Quantcast Index
College Media Network
  • Home
  • General Info

Sex takes on new meaning from Christian view

Abstract:
...

  • Displaying 1 - 24 of 24

anon

posted 11/19/09 @ 3:21 AM CST

I'm glad that this side of the sex debate can be shown as well. Though it may not be compatible with my views, I can appreciate a well written article displaying someone's personal opinions, so props to you, Zach. I hope that people will show an open mind to all sides of the issue, instead of getting all offended and put off when someone writes something from a different moral stand point. Just because opinions on the issue may differ, does not mean they should not be voiced. So again, thanks Zach, for voicing your opinion. I respect that and I hope those whose ideas differ aren't as cruel about this article, as those with these viewpoints have been about previous columns expressing different views of sex and sexuality.
Post a reply to this comment

Kathy Stewart

posted 11/19/09 @ 6:16 AM CST

Thanks for sharing, Zach. It is great that diversity of opinion is actually still allowed, if not welcomed, in this country.
Post a reply to this comment

Michelle

posted 11/19/09 @ 9:56 AM CST

The only couples who can have truly profound, loving sex are married Christians?

There are a lot of other religions out there with monogomous and faithful couples, and there are a lot of monogamous, unmarried, nonreligious couples who enjoy a healthy relationship based on respect, trust, and love AND have great sex. Just saying. It's not a question of "CHRISTIAN FULFILLING SEX VS EMPTY SEX." You present this issue in a very polarizing way, excluding the vast grey middle area.

Also, your views on homosexuality are horrendously outdated. You're a philosophy and religions major, right? Ask any Christianity professor and they'll tell you that your homosexual condemnations are completely taken out of context. A lot depends on the historical and cultural context of the day it was written. This is really common knowledge by now, so I'm surprised people are still looking at the Bible on such a surface level-an act of disrespect unto the Bible itself, in my opinion.

(By the way, if sex is only for men and women because it's the only method of procreation, then why haven't you had any kids yet?)
Post a reply to this comment

Jeremy Loscheider

posted 11/19/09 @ 2:04 PM CST

Originally posted by

Michelle
There are a lot of other religions out there with monogomous and faithful couples, and there are a lot of monogamous, unmarried, nonreligious couples who enjoy a healthy relationship based on respect, trust, and love AND have great sex. Just saying. It's not a question of "CHRISTIAN FULFILLING SEX VS EMPTY SEX." [QUOTE]

I think you're conflating two points Zach is bringing up. One, that Christians believe that sex should be reserved for marriage, and two that he and his wife find intimacy and fulfillment together. I don't think he's challenging the biological issues of sexual pleasure here, but rather reiterating that Christians generally believe sexual intercourse should occur only among married spouses - certain religion professors' opinions notwithstanding.

[QUOTE id="60958b00-7a83-4c77-8636-ec290b03cfd2"]
Also, your views on homosexuality are horrendously outdated. You're a philosophy and religions major, right? Ask any Christianity professor and they'll tell you that your homosexual condemnations are completely taken out of context. [QUOTE]

And yet the largest denominations in the U.S. - Roman Catholicism, Southern Baptism, Presbyterian Church of America, etc - all denounce homosexual activity as sinful. Unlike other fields where experts tend to be academics, there is a vast divide between theologians and the clergy.

[QUOTE id="60958b00-7a83-4c77-8636-ec290b03cfd2"]
A lot depends on the historical and cultural context of the day it was written. This is really common knowledge by now, so I'm surprised people are still looking at the Bible on such a surface level-an act of disrespect unto the Bible itself, in my opinion. [QUOTE]

In Scriptural exegesis, this is true. Context is highly important, yet I'm unaware of how the context of the condemnation of homosexuality has changed (with the obvious exception that no one seriously calls for criminal punishment of homosexuals - no one reasonable anyway).

[QUOTE id="60958b00-7a83-4c77-8636-ec290b03cfd2"]
(By the way, if sex is only for men and women because it's the only method of procreation, then why haven't you had any kids yet?)


He did note that he just got married this summer - give nature a little time. Also, it isn't always that quick. I know a number of couples who are struggling with infertility, even though they're only a few years older than students like Zach.

I would like to add that sex isn't just for procreation within the Christian ethic - the intimacy between spouses is vital to a healthy marriage. We understand the biological function of sex to be primarily for reproduction, but obviously that doesn't always occur. We take that to mean we should be open to children whenever God chooses to provide such a cherished gift to us, but not that lovemaking should be incomplete if it doesn't result in pregnancy. Sometimes God says "not yet" - something my friends who struggle with infertility know very well.
Post a reply to this comment

Jeremy Loscheider

posted 11/19/09 @ 7:37 PM CST

Formatting's off with quoting Michelle's comment. Sorry about that, must've missed a parenthesis somewhere.
Post a reply to this comment

ANON

posted 11/19/09 @ 9:57 AM CST

I do agree that this is a nice stand point to take and that every one has a right to their opinion. I'd like those who are willing to openly research this topic further, to visit the following site:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

The article was very well written and I do appreciate and respect your view. Well done Zach
Post a reply to this comment

Robert

posted 11/19/09 @ 12:07 PM CST

Being able to express diversity of opinion is a good thing. Being able to point out the errors in various diverse opinions is also a good thing. So here it goes.

You said "Clearly, intimacy isn't a topic the Bible avoids." Neither are polygamy, incest, rape and pedophilia. Neither is murdering men to have a free shot at the women. I could go on, but why? We can all see what's in the bible by reading it ourselves.

You said "In the Church today, sex is not some taboo activity that should be separated from religion, as many believe."

What about the Church of yesterday? If you are going to write on these forums that the Church NEVER claimed sex was a "sin" and even in marriage, it was to be done ONLY for procreation, then you need to check your history. So which is it? Was the church wrong THEN or is it wrong NOW?

And you said "Christians understand sex as the highest expression of love, as the union of two bodies and two souls and as a holy act."

Unless, of course, you love someone of a gender that the church doesn't approve of.

And further:

Zach: "We dated for almost five years, which tested our commitments. There were several moments when I wondered why we had made such promises in the first place. Then, during the summer, we exchanged rings, made vows to each other and spent our first night together. It was the most powerful, emotional and physical experience of my life."

It's an interesting psychological fact that people who have been starving for some time often think the first food they get is the best they've ever tasted. Even though, you know...it isn't really. It's the effect of having been starved for so long.

Zach: "I am so thankful for the promises we made and for God's faithfulness to see us through. Waiting for sex might have been the most difficult thing the two of us have ever done, but it's also been the most rewarding. Our story is but one of thousands attesting to the incomparable bliss of committed, passionate, marital sex."

Well, um, there's also the possibility...I think a very real possibility actually, that your sex is, yes, the greatest thing YOU have ever had. But it might still pale compared to the sex that more experienced and adventurous people have.

Your experience is comparable to a starving man who finally gets to eat a crust of bread and tells bunch of gourmets that bread crust is the best meal in the world.

I, for one, am glad you're enjoying your scrap of bread crust. But...man, oh man, you ought to try steak some time!
Post a reply to this comment

Brittany

posted 11/19/09 @ 1:38 PM CST

1. Your anecdotes about large Christian families is NOT sociological data about the views and experiences Christians have with sex. And far from being a positive note about how Christians actually have sex, what those anecdotes say to me is that Christianity in some of its purest forms requires women to choose between having no sex/less sex or having more children than they might want, can afford, or can handle physically and psychologically. I know the position varies from denomination to denomination, but the Christian Right's general views of abortion, contraception, and a woman's role in society do nothing to change or improve my opinion of Christian views of sex.

2. I don't think anyone should condemn you for expressing your opinion, but the existence of an opinion does not make it valid, correct, or more convincing than the opinions of others. You suggest that Christians are not afraid of sex nor is it a taboo topic in the church, but your larger point is that Christianity has a very narrow context in which sex is supposed to occur. That logically leaves those of us who do not conform to that context as sinners at worst and norm violators at best. And whether you agree with his methods or not, the guy who stands in the quad waving his Bible and shouting at students about premarital sex is condemning that same group. This does not help improve how I see Christian views of sex.

3. You say "The biblical witness exclusively supports sexual relations between a man and a woman because that is the only means of natural reproduction," but what of heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive? For that couple the purpose of sex is no longer reproduction because that is an impossibility. The logic that they should continue having sex because they fit into the "correct" categories for producing offspring is ridiculous. For them the options for starting a family are essentially the same as homosexual couples except they don't have to deal with the political backlash often felt by same gender loving couples who would like to marry or adopt.
Post a reply to this comment

Jake

posted 11/19/09 @ 2:08 PM CST

So if one member of a married couple is infertile, is there sex therefore sinful? Also, homosexuality exists in all forms of life, so to call unnatural is pure ignorance. Ever heard of our cousins the bonobos?
Post a reply to this comment

Jeremy Loscheider

posted 11/19/09 @ 7:36 PM CST

Originally posted by

Jake

 So if one member of a married couple is infertile, is there sex therefore sinful? Also, homosexuality exists in all forms of life, so to call unnatural is pure ignorance. Ever heard of our cousins the bonobos?


No, the sex isn't sinful even if one or both spouses are infertile. It's still the giving of spouses to one another. It would be sin for the fertile spouse to make a baby with someone else, though.

While homosexuality is found in nature, I find the sexual habits of monkeys an odd choice for basing one's morality. Certainly we share reproductive biology in common with Bonobo chimps - a monkey renowned for its ability to autostimulate with its feet while eating. Indeed, we find a tendency among animals to kill the weakest members - you wouldn't support eugenics on the advice of a hamster?

At the very least, I would hope that any sexual act would be an expression of love and commitment - even if it were between two men. And I think the GLBT community would find deeper meaning in their intimate relations than the obedience to hormonal pressures that causes our aforementioned prehensile-tailed co-mammals to express themselves as such. I dare say some in the GLBT community may be offended at the debasing of what, to humans, is an expression of romantic love.
Post a reply to this comment

Concerned

posted 12/03/09 @ 11:49 AM CST

Originally posted by

Jake

 So if one member of a married couple is infertile, is there sex therefore sinful? Also, homosexuality exists in all forms of life, so to call unnatural is pure ignorance. Ever heard of our cousins the bonobos?


Go to the Centers for Disease Control and do a search on anal sex, and see how many hits you get. Is that empirical enough to suggest it may be unnatural, or at least dangerous?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
Post a reply to this comment

Jake

posted 11/19/09 @ 2:19 PM CST

So what if a married, heterosexual couple is infertile? Are their fruitless sexual acts sinful and innappropriate? Also, FACT: homosexuality exists in a wide variety of species of life on earth, so to call it unnatural is pure ignorance. Have you ever heard of our cousins the Bonobos? And when I say cousins, i mean evolutionarily, but you probably don't believe in something as well founded as genetics.

The issue is not whether you approve of disapprove of homosexual acts. It is whether or not you consider them lower class citizens and are willing to act and vote to deny them equal rights in accordance with those beliefs.
Post a reply to this comment

Jeremy Loscheider

posted 11/19/09 @ 7:49 PM CST

Originally posted by

Jake

 The issue is not whether you approve of disapprove of homosexual acts. It is whether or not you consider them lower class citizens and are willing to act and vote to deny them equal rights in accordance with those beliefs.


There is a corollary to this issue. If homosexuals are accorded equal marital rights as heterosexuals, does that compel religious institutions that condemn homosexual acts to grant such rights? Would it have to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of employees?

This isn't theory - Washington D.C. city council will be voting on such a bill next month.

The consequences are whether the State has the right to force a Religion to disagree with its own teachings in order to comply with law. And it isn't just over extending benefits to gay spouses. Would a Church or Mosque have to perform gay marriages? Would it have to cease teaching that homosexual acts are wrong? Would Catholic hospitals be compelled to perform medical procedures that are considered immoral by the Church but necessary by the government.

This is a matter of religious expression versus personal freedom. First Amendment versus First Amendment. This is an argument of "how dare you tell me how to live my life" against "how dare you tell me what to believe". I don't see an easy resolution here.
Post a reply to this comment

Ryan

posted 11/19/09 @ 6:43 PM CST

I disagreed with almost all of this article, but you were doing pretty well up until the homosexuality part. I agree with you when you say that the Bible is essentially intolerant of homosexuality (and I disagree with Christians that say it isn't) but it simply amazes me that you think that this can be logically justified in the face of all modern secular evidence to the contrary. Let's just look at what you've said:

Although this religious formula is enough for many believers, I would suggest that God has given this commandment with good reason. The biblical witness exclusively supports sexual relations between a man and a woman because that is the only means of natural reproduction. Two men or two women simply cannot, on their own, create life. It is a biological impossibility.

Yes, this is true. But you can't base your criterion of getting married off of the ability to have kids. By that standard, what about the heterosexual couples who are infertile? They can't create, life, so should they be allowed to get married?

Further, God made men and women interdependent on one another, in both psyche and anatomy. In a way, each gender is incomplete - but sex is the completion.

Yes, this is precisely why most men and women stay married happily forever and gays are simply incapable of being interdependent on another or having satisfying sex. Not. Don't take my word for it, though, just look at divorce rates: they're high for heterosexuals and I wouldn't be surprised if they're just as high for homosexuals.

One can even question as to whether or not homosexuality is even "unnatural" as defined by the ability to produce offspring. Attraction between the same sex is apparent in almost every species currently known (at virtually the same percentage as it is in the human realm). If it is prevalent in almost all of animal life, would it not be more natural than "unnatural"?

Christian doctrine on homosexuality simply cannot be argued in the face of scientific, empirical evidence. The AMA has removed homosexuality from its list of diseases, the APA has long removed homosexuality off a list of mental disorders, but also stated that homosexuality should not be viewed as a choice. Those and the recent laws of several states permitting gay marriage simply contradict biblical treatment of homosexuality. I'm hoping that this is proof that we as a society are moving away from a fundamentalist view of Christianity and towards a more secular, rational view of homosexuality.

You finish off by saying, "You're rejecting the unbelievable sex you were designed to have." Wouldn't this imply that those of us who have had sex before marriage are getting less quality sex than before marriage? All one need to do to test this statement would be to ask married people who have had premarital sex which they prefer. I very highly doubt you get many people saying the sex after marriage was any different from the sex before marriage. It depends almost exclusively on how good your partner is, which relies, at least somewhat, on experience (and from that we might conclude that a more experienced person will provide better sex before or after marriage).
Post a reply to this comment

An alum

posted 11/19/09 @ 10:03 PM CST

Since "the bottom line" (that's $$$) usually trumps morals, ethics, religion or lack thereof, perhaps this can be viewed in connection with the many debates about health care. How many health problems arise from sex with multiple partners -- be they gay, straight, or somewhere in-between? If health insurers refused to treat anything contracted from casual sex with more than one partner, that would improve the health status of a lot of people and reduce the cost of health care.
Post a reply to this comment

Michelle

posted 11/20/09 @ 11:10 AM CST

Originally posted by

An alum

 Since "the bottom line" (that's $$$) usually trumps morals, ethics, religion or lack thereof, perhaps this can be viewed in connection with the many debates about health care. How many health problems arise from sex with multiple partners -- be they gay, straight, or somewhere in-between? If health insurers refused to treat anything contracted from casual sex with more than one partner, that would improve the health status of a lot of people and reduce the cost of health care.


WOW. So you would literally have people DIE because you disapprove of one aspect of their lifestyle. Classy. I am beyond words. Not to mention, how on earth could anyone prove a patient got an STD from casual sex? That could get out of hand REALLY fast and could quickly turn into a legal witch hunt once blaming and accusing ensue.

Don't even open that can of worms. Your thinking is VERY dangerous, uncompassionate, and VERY sick. Believe me, that would not improve anything. It would just kill a lot of innocents.
Post a reply to this comment

Robert

posted 11/20/09 @ 11:43 AM CST

Originally posted by

An alum

 Since "the bottom line" (that's $$$) usually trumps morals, ethics, religion or lack thereof, perhaps this can be viewed in connection with the many debates about health care. How many health problems arise from sex with multiple partners -- be they gay, straight, or somewhere in-between? If health insurers refused to treat anything contracted from casual sex with more than one partner, that would improve the health status of a lot of people and reduce the cost of health care.


Now that is an very interesting position to take. But if insurance companies really wanted to reduce payouts for disease, I would suggest that the better approach would be to promote safe sex and sex education rather than promoting sex only within marriage.

Both of those things would reduce STDs, but the "no sex outside marriage" is going to be a tough sell since you're fighting nature.
Post a reply to this comment

sarah

posted 11/21/09 @ 12:39 AM CST

I appreciate that you can present your argument, however I would like to point out one thing. Your Christian view of sex, is only one view of Christian sex. There are millions of Christians, and I would argue that there are many Christian view of sex. Even if you disregard secular view of sex, you should consider that others within your same religion, may disagree with you.
Post a reply to this comment

David

posted 11/25/09 @ 12:28 AM CST

Well this is certainly a post that will illicit strong opinions from whoever reads it. I agree with you about the role of sex. I am 24 and I am still a virgin. There is a great deal of commitment involved in making a choice to abstain from sex until marriage.

I would like to add that there is a strong case from following Christ's example, even by secular and scientific standards. I think that a few of those who have posted comment should do a little research.
Post a reply to this comment

AG

posted 11/27/09 @ 1:45 AM CST

Someone give commenter Robert a column. He makes good points, which are sorely needed in this piece.

Zach, forgive me, but to me, this column comes across as more predictable blather about a "Christian view of sex" and a Christian condemnation of gays that is neither insightful nor enlightening. Those positions are simple enough to understand without your help.

It seems to me that sex is an incredibly personal thing, so I have no real use for a sex column that attempts to speak for millions of people in one college sophomore's voice. Your sex, or your grandmother's sex, is not mine or anyone else's.

My longstanding theory (and I apologize for generalizing here) is that many Christians marry at a young age in large part because they don't want to (or can't) resist sex any longer. And who would? It'd be a terrible waste. I'm sure the sex you had as a husband was great for you and maybe your wife because you are young people and that's what young people do: have a good time banging.

It may have been just mind-blowing for all the reasons you cited.

But the reason for THAT, I'd argue, is that you have been conditioned to respond that way, and thus deluded into thinking your path is the truest. You believe your sex is more passionate, more full of meaning and bliss because that is the way it's supposed to be when you're married. And you know nothing else.

I'm sure there is an enormous difference between committed wedding-night sex and awkward prom-night sex. Problem is, you'll never know it.

So who's really missing out?
Post a reply to this comment

Robert

posted 12/01/09 @ 12:05 PM CST

Someone give commenter AG a column. He makes good points, which are sorely needed in this piece.

...

...like that I ought to have a column! Heh!

Thanks for the compliment, AG.
Post a reply to this comment

a

posted 12/03/09 @ 9:03 PM CST

it's a shame that the index continues to publish complete trash like this. you're ruining your reputation for shock value. CONGRATS.
Post a reply to this comment

hmm

posted 12/04/09 @ 1:33 AM CST

Originally posted by

a

 it's a shame that the index continues to publish complete trash like this. you're ruining your reputation for shock value. CONGRATS.

I don't think this was published for shock value at all. I really don't understand why everyone thinks article about sex are always just published for shock value. The fact is sex is a part of our lives as humans and simply ignoring the issue won't change that fact. Every sex article published has been at the top of the most viewed lists, obviously the topic is one that people are interested in reading and debating about. I think this article was published to balance out previous sex-related articles and attempt to give a different view point on the issue. If you think it's trashy why bother reading and taking time out to comment on the story. Find something you deem worthwhile to do with your time.
Post a reply to this comment

Robert

posted 12/04/09 @ 10:34 AM CST

Originally posted by

a

 it's a shame that the index continues to publish complete trash like this. you're ruining your reputation for shock value. CONGRATS.


Much as I disagree with the author of the article, I don't think it was published for "shock value". He was simply expressing his opinion on a topic that is important to a lot of people. Frankly, I admire his courage to publish such an article when he knows many people will disagree with him. The guy has some intestinal fortitude.
Post a reply to this comment
  • Displaying 1 - 24 of 24

Post Your Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Advertisement

Poll

Will Troy Paino make an effective University President?
Submit Vote

View Results

Advertisement