Is Christianity due for a government-imposed Reformation?

[OtherCheek]

I really don't wanna get into the physics of sodomy, but not all gays do anal penetration and those that don't do a lot of other stuff that isn't dangerous. Assuming it's being done on one safe person/relationship and not fifteen guys at night in a bath house. Straight sex is very dangerous when you consider the possibility of pregnancy. None are safe in a polygamous way

Hey guys. This was really not the intent of this thread.

[Hamster]

I meant "promiscuous" not "polygamous," I had just got back from the Mormon forum and the pseudodementia flared up

[Ansgar Seraph]

It seems to be Zack and Sam's agenda lately.

It weren't either of us who started multiple threads on the topic!

[Ansgar Seraph]

Here's the issue, as I see it.:

Sexuality has undergone dramatic changes in even the last 100 years. In the 1800s in to the 1900s, female sexuality was often treated as a disorder (incidentally, the vibrator was a medical device to treat hysteria before it became a consumer product). Well into the 20th century, sodomy was considered a criminal activity in many states. It's not often today, however, that you'll find too many people willing to state that female sexual emotion should be classed as a psychiatric disorder, nor will you find too many people who stand on the principle that oral sex among married couples is a sinful activity.

But if one wants to instill carte blanche biblical strictures on modern culture, any sodomy is unlawful and sinful: Onan was destroyed by God for depositing his semen on the ground. Strictures against such irresponsible behavior were actually common in biblical times, as those cultures believed that the male procreative organ contained not just a piece of Life's puzzle that needed to be attached to the female counterpart but rather that the semen contained the germ of life and the woman was necessary as a "vessel." Thus, ejaculation in any form outside the procreative act was considered at least close to murder. The obvious holdover of this view is the RCC's official position on active forms of contraception (e.g., condoms, IUDs).

If the Biblical Tradition argument is used, therefore, it's not just homosexual actions that are forbidden; sodomy is disallowed as is, arguably, any sexual activity that doesn't start and end in the procreative act. Contraception is on very tenuous ground if we look at only what Scripture records (it was actually acceptable for women to use contraceptive means as procreative responsibility was primarily on the men).

If the Medical Danger argument is to be used, we're in a similar trap. Instances of mouth and throat cancers related to STDs are on the rise. Oral sex is qualitatively more dangerous than sticking solely to vaginal sex. Are those who use the medical argument ready to argue (and practice) the position that sodomy, even between monogamous partners, is dangerous and therefore wrong?

The conservative position is not to demand that society return to a time of greater repression simply because such a time was simpler. Conservatives have, for some time now, acknowledged that female sexuality is equivalent to male sexuality. Conservatives have acknowledged that expressions of sexuality other than vaginal sex are legitimate expressions when practiced by responsible partners. The conservative action, therefore, is to attempt to frame these new paradigms within traditional structures, to create a social network that promotes monogamy and family and social cohesion.

Homosexuality is merely the latest sexual more to be openly challenged. The task for conservatives should not be trying to get the genie back in the bottle. It can't be done — certainly not without turning a blind eye to all the other sexual issues that get a pass even in our religious society today. Rather, concerned conservatives ought to work toward creating the framework that will allow for more monogamy among homosexuals, that will create incentives for families and that will encourage social unity among all communities.

—Sam

[ZackMartin]

Onan was destroyed by God for depositing his semen on the ground.

The context was, he was obliged by levirate marriage to father a child with his childless dead brother's wife, and it was in that context that he did the act you mention. So was it for coitus interruptus that God destroyed him, or for trying to evade the law of levirate marriage? The later seems more likely, since levirate marriage is a commandment given elsewhere, while no passage other than this (to my knowledge) refers to coitus interruptus.

Not denying that the passage was, historically speaking, often interpreted in the way you suggest; but that interpretation makes little sense given the text itself.

[Seasanctuary]

From now on, I'm just going to translate "heterosexuality" into "goes out every weekend for hookers and cocaine" and label it harmful compared to normal, healthy homosexual partnerships.

Seems fair.

[Ansgar Seraph]

The context was, he was obliged by levirate marriage to father a child with his childless dead brother's wife, and it was in that context that he did the act you mention. So was it for coitus interruptus that God destroyed him, or for trying to evade the law of levirate marriage? The later seems more likely, since levirate marriage is a commandment given elsewhere, while no passage other than this (to my knowledge) refers to coitus interruptus.

Not denying that the passage was, historically speaking, often interpreted in the way you suggest; but that interpretation makes little sense given the text itself.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing; what's relevant, I believe, is that Onan's story served as an explanatory account for a general phenomenon. Like how Adam's "rib" formed Eve and that's why human males, unlike most mammals, lack a baculum. Onan gives us insight into a sexual belief practiced in biblical times, one that is not widely accepted today, even among those who use the Bible to condemn homosexuality.

—Sam

[Nathan Poe]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing; what's relevant, I believe, is that Onan's story served as an explanatory account for a general phenomenon. Like how Adam's "rib" formed Eve and that's why human males, unlike most mammals, lack a baculum. Onan gives us insight into a sexual belief practiced in biblical times, one that is not widely accepted today, even among those who use the Bible to condemn homosexuality.

—Sam

I've always found Christianity to be notoriously prudish when it comes to sexual matters, even in the Bible -- I've actually heard apologists try to rationalize Song of Solomon as a metaphor for a believer's love for God (saywhut?). Which is a shame, really, because the Hebrew Scriptures were a lot more practical about that sort of thing. That's where you get things like Adam's tsela becoming a rib (which really makes no sense from a mythological point of view), Onan's story getting translated as an anti-masturbation message, and Sodom being destroyed for homosexuality (completely ignoring Ezekiel 16:49-50, which lists the reasons).

I'd heard -- and I'm interested in more info on this -- that this was at least in part due to the fact that many of the Pagan beliefs that early Christianity was competing with at the time were very (for lack of a better term) "sex-positive" -- that is, they considered sexuality to be a vital part of their worship. So, in order to set Christianity apart, if the Pagans were for something, the Christians were against it.

Anything to that, or am I hearing it wrong?

[ZackMartin]

I've always found Christianity to be notoriously prudish when it comes to sexual matters, even in the Bible -- I've actually heard apologists try to rationalize Song of Solomon as a metaphor for a believer's love for God (saywhut?).

You know, you don't have to hold to one reading or the other of the Song exclusively. One can accept a literal reading (love between human lovers) and a metaphorical reading (love between God and the believer, or love between God and the Church/Israel) simultaneously. What's wrong with a text having multiple levels of meaning? Why must it be limited to just a single one? Is it possible that multiple levels of meaning might even have been intended by the original author(s)?

[Darth Executor]

You know, you don't have to hold to one reading or the other of the Song exclusively. One can accept a literal reading (love between human lovers) and a metaphorical reading (love between God and the believer, or love between God and the Church/Israel) simultaneously. What's wrong with a text having multiple levels of meaning? Why must it be limited to just a single one? Is it possible that multiple levels of meaning might even have been intended by the original author(s)?

Nathan Poe likes it best when things are simple and stupid so he can at least marginally comprehend them.

[Cerebrum123]

Maybe you should read the article, first? And then, after having read the article, you'll be able to specify where you think Wink is incorrect (hint: he didn't express that sexual mores against homosexuality are or are not wrong).

—Sam

To cover even half of what he got wrong, (yes I read the article) I would need to write a book(he claimed that things like prostitution were deemed as ok in the Bible, but apparently doesn't understand that just because something is recorded in the Bible doesn't mean that it is CONDONED by the Bible). About the only thing he seems to have gotten right, are a few things Christians see today as wrong(like birth control for Catholics), and that the Bible does unequivocally denounce homosexual acts as wrong(but he doesn't seem to believe that the Bible should be trusted on this issue, and that should tell any Christian more than enough about the article). If you would like to discuss his article in depth, then make a thread about it, and send me a pm, otherwise there is just way too much material to cover for this thread, and is a bit off topic.

[Cerebrum123]

The only way to completely prevent the risk of acquiring a disease through sexual transmission is to abstain from sex altogether.

Let's look at a couple who abstain from sex before marriage, and then they stay together for life, and never sleep with anyone else. One of them goes to a doctor for an injection. The doctor fails to observe proper infection control procedures, and gives the patient HIV - while very rare, this has happened. An example (this was Hep C, not HIV, but the same could happen to HIV; the fact that he was an abortion clinic doctor isn't in itself relevant, because the same could happen in any other kind of surgical practice.) Patient goes home, has sex with husband/wife, gives husband/wife HIV too.

While faithful monogamy reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, it does not eliminate it. Celibacy is safer.

In your scenario, a person who is celibate would have a similar risk of getting HIV (or AIDS, or any other sexually transmitted disease). So you do realize that you have made it so that it's a risk for any living person to get STD's regardless of whether or not they have sex at all, right?

[Cerebrum123]

Here's the issue, as I see it.:

Sexuality has undergone dramatic changes in even the last 100 years. In the 1800s in to the 1900s, female sexuality was often treated as a disorder (incidentally, the vibrator was a medical device to treat hysteria before it became a consumer product). Well into the 20th century, sodomy was considered a criminal activity in many states. It's not often today, however, that you'll find too many people willing to state that female sexual emotion should be classed as a psychiatric disorder, nor will you find too many people who stand on the principle that oral sex among married couples is a sinful activity.

But if one wants to instill carte blanche biblical strictures on modern culture, any sodomy is unlawful and sinful: Onan was destroyed by God for depositing his semen on the ground. Strictures against such irresponsible behavior were actually common in biblical times, as those cultures believed that the male procreative organ contained not just a piece of Life's puzzle that needed to be attached to the female counterpart but rather that the semen contained the germ of life and the woman was necessary as a "vessel." Thus, ejaculation in any form outside the procreative act was considered at least close to murder. The obvious holdover of this view is the RCC's official position on active forms of contraception (e.g., condoms, IUDs).

If the Biblical Tradition argument is used, therefore, it's not just homosexual actions that are forbidden; sodomy is disallowed as is, arguably, any sexual activity that doesn't start and end in the procreative act. Contraception is on very tenuous ground if we look at only what Scripture records (it was actually acceptable for women to use contraceptive means as procreative responsibility was primarily on the men).

If the Medical Danger argument is to be used, we're in a similar trap. Instances of mouth and throat cancers related to STDs are on the rise. Oral sex is qualitatively more dangerous than sticking solely to vaginal sex. Are those who use the medical argument ready to argue (and practice) the position that sodomy, even between monogamous partners, is dangerous and therefore wrong?

The conservative position is not to demand that society return to a time of greater repression simply because such a time was simpler. Conservatives have, for some time now, acknowledged that female sexuality is equivalent to male sexuality. Conservatives have acknowledged that expressions of sexuality other than vaginal sex are legitimate expressions when practiced by responsible partners. The conservative action, therefore, is to attempt to frame these new paradigms within traditional structures, to create a social network that promotes monogamy and family and social cohesion.

Homosexuality is merely the latest sexual more to be openly challenged. The task for conservatives should not be trying to get the genie back in the bottle. It can't be done — certainly not without turning a blind eye to all the other sexual issues that get a pass even in our religious society today. Rather, concerned conservatives ought to work toward creating the framework that will allow for more monogamy among homosexuals, that will create incentives for families and that will encourage social unity among all communities.

—Sam

You make the same mistake about Onan that the guy wrote the article you linked to does(unfortunately many people do). It wasn't the act that got him killed, it was the REASON he did the act. He was purposely trying avoid giving his brother an heir(likely so he could inherit his brother's share of what would be passed on). This is very many errors that your article made, and you apparently have misunderstood that same set of verses in the same way(hopefully that's the case, I would hope you wouldn't have just swallowed what he said whole simply because he was in agreement with your position).

[Nathan Poe]

You know, you don't have to hold to one reading or the other of the Song exclusively. One can accept a literal reading (love between human lovers) and a metaphorical reading (love between God and the believer, or love between God and the Church/Israel) simultaneously. What's wrong with a text having multiple levels of meaning? Why must it be limited to just a single one? Is it possible that multiple levels of meaning might even have been intended by the original author(s)?

Nothing at all -- generally speaking. But in this specific text, if that is supposed to be an accurate metaphor for how God and believers are supposed to relate, well -- clearly I've been going to the wrong church.

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan Poe likes it best when things are simple and stupid so he can at least marginally comprehend them.

A pity you can't even rise to that level. Keep trying though -- they have Bibles with pictures now.