tests which require our attention and rebuke
>of those who profess to be following Christ but deny his commands.

"A controversial group of biblical scholars has concluded six
years of voting by ruling that about 80 percent of the words
attributed in the Gospels to Jesus were probably made up by
later authors."

One ought to be particularly reluctant to play god, when there is
such question as to what may realistically be attributed to jesus,
as this extract from a news article indicates.  Certainly, different
people interpret the bible differently, and perhaps with no less
justification.

I grant that the above news item does not mean that the matter is
sealed, and it does say "controversial";  but it is at least possible
that "a group of biblical scholars" is more in a position to judge,
than the average layman.

>... as a Christian I can boldly say that sexual activity outside of
>marriage will lead to more suffering than if it is avoided because
>God gave us his laws for a reason and I trust God's judgment better
>than I trust my own.

But then, you are not speaking from experience, I take it?

As someone who observes life as it surrounds me, rather than choose
to read it in a book and then try to squeeze the life around me into
that dubious mold, I can boldly say:

MARRIAGE (or any close relationship) will lead to more "suffering" than
if it is avoided.  When one maintains any long-term relationship,
differences of opinion will inevitably arise, and some of these inevitable
disagreements will likely prove painful.  So what?  It happens to everybody,
and the alternative is isolation and loneliness -- no, /realistically/
the alternative is social ineptitude, which entails its own particular
"suffering".

When somebody bangs his shin, we hope he hasn't broken anything (or send
him to a doctor if we think he has), and know the pain will pass;  we
don't coddle him.  Why do people suppose that interpersonal "pains" are
any more "precious", and need to be spoilt?

You may put off learning how to ride a bicycle, if you're afraid of
getting scuffed up;  it won't make it any easier to learn how, if/when
you finally decide to brave the ordeal.

You may put off learning how to discuss sex (itself, how it applies to
your own sensory experience, how it affects the other ways people interact
socially), or even (gasp) put off Applied (as well as Theoretical) Sex,
until some "marriage" with Mr or Ms Right;  but the "growing pains"
involved in learning one's way in such a relationship are no more
intrinsically soul-rarefying than riding a bicycle.

Until one drags in the matter of conscience, of course.  But it is a very
different question, whether one has offended a fellow human, or offended
a god.

Of course, if you adopt certain opinions for yourself, and feel that these
reflect "god's will" -- if that gives you more confidence in this educative
experience, good for you.

kph
-- 
"The shrewder mobs of America, who dislike having two minds upon a subject,
both determine and act upon it drunk;  by which means a world of cold and
tedious speculation is dispensed with."  -- Washington Irving

brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/22/91)

Jeff Fields writes:

>I personally know non-promiscous monogamous couples who would die for each
>other their love is so strong. They make sexual love, but are not married.
>I see no sin in this.

The only possible sin I can see in this is their unwillingness to
publicly (and perhaps privately) proclaim and acknowledge a marriage
that is surely blessed by God.

Tim ARNOLD writes:

>Who cares whether you see sin in it or not? The crucial question is does God?

We know that all love comes from God, and that he blesses many unofficial
marriages with that gift.

Karl isochronal Henning writes:

>MARRIAGE (or any close relationship) will lead to more "suffering" than
>if it is avoided.  When one maintains any long-term relationship,
>differences of opinion will inevitably arise, and some of these inevitable
>disagreements will likely prove painful.  So what?  It happens to everybody,
>and the alternative is isolation and loneliness -- no, /realistically/
>the alternative is social ineptitude, which entails its own particular
>"suffering".

Whilst I cannot disagree with the text of this passage in isolation I
feel that in the context of the overall discussion (and especially the
next paragraph) the implication here is that close relationship should be
understood to mean close sexual relationship, whence the whole thing becomes
a bit unsettling. There are many people who do not partake of sexual
relationships who are anything but socially inept and remain very
capable of entering into very close, ;ong-lasting and rewarding personal
relationships.

>You may put off learning how to discuss sex (itself, how it applies to
>your own sensory experience, how it affects the other ways people interact
>socially), or even (gasp) put off Applied (as well as Theoretical) Sex,
>until some "marriage" with Mr or Ms Right;  but the "growing pains"
>involved in learning one's way in such a relationship are no more
>intrinsically soul-rarefying than riding a bicycle.

I would just point out that some would see the relationship as the point
of the exercise rather than the "awakening" of one's sexual awareness.

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.

henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl syllogistic Henning) (03/25/91)

Brendan Mahony writes:

>Karl isochronal Henning writes:

>> [paragraph ofriction in long-term close relationships]

>Whilst I cannot disagree with the text of this passage in isolation I
>feel that in the context of the overall discussion (and especially the
>next paragraph) the implication here is that close relationship should be
>understood to mean close sexual relationship, whence the whole thing becomes
>a bit unsettling.

I was discussing relationships broadly, inclusive of but not restricted
to sexual relationships.

>> [paragraph on "Applied and Theoretical sex"]

>There are many people who do not partake of sexual relationships who
>are anything but socially inept and remain very capable of entering
>into very close, ;ong-lasting and rewarding personal relationships.

Certainly.  I do not advocate sexual activity as a prerequisite
for full personhood.

>I would just point out that some would see the relationship as the point
>of the exercise rather than the "awakening" of one's sexual awareness.

While I [think I] understand you to use "point of the exercise" half-wrily,
I veiw relationships simply as a sort of protocol between people (as opposed
to an exercise, or the object of an exercise;  and as opposed to an indepen-
dent "thing"); that is, what matters is, not a relationship per se, but
the people involved.  This is not an objection, just a [possibly merely
semantic] refocusing.

Sexual activity is not ideally [IMHO, although both prostitution and
numerous marriages provide curiously persistent counterexamples] the
raison d'etre of any relationship;  the relationship should be the
occasion for the sexual activity (although I don't suppose /all/
relationships should :-).

In the traditional view of xianity, the only proper occasion for
sexual activity, is in relationships of a single, indissoluble
heterosexual pair who undertake the socially (and often religiously)
sanctioned contract of marriage.

IMHO this "external contract" is usually of less concern than mutual
commitment between two people;  it is up to those two people to
agree on their "contract" (or lack thereof).

kph
-- 
Doris: But without God, the universe is meaningless.  Life is meaningless.
   We're meaningless.  (/Deadly pause/)  I have a sudden and overpowering
   urge to get laid.		-- Woody Allen, "God (A Play)"

ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (03/27/91)

In article <Mar.21.22.54.57.1991.16070@athos.rutgers.edu>, brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
> Jeff Fields writes:
> >You may put off learning how to discuss sex (itself, how it applies to
> >your own sensory experience, how it affects the other ways people interact
> >socially), or even (gasp) put off Applied (as well as Theoretical) Sex,
> >until some "marriage" with Mr or Ms Right;  but the "growing pains"
> >involved in learning one's way in such a relationship are no more
> >intrinsically soul-rarefying than riding a bicycle.
> 
> I would just point out that some would see the relationship as the point
> of the exercise rather than the "awakening" of one's sexual awareness.

I'd like to point out something else.  There is no need to *perform* sex
in order to learn how to *discuss* sex.  Some of you may remember my
postings last year "may a Christian visit a brothel".  The background to
that was that my engagement had broken up over the issue of whether it
was right to have sex with someone you didn't love in order to "explore
your sexuality".  My intended said that it would be "ingratitude to God"
not to do so, and she expected me to admire her for having put this idea
into practice.  The funny thing is that she _acted_ as if she knew nothing
about sex, and regarded my talking about it as showing that I had a
"dirty mind".  I was trying to find anyone who would explain her views to
me, which no-one posting in this group did.

Well, as of the 17th of this month, I'm engaged again, this time to a
Church of Christ woman who has the same view of sex outside marriage as
I have and has lived it.  When I quote the Song of Songs to Jeanene, she
thinks it's romantic, not "dirty minded", and she quotes back.  We're
able to be more explicit than that, too.  I'm _almost_ glad that we'll
be in separate countries until the wedding.

The moral of the story is that "Applied Sex" is neither necessary in
all cases nor sufficient in all cases to prepare someone for a relationship.

-- 
Seen from an MVS perspective, UNIX and MS-DOS are hard to tell apart.

henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl Malaysia Henning) (04/01/91)

Richard A. O'Keefe writes:

>[karl henning writes]:

>> You may put off learning how to discuss sex (itself, how it applies to
>> your own sensory experience, how it affects the other ways people interact
>> socially), or even (gasp) put off Applied (as well as Theoretical) Sex,
>> until some "marriage" with Mr or Ms Right;  but the "growing pains"
>> involved in learning one's way in such a relationship are no more
>> intrinsically soul-rarefying than riding a bicycle.

>I'd like to point out something else.  There is no need to *perform* sex
>in order to learn how to *discuss* sex.

In a certain sense, I suppose you are right.  But you must concede
that a person who discusses sex, without ever having experienced
sex, /may/ be talking out the back of his neck.  And indeed, no
person who has not experienced sex can be considered to speak
definitively about it.  He can discuss the second-hand reports
with which he is familiar, but cannot avouch for any of it
from his own direct experience.

Two parallel illustrations:

Of the two opposing viewpoints regarding the sphericity of the
earth, who was more likely to be correct:  the clerics who
insisted on the "biblical" flatness of the earth, and who had
never seen a drop of seawater, and who had never seen headlands
emerge gradually taller on the horizon; or the navigators and
sailors whose practical experience and reason gave them to
postulate a spherical earth [okay, maybe this is an unfair
example, as we know by hindsight whose opinion was more correct]

Who understands Troy better, historically:  a classics scholar
who has read the Iliad and the Aeneid in the original languages,
or von Schliemann, who excavated there?  The former understands
a "literary Troy";  the latter, an "applied Troy".

I will provide also an odious counter-example (which I do not,
by the way, propose as being applicable to Mr O'Keefe's case).

There is sometimes a tendency among some of the noisier
xians, not only to cultivate an ignorance of something,
but to claim such ignorance proudly, as some sort of
virtue or asset.  One such example is, Jerry Falwell's
boneheaded retort, when asked how he could criticize
/The Last Temptation of Christ/ sight unseen:

"You don't need to take the lid off a sewer to know
that it stinks."

This says volumes about Falwell's ignorance, and
prejudicial attitude, and says nothing whatsoever
about either Kazantsakis' book or Scorsese's film.

>... as of the 17th of this month, I'm engaged again, this time to a
>Church of Christ woman who has the same view of sex outside marriage as
>I have and has lived it.

It seems to me that the experiences you recount concerning
your two fiancees, is more directly illustrative of
the question of two people in such a relationship needing
to agree substantially on questions of sexuality, than of
the question of firsthand experiential authority.

>The moral of the story is that "Applied Sex" is neither necessary in
>all cases nor sufficient in all cases to prepare someone for a relationship.

Since most such relationships function on levels other than
sexuality, it is mistaken to assert that sexual experience is
"sufficient" preparation for a relationship.  Of course,
relationships are not homework assignments -- one doesn't
"prepare" for them, one learns by doing.

"necessary in all cases" ... of what?

I think I have created some confusion in my original posting
[above] by conflating two distinct issues (as I see them):

First: that someone (anyone?) who has "tested" and adapted
his theoretical knowledge of sexuality "in the field", as it
were, in a relationship which functions more than merely
sexually, will make observations about sexuality which should
be accorded more respect and authoritative weight, than
speculations offered by someone with no such experience,
specifically someone who claims to understand sexuality in
the late 20th century according to bits and pieces gleaned
from a disparate collection of moralizing texts no more recent
than the first century of the Common Era (i.e., the bible).

Second:  that by making sexuality into a moral issue disembodied
from the broader (and, IMHO, merely sociological) context of
relationships, xianity calls into play the Conditioned Guilt-
reflex.  Simply stated, my objection to this is, that in this
moralizing environment, boys and girls are brought up to suspect
the stirrings of sexuality as impure manifestations of bestial
sinfulness, instead of as being par for the biological course.

This does not contribute to understanding one's sexuality,
but creates destructive conflicts between natural impulses,
and a repressive framework of behavioral interpretation.
And it can corrupt one's development in terms of learning
about relationships, as one is forbidden to explore
sexuality, save from within the sanctioned contract of
matrimony; there is no lack of examples of marriage
between young people inexperienced in the niceties of
interpersonal relationships, whose motivation in getting
married may largely have proven (and not necessarily
dishonorably) sexual.  "Society will not permit me to
have sex unless I'm married;  now, whom can I marry?" --
this may seem a cynical and blunt phrasing, but I have
known a number of couples (whose marriages are successful
in different degrees) who seem to have been at least partly
motivated on some level by this reasoning.

This atmosphere does not contribute to frank and unpressured
dialogue about sexuality.  It fosters "cognitive dissonance",
and therefore repression and avoidance of sexuality as a
human issue.  Society cannot destroy behavioral (and, in
this case, partly biological) impulses merely by imposing
awful taboos;  and nascent sexuality during adolescence is
of such striking novelty and wonder, that there is something
intrinsically awesome about it.  Quashing it, and saying
"it's WRONG WRONG WRONG except in this highly specialized
and divinely sanctioned environment", is at the heart of a
great many sexual problems -- when one's exploration of
sexuality is restricted to such a furtive level, there is
no cando ...s and at the least contributes to a view of
members of the opposite sex at least partially as "sex
objects" rather than as partners in a species of communication.

And if the "partners" cannot talk between themselves
about sex, certainly neither is going to volunteer
to discuss this issue in an educative manner with
their children.

kph
-- 
Doris: But without God, the universe is meaningless.  Life is meaningless.
   We're meaningless.  (/Deadly pause/)  I have a sudden and overpowering
   urge to get laid.		-- Woody Allen, "God (A Play)"