Sex And The Bible

[Queen]

God blessed the human animal above the other animals by placing within them a different sexual need and a different sexual fulfillment. Most other creatures participate in sex simply for procreation. When the female enters a period of fertility she accepts the sexual advances of a chosen male.

Hmm...and I say....Bonobo...a very sexual active ape that has sex for pleasure.

And why is it that the female body has the same sort of anatomy in all mammals? (I don't want to be too explicit here). They can enjoy sex as well. How do we know that they only have sex for reproduction? (We have discovered this fact with the bonobo and the dolphins)

In the Old Testament God phrased it this way, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife." (Exodus 20:17) In the New Testament Jesus said it like this, "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)

What is so wrong with being human? I can't stick out my eyes and shut down my fantasy, that gives us our creativity.....

If the woman could have summoned help but didn't, she was also to be executed Deuteronomy. 22:23-27)

Excuse me? This book has to be written by someone who hasn't been a victim of rape! You have no idea how frightening rape is, even if you could summon for help, fear can make you do the 'wrong' thing. How scary is this thought!!!! As if the woman wants to be raped, so it is her fault that he is guilty, because she didn't stop him.......

If a man raped a single, unengaged woman, he was not put to death. The penalty was to marry her with no possibility of divorce, ever. (Deut. 22:28-29)

So he can rape her over and over again?????? Who has written this nonsense? How cruel is this law!!!! The man isn't punished here...the woman is!!

Sexually unfulfilled people can be tempted through their lack of self-control. Remove that avenue of attack from Satan's forces by keeping your mate thoroughly sexually satisfied!

Well, it is a good thing all those single adults behave them selfs so well or the world would be filled with rapists and so on.... . I believe in sex with someone you love, even if it is not your wife or husband.....

I am not getting into the whole homosexual discussion. You know my POV on that.

Of course not all is rubbish. Sex is wonderful and beautiful, but please let us place all the good things in life in a human perspective and in this day and age!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[geebob]

What is so wrong with being human?

we have rejected God and now suffer as God works to reconcile us back to him. In the meantime, we cope with a broken world and a broken nature that was originally created for perfect unity with God and community.

[quote]

So he can rape her over and over again?????? Who has written this nonsense? How cruel is this law!!!! The man isn't punished here...the woman is!

this might be cruel in our day and age when folks do not care so much about virginity (which I think is both a good thing and a bad thing but far more a bad thing). But in the ancient culture, if the rapist did not marry the girl, no one else would. It was for her welfare so that she would be taken care of.

yes this had a brutality to it. But it softened the blow of a worse brutality. This law wasn't given to 20th century america where the woman could still go and get married and/or find a job and live independently. This law was given when family relationships were life and death when people struggled against nature just to earn a meager living.

I believe in sex with someone you love, even if it is not your wife or husband.....

yes but we have to stop viewing love as merely a selfish gratification of emotions that we let rule us and instead see an essential part as the commitment to take care of another's needs and desires regardless of our emotional fluctuations.

Of course not all is rubbish. Sex is wonderful and beautiful, but please let us place all the good things in life in a human perspective and in this day and age!

but we have a drive that desperately craves sexual fulfillment and when our only outlet for this is another person, how gratifying of the individual this is! From one partner to the other, it is the case that "you and only you make this part of my life rich and I value above others for this." The only human perspective appropriate here is the one that gratifies us for creatures created in God's image that we are.

This is such a powerful means of community between another persons to the extent that to squander it is a tragedy, like tossing diamonds into the garbage.

[Queen]

But in the ancient culture, if the rapist did not marry the girl, no one else would. It was for her welfare so that she would be taken care of.

Finally we are getting somewhere. In ancient culture! So many things in the bible are not of this day and age. Peoples moral has changed over many years. Remember, I don't say all change is good. but then we have accepted the fact that we are sexual beings and that those feelings are part of who we are.

Thinking that sex is only for husband/wife and that it is only for male/ female is not of this day and age either. We have learned a great deal about human behavior in the last 2000 years. Through research of anthropologists ie.. We have fought so hard to accept our sexuality, especially women who didn't know how to enjoy sex and were not allowed to have the climax the female body can provide. Also the fact that a lot of homosexual people did hide their feelings away and lived in pain and anguish. Finally it is allowed to be honest about it, finally after all these years of struggle there is light at the end of the tunnel and still there are people who want to change it all back to the dark ages? We fought and are still fighting for our freedom and to be accepted as normal living human beings!

So, why use this as a guideline for sexual pleasure? It is not of this day and age.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[geebob]

Finally we are getting somewhere. In ancient culture! So many things in the bible are not of this day and age.

yes, in our day and age, Christ is our law.

Thinking that sex is only for husband/wife and that it is only for male/ female is not of this day and age either

on the contrary, it is just as much a part of this culture as immorality, sexual and other forms, is apart of every culture. if it wasn't, I don't know where Newsweek would get the statistics from that attest that couples who wait to have sex after marriage stay together longer than couples who shack up prior to marriage.

sexual purity is as much a part of our Western culture as the rampant sexual brokenness.

But as you already eluded to, what happens to be a part of a cutlure is not necessarily good, and if and when sexual purity ceases to have a place in our culture, it will be tragic.

We have learned a great deal about human behavior in the last 2000 years.

true, but competing hypothesis abound some of which confirm our tradition.

We have fought so hard to accept our sexuality

Humans have always accepted their sexuality. Just look at the Song of Solomon. Actually, it might be better to look at a commentary on it to get an idea of just how explicit it is.

still there are people who want to change it all back to the dark ages?

exalting our sexuality is going back to the dark ages?!? I would think that throwing it away to the unguarded, mundane and commonality as we are doing now would take us there.

So, why use this as a guideline for sexual pleasure? It is not of this day and age.

Christians use this guidline because God gave it to us. Because we are a corporate entity and not jus a collection of individuals. And this corporate entity extends back in time when God saved his people from slavery, gave them laws, spoke to them through the prophets, and finally came down to earth to share in our sufferings but also to begin the process of reconsiling all of mankind back to him..

[apple]

“What is the proper response to the significance of sex?” A standard incorporating love and law arises logically out of our rejection of sexual assault as a heinous and debilitating act.

They imply that our revulsion regarding sexual crimes is "evidence" that sex is special.

I read the full article. (http://www.equip.org/free/DR508.pdf) Here is another excerpt.

"....(if) talking about the most
private things is ‘no different from talking about an elbow,’ then they are that much more likely to see nothing
wrong in certain kinds of sexual violence. What’s really so terrible, after all, in making someone touch or kiss your
elbow?”
Shalit’s analysis indicates clearly the reductive consequences of adhering to a consent-only ethic. "

Regarding my excerpt it appears they are making the case that if we devalue the importance of sex we will also devalue the seriousness of sex crimes by their making the "kissing the elbow" comment. That is ludicrous.

As a society we do not put special emphasis on one's mouth or feet. Although a punch in the face, including the mouth, is considered a serious assault it is not considered a sex crime or a heinous and debilitating act. Similarily, if we stepped on one's foot the person would not call out sexual assault.

Now, let's work with the foot and mouth. A woman is passing a construction site and a construction worker pulls her behind some boards. He removes his boots, sweaty work socks and proceeds to put his foot in the woman's mouth. "Suck my toes because I have a foot fetish", he threatens. Gagging, the woman complies in fear of her life. Where does that crime fit on the scale?

Another excerpt:
"The call to limit sexual relationships exclusively to marriage, therefore, is simply an extension and fulfillment of that
indelible, archetypal pattern already within each of us. To throw sexual monogamy to the wind in behavior that is
blatantly promiscuous, or which implicitly denies the grounds of such exclusivity, is to create a deep-seated
contradiction in one’s own person."

I completely disagree. The so-called indelible, archetypal pattern is no different than the kid whom won't share the crayons. Why should the toughest, strongest share the crayon if he got it first? Does he suffer a deep-seated contradiction in his person if he is forced to share?

Many people experience a tremendous loss when their partner is unfaithful. Society validates those feelings increasing the person's hurt. "Yes, you were hurt. You should feel hurt."

People feel a loss when a family member dies and many union contracts have a berevement clause. As a pet owner I would certainly feel a loss if my cat died but society does not recognize that. I'm sure many people would also feel a loss if their pet died but the loss is tempered with what society deems is right or logical or legitimate. That, however, does not presuppose that society tolerates killing another person's pet. Simply put, so-called indelible, archetypal patterns can be changed and, contrary to the theme of the article, does not result in misunderstanding the seriousness of a crime.

The "crime" is doing something <i>against the will</i> of another person (or animal), not the doing of a specific something .