Sex, Marriage and Biblical Prohibition

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by JJM

If I remember correctly, this thread spawned from the Should the Catholic church just Die Quietly? thread. So I was wondering if it would be ok if I gave the Catholic Church's perspective. It is more logical than Biblical so I thought I should ask first rather than hijack the thread. Although I think there is plenty of support from Paul’s writings to argue against premarital sex.

Please continue...

v/r

Q

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Faithfulservant, In your paragraph above you say that the penalty for transgression of the commandment (adultery, in this case) is the death penalty. I'm just wondering where this is said in the Bible (NT, since we are talking aobut Jesus). Clearly we do not kill people who take the Lord's name in vain, do not keep the Sabbath, commit adultery, covet they neighbor's stuff, etc. I have never heard this said before, or perhaps I am being too literal in understanding your paragraph.

peace,
lunamoth

Like I said earlier.. without Jesus Christ we are all under a death penalty for any sin we commit makes us unworthy for the kingdom of heaven. I'm not sure what else to say other than quoting these scriptures.

If you do not accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you are under the law...

Leviticus 20:10 The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Romans 5:21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.

Romans 7:7-13 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. 13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful

Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.


and finally

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

John 5:24 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

John 8:51 Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death."

Im still not sure what the issue is.. I never said that Jesus commanded the death penalty.. I said that if you are not washed in the blood of Christ.. or if you arent saved you are under the law.. Jesus is the NT.. the law is the OT. Hmm ... the topic is sex marriage and biblical prohibition.. sorry had to double check to make sure I wasnt posting on a different thread... Think our communication lines are crossed luna. :P

[JJM]

Alright I’m goona attempt to explain my understanding of the Church’s teaching on premarital sex, homosexuality, and contraception. It comes down to the fact that sex outside of marriage and out of the natural design of God in regards to the openness to children is selfish and in some sense idolatrous. There are two ways to go about explaining this but they kind of over lap and both come to the same conclusion. I’ll start with the less theological one. In order to understand sexuality we have to look at the underlying purpose of sex. That underlying purpose is to have children. Now understanding this we can look at the purpose of sexual pleasure. Its purpose is to bring the Mother and the Father of the Child closer together in order to be better Parents to the child, which they are conceiving. To have sex in which the natural openness to a child is prohibited or simply for the sake of sexual pleasure without wanting to be united to the partner is to take what you want from sex rather than what God meant for sex to be and this is in essence selfish and is the worship of sexual pleasure and ones own wants and needs. Now this handles Contraception and Homosexuality but it doesn’t directly say anything about premarital sex. The reason Premarital sex is wrong is that two people shouldn’t come together to create another person until they are one. And they shouldn’t be having sex without an openness to a child. However the better explanation of why this is so is the second way of looking at it and this second way also contains another way of looking at the Homosexuality and contraception. This involves our understanding of the Trinity. Now we have to realize that while it seems as if I’m saying the third person of the trinity is being created in actuality he is being begotten. They aren’t created because all three of them are outside of time, eternal, and infinite. But anyway here I Go. In our understanding God the Father is the Lover and Jesus Christ is the Beloved. The Father Loves Christ, and Christ returns that Love. And that Love between those Two Persons is so strong that it is in itself is a third person. That is the Holy Spirit. In the same way a husband gives himself to his Wife and the wife Returns his love and that love is so great it creates a third person which is the embodiment of that love. This is one of the greatest gifts God has given us because it is at this point that in sex that we can understand the Trinity more than at any other point in our lives. This is why a man and a woman should be one through marriage before they have sex, because the Father and the Son are one and this also gives another aspect of Contraception and Homosexuality because both of those are essentially, through this mystery, Sacrilegious and Blasphemous because they Remove the Third Person from the Trinity Thus profaning This beautiful mystery which God has given to us and They are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. Does all this make sense? If anyone needs any clarification just say something.

[Kaldayen]

Originally Posted by JJM

Now understanding this we can look at the purpose of sexual pleasure. Its purpose is to bring the Mother and the Father of the Child closer together in order to be better Parents to the child, which they are conceiving.

I'm wondering : does the bible really speaks of the point of sexual pleasure or is that an interpretation?
___
Kal

[Bandit]

ok, this is how my dad explained it.with his finger in my face..."Son, you will not bring shame to this family!"

this is how mom explained it.
"It is for marriage & to have children & after that you forget about it."

so there are two more versions to consider.

[Faithfulservant]

Thank you JJM that was a beautiful post.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by JJM

Alright I’m goona attempt to explain my understanding of the Church’s teaching on premarital sex, homosexuality, and contraception.

<snip>

Does all this make sense? If anyone needs any clarification just say something.

I got a little warm under the collar until I reread your first sentence. I don't know whether you personally agree with this teaching, but that, for me, is beside the point. In any case, at least I now have a *much* better understanding of why the Catholic Church is so condemning of me and my ilk.

for the sake of sexual pleasure without wanting to be united to the partner

I personally disagree very strongly with the idea that this is what homosexuality is about, but that's another discussion. To get back to the point, what would the Church's teaching be, then, about married couples where either the man or the woman is infertile (especially where they didn't know about it before they got married)? Are they also "sacriligious and blasphemous"? Should they then never have sex again for the rest of their married life from the moment they find out about the infertility, since there's no chance of it resulting in a child?

(By the way, I'm not trolling - my intended tone of voice is one of polite and genuine interest.)

[bananabrain]

my two penn'orth:

sex outside of marriage and out of the natural design of G!D in regards to the openness to children is selfish and in some sense idolatrous.

i'd like to know how you can claim it's idolatrous. do you have a source? don't forget that if you resort to the "natural design" argument instead of relying on Divine commandment, you are open to objections from the natural world, which is, these days, apparently full of homosexual bonobos, celibate pandas and polyamorous crabs. in short, one is far better off saying that monogamy is commanded for humans, marriage is commanded for the monotheists and that sex outside those parameters, while arguably both natural and understandable, is ideally to be minimised.

underlying purpose of sex. That underlying purpose is to have children.

that may well be the church's view but it is not that of judaism. the jewish view of sex is that it is the closest relationship a human can have to another human and is an act of personal intimacy that gives an unparalleled insight into spiritual intimacy - which is why the two can be so unpleasantly confused. in other words, sex is the closest humans get to a direct experience of the Divine, which is why the word "knowledge" (da'ath) is used for it (as in "and adam knew his wife"). nothing is said about children. obviously children are part of a deal and, in that sense, not being mindful of that eventuality and factoring it in, either passively or actively, has practical consequences in the area of person-to-peron ethics, even more so than between person and G!D.

I'm wondering : does the bible really speaks of the point of sexual pleasure or is that an interpretation?

i will also add that, according to jewish law, women are not obliged to have children - that is a man's obligation only, from "be fruitful and multiply", which is addressed to the males only. consequently, the purpose of sex for women must be different and, looking further on, we see that "your desire shall be for your husband" - in other words, sex for women is not only not about children, but also about enjoyment. my personal take on this is that men and women are designed differently - in other words, men are going to want and enjoy sex come what may, so they have to be commanded to be mindful of the childbearing, whereas women are more likely to be the other way round, so they have to be made aware that they have a right to fulfilling sex too.

To have sex [...] simply for the sake of sexual pleasure without wanting to be united to the partner is to take what you want from sex rather than what G!D meant for sex to be and this is in essence selfish and is the worship of sexual pleasure and one's own wants and needs.

we'd agree with this - except we'd disagree over what G!D wants sex to be for humans.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

I personally disagree very strongly with the idea that this is what homosexuality is about, but that's another discussion. To get back to the point, what would the Church's teaching be, then, about married couples where either the man or the woman is infertile (especially where they didn't know about it before they got married)? Are they also "sacriligious and blasphemous"? Should they then never have sex again for the rest of their married life from the moment they find out about the infertility, since there's no chance of it resulting in a child?

Good point, Scarlet P. As one of those infertile couples I was wondering about this myself. The hairs on my neck stand up every time I read this particular "reason" against homosexual relationships (right Q? ).

Perhaps another way of looking at it is that marriage is for the sake of children, who in the days before birth control (and even since) are bound to come along once a couple "knows" each other. But, while marriage (ideally) creates a stable family for raising children, sexual relations are about more than just creating babies. The word I always think of is intimacy, both spiritual and physical.

peace,
lunamoth

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

I'm wondering : does the bible really speaks of the point of sexual pleasure or is that an interpretation?
___
Kal

Neither not all Catholic beliefs come from the Bible. That is a Protestant ideal.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'd like to know how you can claim it's idolatrous. do you have a source?

Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

If you are serving Sexual pleasure or yourself you can't be serving God. And that Sexual Pleasure or yourself becomes a god to you.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

don't forget that if you resort to the "natural design" argument instead of relying on Divine commandment, you are open to objections from the natural world, which is, these days, apparently full of homosexual bonobos, celibate pandas and polyamorous crabs. in short, one is far better off saying that monogamy is commanded for humans, marriage is commanded for the monotheists and that sex outside those parameters, while arguably both natural and understandable, is ideally to be minimised.

My statement about Natural design was in reference to the man and womans Natural fertility.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

that may well be the church's view but it is not that of judaism. the jewish view of sex is that it is the closest relationship a human can have to another human and is an act of personal intimacy that gives an unparalleled insight into spiritual intimacy - which is why the two can be so unpleasantly confused. in other words, sex is the closest humans get to a direct experience of the Divine, which is why the word "knowledge" (da'ath) is used for it (as in "and adam knew his wife"). nothing is said about children. obviously children are part of a deal and, in that sense, not being mindful of that eventuality and factoring it in, either passively or actively, has practical consequences in the area of person-to-peron ethics, even more so than between person and G!D.

This is true, but with an understanding of the Trinity, (something obviously nonexistent in Judaism) you cannot know the Divine without the openness to the child. For the rejection of a child is the rejection of the Holy Spirit. However I would say that the above is more the purpose of Sexual Pleasure. Which I believe I stated in the Paragraph above.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

I got a little warm under the collar until I reread your first sentence. I don't know whether you personally agree with this teaching, but that, for me, is beside the point. In any case, at least I now have a *much* better understanding of why the Catholic Church is so condemning of me and my ilk.

I agree with all of the Churches teachings. If I didn't I wouldn't be christian.

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

I personally disagree very strongly with the idea that this is what homosexuality is about, but that's another discussion.

I agree but it removes a child from the equation which makes it immoral.

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

To get back to the point, what would the Church's teaching be, then, about married couples where either the man or the woman is infertile (especially where they didn't know about it before they got married)? Are they also "sacriligious and blasphemous"? Should they then never have sex again for the rest of their married life from the moment they find out about the infertility, since there's no chance of it resulting in a child?

(By the way, I'm not trolling - my intended tone of voice is one of polite and genuine interest.)

No because there can still be an openness for a child. There may be a miracle and that woman could conceive. However if a man has sex with a man that man isn't going to conceive a child because of that Sexual act. However a man or woman cannot make himself sterile because it removes the natural openness to the conception to a child. However if it seems a Man or woman is becoming sterile by natural means it doesn't change this persons natural openness to a child.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by JJM

I agree with all of the Churches teachings. If I didn't I wouldn't be christian.

Guess that's why I'm not Christian anymore then...

Originally Posted by JJM

No because there can still be an openness for a child. There may be a miracle and that woman could conceive. However if a man has sex with a man that man isn't going to conceive a child because of that Sexual act. However a man or woman cannot make himself sterile because it removes the natural openness to the conception to a child. However if it seems a Man or woman is becoming sterile by natural means it doesn't change this persons natural openness to a child.

Hmm, that seems like a VERY big convenient grey area to me. Okay, two men together can't conceive (I guess no miracle is THAT big), but how about two women together? One of them could conceive, and that would be a miracle too! Hey, parthenogenesis has happened before - and lunamoth has a thread somewhere on this very message board indicating it may not be as scientifically far-fetched as has always been thought. Let's be consistent here - either my partner or I could miraculously conceive, and we should remain open to that. Guess that means we should keep at it, huh?

I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question, but I think I'll go with lunamoth's explanation. It seems more consistent with a loving and giving God to me.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

I'm wondering : does the bible really speaks of the point of sexual pleasure or is that an interpretation?
___
Kal

Consider the Songs of Solomon. What an explicit story of sex and love between two people.

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Good point, Scarlet P. As one of those infertile couples I was wondering about this myself. The hairs on my neck stand up every time I read this particular "reason" against homosexual relationships (right Q? ).

Perhaps another way of looking at it is that marriage is for the sake of children, who in the days before birth control (and even since) are bound to come along once a couple "knows" each other. But, while marriage (ideally) creates a stable family for raising children, sexual relations are about more than just creating babies. The word I always think of is intimacy, both spiritual and physical.

peace,
lunamoth

Oh, I think I'm going to leave that one alone kiddo...

v/r

Q