Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb – theology debate with a serious dose of fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.
|
| OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick |
| View First Unread |
|
OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
Published by Trout
January 9th 2006 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
#1
By
themuzicman
on
January 9th 2006, 09:17 AM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
You never really address your assertion that God is sexual.
Michael |
|
#2
By
WyEtte
on
January 9th 2006, 03:26 PM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
Sex is the ultimate memory trainer. The imagination created by the holding of hands, the hug etc etc is incredible. it is not to be believed ... in other words it is of God. That's the secret and we need know no more to understand it. To see the unseen is the magnificience. To be good one must remember the right thing to do at the given time. We are what we remember and the imagination is our way of doing so. I feel I know Christ and many others, long passed, because of the figments in my imagination, they live today and that's immortality. To be good we must teach those who follow how to live right and why giving up some things leads to a better life. In fact if we only think as Phil 4:8, we know life is hard at best, but there are magnificient suprises.
This e mail composed and written using MouthEar computer technology. This process needs no keyboard, nor mouse, nor monitor. Please forgive any errors and/or omissions which may have occurred due to the enthusiasm of the author. |
|
#4
By
dlarson
on
January 15th 2006, 02:04 PM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
Thank you for bringing up this important topic. I agree with you that we need to "take sexuality more seriously." Theology textbooks and models often miss important loci (like the Holy Spirit), and sex/sexuality is certainly among the important missing-in-action loci for theology. The Kreeft quote is an interesting starting point, and I would argue we can learn a lot from "old" theologies of sex and sexuality, looking at Scripture, to inform a "glorious new" theology. I love his use of the word "glorious," for certainly sex and sexuality should be something to celebrate, and your essay celebrates sex. I recommend Catherine Keller's book Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming, although focused on the theological locus of creation, it presents an intriguing theology of sex/uality and gender as well.
In Christian love and dialogue, here are a couple of thoughts I have in response to reading your essay. (1) Definitions - Your discussion moves between sex, marriage, and sexuality without clearly defining and differentiating these things. Presenting a "theology of sex" requires definitions and clarity around assumptions. Although you make this distinction in the 5th paragraph, you don't keep the distinction clear in your discussion. When I hear "sex", I don't assume marriage or sexual intercourse. "Sex" is a biological trait. Sexuality and gender are actions, marriage is a covenantal relationship. These are all different things. You sometimes use "sex" to mean sexual intercourse. So, an objection to you, a virgin, discussing "sex" can only be raised if "sex" is limited to "sexual intercourse." A "theology" of something is inclusive and broad not narrowed to one activity. A "theology of sex" encompasses many foci, including sexuality, biological sex, gender stereotypes, gender construction, marriage, and sexual intercourse. (2) God as Relational - You rightly point out that God is relational, that God is Spirit, but God is also relationship. You make an excellent point about the spiritual and nonphysical aspect of intercourse. I'm curious about why you bring in Traducianism. Making an argument based on Traducianism is, I believe, skating on thin (and for some, heretical) ice. This is one of the assumptions that perhaps you could explain. As a Christian, I believe that my soul was uniquely created by God, Traducianism argues for organic generation of the soul (that is, I inherited my soul from my parents). I don't understand why you use Traducianism as part of your argument. (3) God's Image or Gender Stereotypes? In paragraph 8, you quote Genesis 1:26-27 as God created man and woman in "his" image. Actually, the scriptures say "Let us make humankind on our image." Certainly in the Hebrew, and in most translations, this appears to point to the Trinitarian, inherently relational nature of God, not necessarily to gender or sexuality. This is evidence that "relationship" is at the heart of God, and sexuality might be construed to be part of that. You then move to gender stereotypes and gender construction ("masculinity" and "femininity"). The "feminine gender" as portrayed in Holy Scripture is very complex and includes a wide range of "femininities". The examples we have in scripture include women with such diverse "femininities" as Ruth, Deborah, and Peninnah (not at all a "nurturer" or "caring and sensitive"). In a "theology of sex" based on Holy Scripture, gender is reduced to a caricature by limiting it in the way that you do in your paragraph ten. The story of Deborah and Barak contradicts your stereotypes. What we are shown in scripture is a wide range of expressions of gender. Women are often portrayed in the Hebrew Bible as cunning and wise. Men range from warriors to gentle shepherds. Limiting gender stereotypes is limiting God. Sexual intercourse in a covenantal relationship may well be a glimpse into the divine and eternity. However, your vision with the woman as a passive recipient ("The woman does not have to give anything back as simply her trust and love of him is enough") hardly echoes the Biblical picture of women. Women are rarely, if ever, portrayed as passive recipients as you indicate in your vision of intercourse here. Intimate relationship as described in scripture is very active. Only rape and other sorts of abuse have a power imbalance with some being passive. Musing about the gender(s) of God, in the Holy in Trinity, is challenging and demands a more thoughtful and thorough analysis. I think exploring the intimacy within the Trinity as well as the intimacy between God and humankind can give us "a picture of the intimate love". Also, see theologians such as Catherine Keller, Mary Daly, Rita Nakshima Brock, K.E. Borreson, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, and Rosemary Radford Ruether. (4) Sex as Revelation - Revelation is an important focus in theology that is about our learning and knowing about the divine as revealed. Sex as revelation? Perhaps, this is one way God reveals Godself "Sex too is a revelation of God and we should thank him for it and enjoy it." Again, here I wonder if you mean sexuality, gender, sexual intercourse or all of the above? That is an interesting concept in itself! Again, thank you for lifting sexuality as a theological topic! I would like to see it explored in terms of covenant as well. It is no coincidence, I am sure, that the outward and visible sign of God's covenant with the Hebrew people was circumcision. Another topic for discussion! In Christ, DHL |
|
#5
By
cazz
on
January 22nd 2006, 07:57 PM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
Actually everything is built on the foundation of masculine and feminine polarities, including God. You are not far from enlightenment (the Christ mind) when you ponder such things.
God is not only the "Father", as Jesus was referring to Lord Maitreya, an ascended soul who attained Christ perfection before Jesus' life on earth, but furthermore, God is a representation of everything--existence itself. I myself am an individualization of God, I am God's son, I am the Christ. We all are. Within my human body I experience things that provoke facets of my own being that correspond with my "soul genes". But, we are always evolving, and it is impossible to separate creation from God, because nothing exists apart from the one existence. Everything is fashion of itself. God is male and female (father and mother)--or, the Alpha and the Omega as you might be familiar with. The manifestor, and the manifest. The Holy Spirit being the interaction here (which, really, the whole "manifestor, messenger, and manifest" is actually a single entity/mind, and not three separate entities), and the product of it all/whole being the Christ. Jesus embodies such principals, and so can any individual person, Jesus is not special. Now, the reality is also that in 553 A.D. or so, the Church, feeling threatened by the spiritual freedom, decided to remove/oppress teachings of reincarnation and the pre-existent soul as well as other teachings and call them heresy and anathema. They are nonethless valid and real teachings of Jesus and the Christian movement (the real Christian movement), but have been called gnosticism, apocryphal, and as I suggest, heresy. But, anyway, there are still teachings of reincarnation that made it through to the canonized scriptures, and you can still read them and prove this for yourself. Along this line you see that if you want to follow something and call it Christian, you are going to have to understand that souls are actually androgynous. No soul is entirely masculine and another female, even as the human body is androgynous. Obviously some human froms have more masculine energy and some more feminine than others...and this is true with souls, but for the most part everything is androgynous. Our right brain is female, our left is male. And, the male form actually starts out female and then manifests into masculine as the expanding energy (masculine) takes over and the clitoris expands into a penis, rather than contracting into a vagina. Nonetheless, men are left with nipples that are otherwise proof that Adam and Eve are symbolic and not an actual representation of the evolution of the physical mankind here on earth. Indeed, they absolutely contradict this theory. Sex itself is a union of our masculine and feminine self. Our masculine self is Christ (which we are, and is not unique to the persona of Jesus), which is the higher, perfect self residing in the spiritual realm, while our feminine self descended into duality which is this physical, dense, near-unconscious realm. Our masculine and feminine self are connected and never have been separate (we are God and nothing is separate from God), and essentially at heart everyone is the face of God, the one mind, the one being. Our souls and human bodies are simply expressions of ourself (as we are this one God, this one existence), much like our cells are expressions of the one body. However, eventually awakening will occur, even as a fetus wakes up and becomes conscious of itself and lives a life on earth after being birthed. The second coming of Christ is this, which is union with the divine. We all become awakened spiritually, much like a man and a woman come together and their energy polarizes with each other, flowering into life. Even so, we all are this one existential entity, even as the cells in one body form one being. It is destined that we all wake up and function as one mind, but for now we are like conflicting, sleeping thoughts. We are all awakening though, and I myself am quite awakened and can testify it, even as Jesus and Buddha and other mystics have. We come together psychically, and our minds interact like thoughts in a single mind, and together we awaken and raise up into the one collective humanity, which is a single functioning mind/body. We will no longer see "humans", but rather a single body, even as a fetus stops being a primordial conglomeration of cells, an embryonic soup, and all the cells become a conscious persona.' But, in order to get here, you will need to balance your masculine and feminine energy and start functioning on the androgynous level. This does not mean disrespect your physical form, but rather know that you are your thoughts (spirit) and not your atoms, though atoms are conscious too. |
|
#6
By
ApologiaPhoenix
on
January 24th 2006, 02:20 PM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
I actually have to disagree with much of this and you can feel free to start a new thread on this topic in apologetics if you wish or in unorthodox theology. I see no basis for reincarnation in Scripture and I will glady go toe-to-toe on that. Secondly, you've made arguments of how the body develops, but there is no basis for them. If this is a scientific claim, I will need to see the scientific evidence. Thirdly, your theory relies greatly on macroevolution, yet I have numerous problems with that theory. If the foundation does not stand, I will not trust the theory built on that foundation. Most importantly though, to say Jesus is nothing special is entirely the problem. Scripture indicates that Jesus is the only begotten and the visible image of the invisible God. If Jesus is nothing special, we sure spend a lot of time on this board talking about nobody special. |
|
#7
By
cazz
on
January 27th 2006, 12:14 PM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
Most importantly though, to say Jesus is nothing special is entirely the problem. Scripture indicates that Jesus is the only begotten and the visible image of the invisible God. If Jesus is nothing special, we sure spend a lot of time on this board talking about nobody special.There is always room for error. You do not think there are cultures of people chasing lies? Gnostic and apocryphal teachings reaffirm the truth that the Christ is a concept, like the Buddha, which everyone may achieve. There are many people proclaiming Buddha, Krishna, and other figures as the only special people. Are you going to continue fighting with them like children arguing over whose bicycle is better than whose? Also, these notions of Jesus as the only special Savior were presented to help people in the Jewish religion get away from their murderous rituals against animals. It was a concept to support the growth of Christianity, and certainly not one to be dug up hundreds of years later to be worshiped. You are following less of Jesus' real words and teachings and more of the church's interpretations and traditions, just like the Jews were doing when Jesus rebuked them for it. Furthermore, Jesus identified himself with a mindset of existence's reality, which is the Spirit. Everyone can do this, and it is not anyone's right nor responsibility to attack them as blasphemers. In fact, the real definition of blaspheming which was being taught is denying that God is everything, quite the anti of what people teach today. You have to recognize the modern gap. But even as Jesus tried to awaken the Jews to their misinterpretations during their time of the things they proclaimed they were following, so I do not expect you to immediately believe me when I tell you that your overestimation of the credibility in your religion of choice just simply does not prove much of anything either. As for the men being female first, there are places to discover this, here is one though it seems to be arguing against Creationism which may be unattractive to you, but it is a good reference nonetheless if we are looking for a scientific outlook. There are certainly scientific studies if you will search for them, if you are honestly looking for truth in life rather than following lies. I think this is a very serious issue for you if you believe in the story of Adam and Eve as completely literal, so if you want to feel justifed in your life for your beliefs, I only assume you will give a good effort to do further research. http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/vestigial.htm Male Nippleshttp://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=468277 You just cannot reconcile the fact that many conflicting religions teach a "special person". How many special people are there? And if one claims only one, then how do they settle the dispute? You cannot, and, anyway, if anyone is special, life is not worth living. So, I am not going to entertain this discussion very long. |
|
#8
By
GhostontheNet
on
January 29th 2006, 04:32 AM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
To be sure, the simplistic analysis of gender, which is in itself not to be confused with the sexes, is built upon broad brush to try to play the old antiquity card to evade the implication that gender itself is in part or in full a social construction by leviathan (firguratively, ala Isaiah) for its own purposes. But on the one hand, by these standards Yeshua Christ Himself was more of a woman than a man, doubtless the psychological reason why art with anglo-saxon long haired gentle faced Yeshua image remains so ubiquitous. But who are you to say that the one true man to ever walk the face of the planet, as Pilate himself ironically testified with the words in John "Behold the Man", Pilate himself being a very "manly" man often commiting the classic "manly" pursuit of grinding the world to its knees at any cost - evidently supposedly leaving it to the woman to pick up the pieces from the garbage which the man had oh so affectionately created for her like cats leaving dead carcasses for their masters (everything really for his selfish self however, creating a black planet of darkness and corrosion and pain and sorrow and tribulation and tears), or perhaps to protect her from this former sort of man with the same weapons of cold vivisection. If that's what being a man really is, it would be better to forsake that and be like Yeshua. Fortunately, however, the disciplines of anthropology have revealed example of cultures where women have more traits we associate with "masculinity" and men have more traits we would associate with "femininity". I see no more compelling reason not to believe that the vast majority of many of these traits are enculturated by leviathan handing out toys to unwitting youngsters not realizing what they are being molded to become, good or bad, or, as often, a distressing mixture of both with nobody really caring or taking it seriously. So too, launching cute little pot shots like "Christianity has no place for the lone wolf" is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that God salvaged me out of the garbage where leviathan had thrown me out as useless to the machine it had built because of the way He had constructed me, though I am still forsaken by those gears God created and sought out that are still within the machine as safety valves - and, it's ok, I know my allegiences lie with God and not men. However, the article does make valid points desperately needed in a world that has forsaken the purposes of the creator God and His kingdom in favor of leviathans empire of greed, blood, and death, and general perversion of all creation including sex. As it is written: Isaiah 26:16-27:1 ESV 16O LORD, in distress they sought you; they poured out a whispered prayer when your discipline was upon them. 17Like a pregnant woman who writhes and cries out in her pangs when she is near to giving birth, so were we because of you, O LORD; 18we were pregnant, we writhed, but we have given birth to wind. We have accomplished no deliverance in the earth, and the inhabitants of the world have not fallen. 19Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead. 20Come, my people, enter your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until the fury has passed by. 21For behold, the LORD is coming out from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it, and will no more cover its slain. 1In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea. And 1 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 ESV 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. |
|
#9
By
spauline
on
February 5th 2006, 09:41 PM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
Dear Apologia Nick or Trout,
Your association of human sexuality with the Trinity is right on true. The late Holy Father's Theology of the Body is saturated with these concepts. Yes, indeed, human sexuality is itself a very Revelation the Infinite Communion of Love in the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Just as a side note, and not to be mean, but as you indicate in the section talking about intercourse, the gift of selves, one to another, must be complete, holding nothing back, just as Christ refused the drug before crucifixion, in order that He might completely empty himself, holding nothing back. But, on that assumption, then, clearly any form of artificial birth control destroys such body language and is lying with one's body. It is like saying, "I give myself to you/ receive you, but not completely." Most of Protestantism caved into the acceptance of artificial birth control in the steps of the Anglicans in 1930. Even also some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have now accepted it as well. So, more or less, only the RCC has remained firm in denying the moral legitimacy of artificial birth control. This may come as a shock, but the entire moral collapse of sexual morality in the European Civilizations was prophesied by the popes in question who warned against it as deriving from the widespread use of artificial birth control. On that vein, then, no person will ever have the fullest understanding of human sexuality from a spiritual standpoint if they believe in any form of artificial birth control. It would be like saying, using your very analogy of the Trinity, that the Persons of the Holy Trinity would not either fully accept or fully offer themselves to One Another. No, in Our Triune God, the Divine Persons give of themselves and receive One Another Whole and Entire, holding nothing back, giving everything. May God Bless you, Trout, scott |
|
#10
By
spauline
on
February 8th 2006, 02:48 AM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
Dear Apologia,
I would like to apologize for my harshness of the last reply. I think I was being too triumphalistic or somehow attacking Protestants or Protestantism in an uncharitable manner. I ask you to please forgive me. I think there are way more good Protestants in this country, at least from the middleofroad to conservative ones, than there are good Catholics, so I didn't intend to put down or blame any individual Protestant or group of them. I just wanted to point out that artificial birth control is a very serious affront to chastity and marriage and that it has had a real terrible impact on the modern world, especially the family. But, again, I don't wish to blame or attack any Protestant or them as a whole for this. I just wanted to lovingly point out that the massive immorality in sexuality in the world today will not be able to be healed without essentially eliminating unnatural birth control.But, again, you're right on the money in making the connection between the Trinity and human sexuality! May God Bless you, Apologia, for your wonderful insights into human sexuality.In Him, scott |
|
#11
By
hereoisreal
on
March 27th 2006, 10:03 AM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Rev 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. Jhn 16:21, "A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world." Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne. It's not over till the fat lady (pregnant wife) sings., Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an AZ (first & last), and upon a colt the foal of an AZ (first & last). ApologiaNick, this is how life is created. Zero |
|
#12
By
G.C. Howard
on
April 23rd 2007, 05:56 PM
|
|
Re: OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick
There is always room for error. You do not think there are cultures of people chasing lies? Gnostic and apocryphal teachings reaffirm the truth that the Christ is a concept, like the Buddha, which everyone may achieve. There are many people proclaiming Buddha, Krishna, and other figures as the only special people. Are you going to continue fighting with them like children arguing over whose bicycle is better than whose?Although I don't know the answer to the question asked about nipples, I'm pretty sure there is an answer. This is the same ol' same ol' from the naturalist camp--they had a list of over 100 'vestigial' organs saying how that proved evolution. A. Those organs have ALL shown to serve a purpose within the body. B. This doesn't prove evolution.. infact it would show de-evolution, if it were true. C. The author makes the claim that it's evidence for faulty design. He makes the assumption that he knows what perfect design is. "No, the design explanation for male nipples makes more sense. But even if male nipples had no known use, there is another important reason why they exist in today’s males. That is, they are the result of an efficient plan of embryonic development. Human embryos contain characteristics of both sexes at first, because they all have basically the same genetic information, and this information is expressed as efficiently as possible as the embryo develops. This is design economy. For example, in all human embryos, at first both the müllerian duct system (female) and the wolffian duct system (male) develop, because both sexes have the genetic information for these structures. Incidentally, this refutes the urban myth that human embryos ‘start off female’. The subsequent differences are the result of designed chemical signals that control the expression of the information. E.g., a gene set usually found on the Y chromosome controls the levels of testosterone and dihydroxytestosterone (DHT) secretion. Above a certain level, these hormones suppress the development of the müllerian duct system and promote the wolffian duct system, so the embryo takes on masculine characteristics. Below a certain hormone level, the opposite happens, and the embryo takes on female characteristics." http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...10-23-2000.asp It's from AiG, which I really don't approve of, but atleast some of their articles are a little descent and scientifically sound. |