porneia, fornication, lust, What is the meaning of these words??
Liberated Christians
PO Box 32835, Phoenix AZ 85064-2835
Promoting Intimacy and Other-Centered Sexuality
Taken from: http://www.libchrist.com/bible/fornication.html
COPYRIGHTED 1997 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED OR
QUOTED FROM ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN LIBERATED CHRISTIANS, MAILING ADDRESS IS
SHOWN AND WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.
Biblical Issues Regarding
Fornication (Singles Sexuality)
Traditional Church teaching falsely misuses the Bible to
judge loving, responsible singles' sexuality. True Biblical theology begins not
with Church tradition and dogma but with the biblical texts themselves.
Biblical theology seeks to understand how the biblical authors expressed
themselves in the Greek language of New Testament times (not expanded by later
Greek meanings), in terms of their culture. Only with this understanding is it
legitimate to define biblical sexual ethics of the NT and find implications for
today.
It should also be pointed out that the Bible (neither the
Old or New Testament) is not a text book on sexuality anymore than on science,
government or other subjects. In our opinion it is not possible to devise a
comprehensive, complete and exclusive sexual ethic from the Bible. The Bible
gives us the law of love and some guidelines and examples related to sexual
attitudes and behavior. Christians are then expected to depend on these
guidelines, prayer and the Holy Spirit to creatively work out their sexual
behavior.
If you are happier in your beliefs that sex is wrong outside
of marriage that may be what is best for you. But it is not from scripture as
you have been taught by the Church. If you understand Church history and its
biased translations you soon realize the lies and deceptions the Church is
teaching regarding many sexual issues.
I Cor 6:9 badly mistranslate
"porneia" as fornication. Corinth was a wide-open port
city. People there could get sex any way they wanted it. Where our English
translations read 'fornication', Paul's original Greek word was 'porneia' which
means to sell and refers to slaves bought and sold for cultic prostitution. What was happening in the Temples of Corinth was farmers were visiting the temple
priestesses who represented the fertility
Gods. By having sex with these
prostitutes they believed their fields would be more furtile. It didn't even
have to do with going to
prostitutes, but pagan cultic worship.
In Rome, the Latin prostitutes
would hang out in small alley's and behind small L
shaped walls. In Latin the shape is called FORNIX, hence the place
association with acts of prostitution gave "fornicatio" Where Paul
was condemning sex goddess, cultic, prostitution or
trafficking in slaves for that purpose, the Latin fathers substituted
'fornicatio', which led readers to believe that Paul was condemning all forms
of premarital sexual intercourse."
Some modern English Bible
versions translate "porneia" as
"sexual immorality", a term
which is supposed to clarify the somewhat obscure and dated
"fornication", but is really a catch-all term that allows
interpreters, both professional and lay, to apply this passage to any sexual
behavior at all, far beyond the specific practices to which Paul refers.
From "Halley's Bible
Handbook" 1 Cor. 6: 9-20; "Venus was the principal Deity of Corinth.
Her temple was one of the most magnificent buildings in the city. In it a
thousand Priestesses, Public Prostitutes, were kept, at public expense, there
always ready for Immoral Indulgence, as worship to their Goddess." The
Christians continued to go to the temple for sexual indulgences with the
priestesses of Venus. This was all Paul was talking about and he says nothing
about loving sexual pleasure-sharing with non-goddesses'!
It does violation to the Biblical text to assume I Cor.6:9
includes pre-marital sex, especially since that is not the context of the
discussion, either of that chapter or of the surrounding chapters. The context of I Cor.6 is the problems with the Temple of
Aphrodite. Sex with those prostitutes was idolatrous. The argument that Paul condemns singles' sex here or anywhere
else in scripture is faulty interpretation. Such a position is illogical because your assumptions are
based on emotional constructs rather than on history and on hard evidence.
Nothing in the NT indicates any prohibition of singles'
sexuality. It seems that if we apply Jesus' teaching of love over legalism,
responsible Christian sexuality is much more an example of Christ's loving
desire for us than the traditional biblical values of many wives, concubines as
breeders, and capturing women in battle for soldiers' sexual pleasure!
A Prodigy poster said: "..I think that David H's post
cannot be so easily dismissed. I am not a theologian-although I did attend a seminary...and I have studied a
fair amount of Greek.....While at the seminary,
I wrote a paper on the translation of "porneia".
As you must know if you have studied the question, "fornication"
is a bald mistranslation of "porneia" (even my very
conservative Greek professor conceded this point). If
one discounts the N.T. passages containing this mistranslation--including the
selection from Thessalonians...there is little remaining support for the
position that the Bible condemns premarital sexuality....if one takes an
objective view of what the Bible has to say on the subject, sexuality outside
of marriage seems to be accepted....I would also acknowledge that
most people would be happier...if they would simply accept the church's
traditional position...But to condemn all sexuality
outside of marriage as sin seems to go well beyond what the Bible teaches--and
Paul has a good deal to say about that in Galatians."
All of us should search our own spirits. God can lead people
differently, resulting in reaching different people in sharing Christ's love.
We also must respect others' beliefs but try not to cause another to stumble, since some cannot handle emotionally anything other than the
traditional Church view.
Again a Prodigy poster: "Scripture is only one way God
speaks to us and has a number of limitations
because it was not written with modern conditions in mind. While
reading scripture is useful, it is only useful when done in prayer.. and in not
relying on the Holy Spirit but relying instead on the Bible as a substitute for
His wisdom. In the absence of unambiguous mandate from scripture, it is wrong
for me to impose a personal moral code on others who believe differently".
1 Cor 7: 8-9 Better to Marry Than Burn
Paul in 1 Cor 7 makes it clear that his preference for
celibacy was as a gift to the Church for those able to devote full time to
building the early church without many wives, taking time away from the work to
be done in before Christ soon returned. Time was running out! It was a gift
(charisma) from God, given only to certain people, and was not a sign of any moral superiority. The
reason for celibacy was to give leisure for prayer, and preaching, not a moral issue. He believes celibacy is best
with marriage next best.
If a person did not have the gift
of celibacy it was better to marry than commit porneia (sex with sex goddess
prostitutes which equates to idolatry). Porneia has been improperly translated
and expanded to "fornication" but this has no biblical support.
Singles sexuality was not discussed since most women were
married or betrothed. A man negotiated with the father and if a financial deal
was struck, he took the girl as his wife. Mutual love had nothing to do with
it. If the man also liked the girls pretty sister,
he may negotiate to take her as another wife. For men, there was little reason for sex with a single girl,
since he could have all the wives as sexual partners as he desired - as long as
he didn't steal another mans property (adultery).
The legal age to marry was 12.5 yr for girls and 13.5 for
boys. Younger children often were "betrothed" - families had
contracted with each other for their marriage, but they were not old enough for
the marriage to be consummated. There was no teen age sex problem since all
were married and men could have all the sexual variety they wanted dependent
only on how many wives they could afford.
All Christians, men or women, belonged to Christ, and all
other forms of ownership must be made to accommodate this. The family was
highly regarded as a social unit for retaining the family heritage (mans side).
Sex almost certainly produced children with no birth
control. The traditional practices of multiple wives and breeders
distracted from the work of building the early Church.
This is similar to the Catholic priests who could have many
wives and mistresses until 1022 due to its distractions from the work of the
Church. I think it is interesting that Jesus said
nothing about male monogamous relationships, only Paul in his building of the
early Church for elders since time was so short before the Lord returned.
In today's culture where we don't marry at 13 and die at 30.
We have plenty of time to do Gods work. Limiting oneself to small number of
sexual relationships may be in order. Marriage is certainly not needed today
since birth control is available and many feel they can be more effective
without the legal burden of marriage. Marriage had
to do with ownership not love. I can't imagine anyone getting
married who hasn't first lived together many years!
Galatians 5:19-23
In Galatians 5:19, porneia means "the love which is bought and sold - which is not love at all. The great and basic error of this is that the person with whom such love is gratified is not really considered as a person at all, but as a thing. He or she is a mere instrument through which the demands of lust and passion are satisfied...Porneia describes the relationship in which one of the parties can be purchased and discarded as a thing is discarded and where there is neither union of, nor respect for, personality." Quotes from William Barclay in Flesh and Spirit: An Examination of Galatians 5:19-23 page 24.
I would argue
that even a one-time, for the moment sex can be shared in love...even for
example...with a prostitute! A
customer could still pay for good sex, but respect the sex worker as a person
and spirit. Usually such relationships are simply based on lust and passion,
but could also be done in an attitude of love. Traditional
Church doctrine expands the meaning of porneia into fornication and even
homosexuality and other broad sexual immorality which has absolutely no basis
in the original text as it would have been understood in the culture in which
it was written.
REASONS FOR MARRIAGE IN BIBLICAL TIMES NO LONGER RELEVANT
Not Having Children Was Murderous In Hebrew Culture - This
is why sexuality and adultery were viewed far differently than today and why
"marriage" was so important. Also, concubines acting as breeders for
men were important and accepted.
Near Eastern cultures of biblical days believed that a male
achieved immortality through the production of offspring: no children, no
immortality. It is possible that popular belief among the Hebrew was similar
even though it seems doubtful that God would have endorsed such a belief.
The case of Onan in Genesis provides an interesting though
not entirely clear example that may suggest this belief among the Hebrews. Onan
practiced coitus interruptus to prevent his deceased brother's wife from
conceiving, so the Lord killed him. The apparent sin was not his having sex
with the dead brother's wife (required under the law of levirate marriage), but
his depriving his brother of immortality by denying him proxy offspring.
It is difficult to say why God exacted such a severe penalty
in this case. While it is not likely that God endorsed the concept of
prevailing custom, probably as a practical means of maintaining order, cohesion
and perpetuity in the lives of his chosen people.
Under the beliefs of the day homosexual acts would have been
murderous to all of one's forefathers since they did not pass on children to
the next generation and jeopardized the forefathers' afterlife. Adultery was
just as bad since it mixed blood lines. Singles' sex was seldom an issue since
most people were married at a young age.
One's state in the afterlife, according to other
contemporary documents of the time, was determined by the number of living
descendants one had. The more children one had, the more wonderful one's
position in the afterlife would be. Hence, it was important to have many
children. This may have been why men of wealth had so man wives and concubines
(women as breeders). Solomon was very wealthy and had 700 wives and 300
concubines which God never spoke against. These ancient beliefs and customs do
not apply to Western culture today, so the ethical dictates of an ancient
people do not apply either.
It seems that the Church would rather have teenagers be
pregnant, than admit sex does and will take place among Christians outside of
marriage, helping with real sex education, distribution of condoms etc.
Teaching abstinence as the only answer is absurd; it won't work and may be
doing more harm than good in teaching sexual maturity - which should be each
giving sexual pleasure to the other as God made our bodies to experience.
Maximum sexual pleasuring is a learned skill. Only the very
basics come naturally and are not always the most enjoyable. But when we have
been taught that sex is so dirty that we must save it for marriage, and then
only have one partner, how do we learn maximum pleasure sharing? Sexual
pleasure sharing is learned just as walking and talking is learned, by
experience and practice. Having our naked bodies caressed all over and warmly
held with love and affection is as vital to our emotions as eating and drinking
is to our health.
We do not "give ourselves away" by sharing
sexually. When we share, we each gain more, the knowledge we share is not
reduced but expanded through reaction and sharing with others. Likewise in
sexual sharing we don't save it, we share it and grow and find more and more
meaningful experiences. If at some point an exclusive relationship is desired,
such as in marriage, sexual pleasure in that relationship will be enhanced by
previous experimentation and experiences with a selective but wider range of
trusted intimate friends.
Sexual repression based on poor biblical translations and
traditions, based on control and ignorance clearly hasn't worked. Maybe its
time to teach positive, meaningful, enriching, responsible sexuality to teens
and adults. Ignorance and repression has resulted in a society full of tease
and titillation with lots of abortion and bad experiences.
Result Of Legalistic Sexual Ethics - Neurotic Christians
To squeeze sex into small boxes (such as virginal monogamous
marriage) has produced nineteen centuries of neurotic Christians who fear and
distrust their own natural sexual natures, fearing almost any sexual expression
will anger the God who is suppose to love them.
In summary, if one is happier in their belief that sex is
wrong outside of marriage that may be what is best for them. But it is not from
scripture as has been falsely taught by the Church.
The Liberated Christian Sexual Ethic
We affirm that our sexuality is a natural gift from God. It
should not be artificially restricted by regulation. God honors a free sexual
expression that seeks the enjoyment and good of the each person, and the glory
to God as He participates with us in this glorious aspect of living and loving
others, ourselves and God. In our scriptural understanding, a New Testament
biblical argument cannot be made against most cases of consensual sexual
pleasure sharing, whether premarital, marital, or postmarital.
Negative cases can be made only if the parties involved are
not functioning within Christian love guidelines, but are rather using one
another for their own selfish gratification or are doing harm, physical or
psychological, to their sexual partners or to other parties who are involved.
Among the sexual practices which would be harmful would be the careless
disregard for appropriate diseases or contraceptive protection.
JEWISH SINGLES/SEX - Discussing the report from the
Rabbinical Assembly's Commission on Human Sexuality presented to the Committee
on Jewish Law and Standard April 1994: Essentially the reports says"
"Committed, loving relationships between mature people who strive to
conduct their sexual lives according to the concepts and values described can
embody a measure of holiness, even of not the full portion available in
marriage."
The Conservative movement's Rabbinic organization is NOT
giving carte blanche to non-marital relationships. The report: upholds the
importance of marriage, condemns adultery as a gross violation of Jewish law,
condemns casual and promiscuous sex, urges avoidance of coercive sex,
encourages adherence to laws forbidding sex during a woman's menstrual period,
advocates modesty in speech, dress and sexual activity, advocates honesty and
fidelity, urges responsibility to avoid AIDS by disclosing sexual history to
one's partner, by undergoing HIV testing, and by abstaining if either partner
is infected.
The law committee sets official policy for the Rabbinical Assembly. They are expected to begin deliberations on the recommendations in the fall of 1994. The RA represents 1500 Conservative Rabbis who serve 1.5 million congregational members.
Part of http://www.libchrist.com/bible/lust.html
Liberated Christians
PO Box 32835, Phoenix Az 85064-2835
Promoting Intimacy and Other-Centered Sexuality
COPYRIGHTED 1997-2002 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED
OR QUOTED FROM ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN LIBERATED CHRISTIANS, MAILING ADDRESS IS
SHOWN AND WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.
LUST
The natural desire for sexual variety has absolutely nothing
to do with "lust" as most assume it to mean. Lust is only wrong if it
is the selfish desire to take something from another. Lust is wrong if it is
about greed and self satisfaction at the expense of another. But there is
nothing whatsoever wrong with mutually desired loving intimacy and enjoying
sexual variety.
In biblical times man could have as many wives and
concubines (breeders) as they wished once the man was age 12 and the women age
13, and adultery was only a sin for a married women. It was never a sin for a
married man as long as the other women was not married (owned by another man).
Biblically lust was not nearly such a bad word as those that
use it against sexuality seem to think. In the original Greek the word
translated "lust" was used several other times for things NOT
considered wrong: Jesus "lusted" to be with his disciples. The word
is the same as that some use to make lust to be a sin. Did Jesus sin? No, but
He lusted. Strong desire for something is not a sin.
Another interpretation of the famous "lust"
passage is that Jesus was taking the law in which the scribes and Pharisees
believed that they were so authoritative on and pressing that law (using
adultery as an example) to its ultimate conclusion, the intent of the heart.
Jesus was not interested in making a new law for us to
follow. After all, he came to fulfill the law in himself through atonement, to
bring back to God those of us who will come. The ONLY commandment he gave was
LOVE, love of God with all that is within us and love of others as we should
love ourselves.
Jesus was pressing the law to its ultimate conclusion to
show how damningly impossible a task its proposed adherents set for themselves
in their inherent inability to follow the law. Other NT verses come right out
and say that the law condemns, and that salvation is to be found elsewhere. The
law does not save. Jesus' graphic illustration of sin by saying that the
lustful should first cut out their eyes to enter heaven is not meant literally
because the heart is the real core. Jesus is being sarcastic with the dogged
enemies of the truth that were the Pharisees and Sadducees who sought to keep
their status quo intact.
Matthew Adultery Verses Math 5 and 19
Math 5:27-28: An interpretation of this passage is that if
you look at the Greek verb (lust more properly translated covet or desire), is
the same word used in the Septuagint's translation of the 10th Commandment (not
covet). In this case, Matthew has Jesus saying that covetousness, the desire to
deprive another of his property, is the essence of adultery. Jesus was then
reaffirming a quite traditional understanding of what is wrong with adultery.
The Greek word here is, of course, epithumia, which also means
"covet" and is the word used by the translators of the Septuagint to
translate the Hebrew, chamad, in Ex. 21:17 "Thou shalt not COVET ."
It is not coincidence, by the way, that "neighbor's wife" is included
with the other PROPERTY listed in this text...like neighbors ox etc...
In this case, Jesus was asserting that adultery does not
consist primarily of sexual union of two people, at least one of which is
married, but it consists rather in the intention, accomplished or not, to take
what belongs to another. The purpose of the verse is to show no one is free of
sin, but the nature of sin lies in impurity of the heart (taking from another
man his wife) rather than the physical act itself. This is different from
consensual nonmonogamy. Its like the Rabbi said at the swing club, "I
don't want to own your wife, just borrow her!" Now, lets look at how
porneia is used here,
In discussing Math 19:9 "porneia": "The
exemption for porneia (harlotry) must refer to the provision in Torah which
allowed a man to reject his wife who had not shown proof of virginity. Such a
bride was said to have 'played the harlot' (ekporneuo in the Septuagint).
Since a women could never have sex outside of her marriage,
but a man always could, this was an important issue. Under the Torah, a married
women committed adultery when she had sex with another man - whether he was
married or not. (violated womens' husbands exclusive right of sex over her
regardless which I refer to as property rights).
It was impossible for a married man to commit adultery,
since he would only be violating his own rights (his wife had no say over
husbands having sex with others, or bringing in more wives or concubines).
Jesus however, uplifted womens rights, that she too now had "a permanent
and indissoluble claim on him as her sexual property" Thus is sexual
freedom was to be no greater than try and sum up another big area, Countryman
explains the verse "Let whoever can receive it receive it" in
19:11-12 ONLY when voluntarily agreed upon by both and NOT as a new law for
Christians. It was for those that where the man had no intrinsic relation to a
family where they could give up their patriarchal positions and not keep their
households in subjection to them. Again, this has nothing to do with consenting
nonmonogamy or loving singles sexuality.
The Church (not the bible) is so obsessed with sexual sin
that it often ignores the context of a passage in order to prop up it's views,
right or wrong. Read on in Math through verse 32, which, in the paragraphing of
many Bible versions, is joined to 27-28. This is a challenge to Jewish men to
stop treating their wives unfairly by demanding divorce for frivolous reasons,
a practice that was quite common at various times in Jewish history.
Copyright © 1997, Liberated Christians, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
E-MAIL: dave@davephx.com
Also check out:
Contents http://www.libchrist.com/bible/contents.html
Adultery http://www.libchrist.com/bible/adultery.html
Divorce http://www.libchrist.com/bible/divorce.html
David http://www.libchrist.com/bible/DavdSolomon.html
Single Sexhttp://www.libchrist.com/bible/premaritalsex.html
Bible sex http://www.libchrist.com/bible/compatible.html
Bible sex http://www.libchrist.com/bible/Bibleintimacy.html
Bible sex http://www.libchrist.com/bible/ianity.html
Sex immorality http://www.libchrist.com/bible/immoral.html
Lust http://www.libchrist.com/bible/lust.html
Children http://www.libchrist.com/bible/child.html
Children http://www.libchrist.com/bible/child2.html
Single sex http://www.libchrist.com/bible/presyb.html
Love is http://www.libchrist.com/bible/loveis.html
Nudist http://www.libchrist.com/bible/nudity.html
Single http://www.libchrist.com/bible/celibacy.html
Nudist http://www.libchrist.com/nudity/contents.html
Nudist http://naturist-christians.org
Lust http://www.reject-shame.com/RStriumph.html
Below is Part of http://www.libchrist.com/bible/compatible.html
Two Sticking Points for Christians: Pre-marital Sex and "Affairs"
Pre-marital Sex
This subject has been dealt with extensively in various
articles in the Liberated Christians newsletter and in an Internet posting
entitled "Fornication and Adultery." Here I want to include some
brief remarks in order to make the coverage of important topics in this article
as complete as possible.
The traditional Christian doctrine on this subject, a
doctrine which strictly forbids sexual intercourse with anyone prior to
church-sanctioned marriage, is primarily based on the usage of the term
"porneia" in the New Testament. This word is usually translated
"fornication" or "sexual immorality." It is interesting
that neither of these English translations really defines the sin involved.
This has to be determined by the context and the historical situation that
appears to be involved and unless these factors throw specific light on the
meaning, the terms themselves do not help us.
While the term "porneia" has various uses in the
New Testament, including the idea of being born illegitimately, possibly of a
prostitute, the most relevant texts for personal sexual behavior are those in
the letters of the Apostle Paul. The most likely meaning of "porneia"
in Paul's writings has to do with the practice of cultic prostitution in the
pagan temples of the New Testament world. Even the possible reference to being born
of a prostitute (John 8:41) may be a reference to cultic prostitution, although
it is more likely that ordinary commercial prostitution is in view.
Paul's admonition is that it is inconsistent with the
worship of the true God for Christian men to be frequenting these pagan temples
(1Cor. 6:9, 13, 15-18). Not incidentally, the primary issue here is not even
sexual acts but idolatry. In any case, this exhortation has nothing to do with
what is thought of today as pre-marital sex.
Another passage that has been
used against sexual activity before marriage is Matthew 5:27-28.
This is the famous passage in which Jesus quotes the seventh commandment,
"You shall not commit adultery," and adds: "But I say to you
that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery
with her in his heart."
The most important thing to remember about this passage is
that what Jesus is really discussing is not sexual activity with a person other
than one's spouse, but actually divorce (v. 31-32).
The real point of this passage (and of a similar one
in Mt. 19:3-10, mentioned earlier) is to discourage Jewish men from frivolously
divorcing their wives after spotting a more desirable mate who probably
belonged to someone else, thus violating both the traditional view of male
ownership of wives and the greater principle of true emotional possession.
(See section below regarding the meaning of "adultery.") This
"skirt chasing" is what is being referred to in Mt. 5 in terms of
"lusting." This has nothing whatever to do with sexually admiring or
even fantasizing about someone of the opposite sex and likewise has nothing to
do with premarital sex.
In his very helpful book, "The Poisoning of Eros:
Sexual Values in Conflict," Raymond J. Lawrence, Jr., notes that for Paul the meaning of "porneia"
would have followed the meaning and usage of the Hebrew word "zanah."
This meaning would be: "illicit sexual behavior as defined by the
Torah." (p. 35) The point is that in these Mosaic writings there is no
prohibition against "fornication" as it is defined in our modern
culture in the sense of premarital sexual activity. Consequently, Paul is not
creating a new category of sexual immorality here and thus is not prohibiting
what we know today as premarital sex.
Adultery
Numerous articles and reports published by Liberated
Christians have discussed at length the meaning of adultery as it presented in
the Bible and the relevance of these teachings in our modern setting. The
reader is referred to these for extensive information. Here I only want to
summarize these writings by saying that the essential meaning of adultery in
the Old Testament setting was the idea of stealing another man's wife, who, in
the culture of the day, was regarded as his physical property. In the New Testament
Jesus expands on this idea in such passages as Mt. 5 and 19, referred to above,
and introduces the idea of "emotional property," an idea which is
further expanded by the Apostle Paul in such passages as Ephesians 5.
The notion that adultery equals or means sexual intercourse
is not present in these biblical teachings, so that adultery is not properly
defined as sexual intercourse, although this sexual act does typically take
place and has become the basis of the definition of adultery enshrined in Western
legal codes.
For an extensive discussion of the biblical ideas about
adultery, including the ideas of property, as well as for excellent discussions
of the notions of physical purity inherent in Hebrew culture, notions which
have misled Christians relative to sexuality, I would refer the reader to
"Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and their
Implications for Today," by L. William Countryman. Lawrence's book,
referred to above, also contains very helpful material on this subject.
The point of this in terms of modern polyamory relationships
is that consensual polyamory has absolutely nothing to do with the biblical
teachings concerning adultery. As a Jewish rabbi once said about swinging:
"If a man steals my wife, its adultery; If I loan him my wife, it is
not."
Extra-Marital "Affairs"
At one level, affairs are an entirely different story from
consensual polyamory relationships and the comments of the rabbi are a succinct
description of the difference.
The damage done to relationships from affairs stems from the
deception involved. This deception often becomes extremely elaborate and
consequently extremely damaging. A number of years ago I was told of a rather
amazing and very sad case that occurred in a church in which I had previously
been an elder. It was discovered that two elders of that church were each
having an affair with the wife of the other at the same time and no one
suspected his or her mate for a long time! After the discovery, one couple reconciled
and remained in the church; the other couple divorced.
In Liberated Christians we have never endorsed affairs and
have never even allowed one spouse to join our groups without the participation
or consent of the other.
At another level, however, I believe that it is
irresponsible for those who seek to promote open relationships to display the
same gut reaction to affairs that is common in the Christian and even secular
communities. It is important to think about the motives and pressures that lead
to affairs. Many things could be discussed here, including the myriad
interpersonal problems that can occur in any relationship, including poly ones.
The important thing to remember, however, is that we believe
that human beings were never intended to be restricted to only one
intimate/sexual relationship, but rather that multiple relationships are
entirely normal. This being the case, it is possible to view affairs with much
greater compassion than is usually afforded them, without actually endorsing
them. To put it simply, the underlying problem with affairs is not sinful,
lustful cheating on the part of a spouse, but the struggle to find fulfillment
in a variety of relationships in a religious, cultural and legal structure
which prohibits this fulfillment.
None of this justifies affairs or solves the problems
created by them, but those of us in the poly community should at least heed the
admonition about not casting stones unless we are without sin ourselves.
Below is Part of: http://www.libchrist.com/bible/Bibleintimacy.html
What The Bible Teaches About Sex
God made us sexual (Genesis 1-2). We are to follow the law
of love in sexual matters, as in all else. Romans 13:8-10: "Owe no one
anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled
the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not
murder; You shall not steal; you shall not covet'; and any other commandment,
are summed up in this word, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Loves does no
wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."
We are not to covet or steal another person's partner
(adultery). (But this has nothing to do with either having a sexual fantasy
about another person's partner nor with sharing sexually with another's partner
with agreement and permission.)
We are not to engage in sexual practices that are harmful or
abusive, physically, emotionally or spiritually, to anyone else or to
ourselves i.e. we are to be loving
(Romans 13 again). This, incidentally, could be called the theological basis of
Liberated Christians' one rule: "No" means 'no".
What The Bible Doesn't Teach About Sex
There is no prohibition on what we know as premarital sex,
post-marital sex or extra-marital sex among consenting partners. There is no
prohibition on adolescent or teenage sexual sharing. Here it is the
responsibility of parents to properly instruct their children about how to love
and how to live responsibly.
There are no grounds in the Bible for teaching sexual
abstinence as a unique litmus test for spiritual "purity", as
traditional Christianity has done throughout the centuries. While there is, of
course, such a thing as sexual sin, i.e. abusive, selfish, unloving sexual
attitudes or actions, there is no special or unusual emphasis on sexual sin in
the Bible as there has been in historic Christianity.
Some Conclusions On Sexuality And Intimacy
It can be reasonably concluded that the sexual ethic of
traditional Christianity is an artificial, repressive and legalistic ethic
which ignores both our God-given natures and the law of love. Thus, this ethic
is an abusive ethic in its basic nature which hurts rather than heals people.
It is also an ineffective ethic which does not even accomplish its intended
purpose of sexual repression, but rather drives sexual expression underground
and into the shadows of ignorance. It is an ethic which is based on
misinterpretation and false application of the biblical text and on cultural
and philosophical biases imported into Christian teaching from other sources.
The driving of sexual expression underground by religious repression is at least part of the stimulus to the ignorance, irresponsible behavior and tease and titillation which characterize our society. It is the viewing of sexuality in these ways that has prevented the learning of true intimacy, even in partnerships which may experience great sex.
Part of http://www.libchrist.com/bible/ianity.html
The Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:1--7:29
In Matthew, Jesus emphasizes the importance of not just the
law, but doing loving deeds. The structure of the gospel itself reflects the
theme of the relationship between the Word and deed: it has five major
discourses followed by narratives about Jesus and disciples actions. Matthew
regarded the Sermon on the Mount as an eptimome of Jesus' Teaching, of which
His whole ministry was an illustration. It is often quoted by biblical
literalists to justify their supposed adherence to the OT laws and falsely claim
for example that the Bible condemns homosexuality rather than the terrible acts
of pederasty which is all the Bible discuses. Important to their argument is
Matthew 5:17-20, where Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to fulfill
"the law and the prophets", the OT law and that no one should break
the least of the commandments. The literalists claim this means Christians
should even adhere to the Leviticus laws.
There may be a loving reason, Jesus seemed to respectfully
support the OT scripture but then clarified what he really meant by "the
Law and the prophets". Jesus was speaking probably to a mixed audience of
both Jews and Gentiles. He tried to walk a fine line, to respect the Jewish
beliefs in the Torah, but teach that He (Jesus) came and superseded Jewish
scriptures in some respects. In a similar example, Jesus confronted the Jewish
leaders and curses them for having neglected the more important aspects of the
Law, such as justice, mercy and faith (22:23). He goes on to say "It is
these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others."
Jesus Interprets The Law and The Prophets Differently Than
the Jews
Jesus reinterpreted the law without changing it or making it
obsolete as he ushers in the age of Christ as the fulfiller of the law, where all
can go to heaven, not just the Jews. Jesus, in his teachings and actions, is
like the faithful scribe in Matthew 13:51 who "brings out of his treasure
what is new and what is old."
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus
vividly illustrates his approach in the section often called "the six
antitheses" (5:21-48). These are the "you have heard it
said..but I say unto you..." In six cases of important issues of Mosaic
Law, Jesus dares to contrast his word with God's words. Even more startling, in
three cases, on divorce, oaths and vows, and retaliation, Jesus revokes the
letter of the Law and replaces it with his own diametrically opposed commands.
Immediately after having said he has come to fulfill the scriptures, Jesus sets
aside some of them! Apparently the process of "fulfillment of
scriptures" includes alteration and deletion of scriptures. In all six
antithesis, Jesus applies the Golden Rule to make his alterations and deletions
of scripture. In the last one, Jesus turns the laws of retaliation upside down
and stresses loving even your enemy and doing good.
Jesus's ACTIONS Also violate the "laws and the prophets"
Jesus violates the purity laws, and gives
"unclean" people direct excess to God. But in his attempt to not
upset the Jews he tells the healed man to tell no one, but that he keep another
part of Jewish scriptures by going to the priest, who will now declare him
clean.
"
The first 3 stories in Math 8 Jesus sets aside all scriptures
which have limited direct access to God. Jesus sits with sinners for dinner,
saying they are righteous, for they grasp the meaning of loving God, neighbor
and self. He says to Pharisees at the table "learn what this means, I
desire mercy (or love), not sacrifice (or righteousness)." The religious
leaders are sinners for practicing the law of scriptures instead of love. He
again breaks the law by not condemning the "unclean" women for
touching him. He brings back to life an "unclean" dead once again
violating the law and the prophets! Later he feeds people and heals on the
Sabbath. As the religious leaders are plotting his death, Jesus pronounces woes
on those who strain at gnats (scriptural legalisms) while swallowing camels
(failure to love).
The Pharisees Reject Jesus' Ignoring Scripture
The Pharisees continue to reject Jesus' assertion that mercy
is to be a guiding principal. When Jesus casts out a demon from a man, the
religious leaders accuse Jesus of being evil. Jesus continues to teach love by
healing many diseased people. He is showing love is not exclusive as the
religious hierarchy tries to claim (9:35-38). Everyone is invited to God's
table. As "living scripture", Matthew's relates Jesus' teaching about
and his demonstration of love. In word and deed, Jesus sets aside scriptures it
they put too heavy a burden on people. Jesus sets free groups of people defined
by oppressive scriptural laws that give some groups more status than others.
The last verse of Matthew is the key. Mt 28:20 is clear "Go forth....and
teach them to observe all that I have commanded you." Note that is not
legalism but only the law of love he just taught.
Jesus upsets literalists who seek to exclude others from
God's love by labeling them sinners. He shows the only requirements of
scripture are love of God, neighbor, and self, which is revealed in loving
actions.
I suggest some Christians are teaching Bibleianity like the
Pharisees, not the teachings of Jesus.
Below is part of http://www.libchrist.com/bible/immoral.html
Liberated Christians
PO Box 32835, Phoenix Az 85064-2835
Promoting Intimacy and Other-Centered Sexuality
COPYRIGHTED 1997 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED OR
QUOTED FROM ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN LIBERATED CHRISTIANS, MAILING ADDRESS IS
SHOWN AND WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.
What is "sexual
immorality"
There are definite biblical restrictions on sexual acts
which are broader called sexual immorality. These are:
1) Sex during women's menstruation but OT and not applicable
today.
2) Adultery which biblically was understood by the Hebrews
to mean wrong for a married women to have sex with another man since violated
her husbands property rights. It was never understood to be wrong for a married
man since his wife had no such rights. The married man could have as many wives
and concubines (breeders) as he wished as long as not married (another man's property.
Nothing ever was wrong with singles sexuality. "Fornication" is a
total mistranslation of Greek "porneia"
3) Porneia as used in I Cor 6-9, falsely translated in some
bibles as fornication was actually the practice of the prostitutes in the
Temples of Corinth selling their services as a part of pagan fertility goddess
worship which was what Paul was warning against. Not even specifically about
prostitution (still legal and very popular in Israel today) but used as a pagan
sexual goddess worship.
4) Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount that the only
law is the law of love. He demonstrated this by reversing four of the OT laws
which conflicted with loving people. Therefore anything that was hurtful, not
by mutual consent etc. would be immoral for a Christian, but obviously not
loving sexuality regardless of marital status or natural sexual orientation.
5) Pederasty - one of the worst of all sexual sins that took various forms: The practice of pederasty falls into three distinct styles. First is the relationship between an older man and a young boy. Second is the practice of slave prostitutes. Third is that of the effeminate "call boy" or prostitute. Other practices included a heterosexual male degrading another heterosexual male by anal intercourse after capturing them in battle. Another practice was heterosexual's using anal intercourse to drive out other hetero strangers they didn't like such as the case of the Sodom story. It had nothing to do with homosexualtiy as we know it today, which is a god-given natural orientation for maybe 10% of humans just like in other mammals and other parts of nature.
Liberated Christians
PO Box 32835, Phoenix Az 85064-2835
Taken from: http://www.libchrist.com/bible/sermonmount.html
Promoting Intimacy and
Other-Centered Sexuality
COPYRIGHTED 1997 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED OR
QUOTED FROM ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN LIBERATED CHRISTIANS, MAILING ADDRESS IS
SHOWN AND WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.
Jesus Clearly DID CHANGE the OT Laws:
Matthew regarded the Sermon on the Mount as an eptimome of
Jesus' Teaching. Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to
fulfill "the law and the prophets". What laws and prophets was Jesus
referring to? Jesus defines "the law and the prophets" in Matthew
7:12: "Always treat others as you would like them to treat you: THAT IS
THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS".
It is clearly stated when a Pharisee asks Jesus about which
commandment in the law is the greatest (22:36):37 He said "You shall love
the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your mind" 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second
is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 ON THESE TWO
COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS."
Jesus respectfully supported the OT scripture but then
clarified what he meant by "the Law and the prophets". Jesus was
speaking to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles. He tried to walk a fine
line, to respect the Jewish beliefs in the Torah, but teach that He (Jesus)
came and superseded Jewish scriptures.
Jesus showed us how to interpret the Law properly without
changing it or making it obsolete as He ushers in the age of Christ as the
fulfiller of the law.
Jesus vividly illustrates his approach in the section often
called "the six antitheses" (5:21- 48). These are the "you have
heard it said..but I say unto you..." In six cases of important issues of
Mosaic Law, Jesus dares to contrast his word with God's words. Even more
startling, in three cases, on divorce, oaths and vows, and retaliation, Jesus
revokes the letter of the Law and replaces it with his own diametrically
opposed commands. Immediately after having said he has come to fulfill the
scriptures, Jesus sets aside some of them! Apparently the process of
"fulfillment of scriptures" includes alterations. In all six
antithesis, Jesus applies the Golden Rule to make his alterations of scripture.
In the last one, Jesus turns the laws of retaliation upside down and stresses
loving even your enemy and doing good.
Just one of the examples is his reversing Ex:21:23-25 where
it clearly teaches an eye for an eye, foot for a foot, hand-for-a-hand. But
Math 38 says "You have learned...eye for eye..But what I tell you is this:
Do not set yourself against the man who wronged you. If someone slaps you on
the right cheek, turn and offer him your left.." etc.
I seems that Jesus carefully without trying to totally shock
the jews, did modify the OT laws. This is just one example of many such
"changes" Jesus made in the Sermon. Jesus than breaks the sabbath
laws, gives a long description why, and breaks other OT laws. This is confusing
since what we see as changing the law, Matthew claims is only interpreting the
law properly. He is playing word games out of respect for the Jews.
The last verse; Mt 28:20 is clear "Go forth....and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you." Note that is not legalism but only the law of love he just taught.
Liberated Christians
PO Box 32835, Phoenix Az 85064-2835
Taken from: http://www.libchrist.com/bible/christnonmono.html
Promoting Intimacy and Other-Centered Sexuality
COPYRIGHTED 1997 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED OR
QUOTED FROM ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN LIBERATED CHRISTIANS, MAILING ADDRESS IS
SHOWN AND WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.
Responsible Non-Monogamy in Christian Marriage Affirmed By
Theologians.
Embodiment: An Approach To Sexuality and Christian
Theology, by James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological
Seminary
"Fidelity is a commitment of emotional and physical
intimacy with the partner; it means caring for the growth and fulfillment of
each as a person; it is commitment to growth of the marital relationship
itself; it requires honesty, openness, and trust; it involves willingness to
explore ways of opening self to the partner at the deepest level; it includes
openness to secondary relationships of emotional and potential sexual
expression but with commitment to the primacy of the marriage.
Personal growth for either wife or husband may well require
other intimate friendships with consent and seeking the best for each other.
Secondary relationships can serve not only personal growth but also and at the
same time serve the marriage itself. Raymond J. Lawrence, Episcopal chaplain
and marriage counselor, observes that transmarital sexual relationships would
only be considered "unfaithful" if done for inappropriate motives
such as revenge or to hurt the other. But, "the refusal to open oneself to
secondary sexual relationships can also be based upon inappropriate reasons. An
emotionally immature, religiously self-proving desire for purity and innocence
might be one. Another might be the resistance to sufficient autonomy and the
persistence in a clinging dependency upon the spouse - which is different from
mature interdependency. The high degree of intimacy possible in a good marriage
seems to depend in no small measure upon the relative absence of possessiveness
and clinging dependency.
Rosemary Ruether presses this further. Historically, she
notes, monogamy has been closely linked with the private property relationship
of man over woman in patriarchal society. Ruether wonders if we have not lifted
up the wrong priority by apparently prizing sexual exclusivity over enduring,
intimate companionship and personal fidelity. We might have more of the latter
if we were not so insistent as a church on sexual exclusivity."
In another of his books, Body Theology, James Nelson proposes we reclaim sexuality and become sex-affirming, understanding sexuality as a moral good rooted in the sacred value of our sensuality and erotic power without needing justifications that applied to a much different biblical culture.
Liberated Christians
PO Box 32835, Phoenix Az 85064-2835
Promoting Intimacy and Other-Centered Sexuality
Taken from: http://www.libchrist.com/bible/faithof.html
COPYRIGHTED 1997 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED OR
QUOTED FROM ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN LIBERATED CHRISTIANS, MAILING ADDRESS IS
SHOWN AND WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.
Christian Sexual Conflicts Traditional Christianity vs. "The Faith Of
Christ"
By Bill
"Sex is dirty." -
"Sex is wonderful."
"Sex is for marriage
only."
"Children aren't
sexual."
"Sexual thoughts and
fantasies are sinful."
"Sex is an expression of
love."
"Sex has nothing to do with
'Christian' love."
The above statements represent some of the many conflicting
views about sexuality with which most of us were raised.
You will recognize that the negative statements are the kind
that are used by religion and society to control the sexual lives and attitudes
of people. In other words, those who have power over others use such ideas to
conform others to some moral standard that is thought to be absolute.
Traditional Christianity has used just such ideas for just such purposes.
Christ and the apostles taught that all power structures
were to be challenged, not in the sense of political or social anarchy, but in
the abolition of the control of one person over another or any institution over
groups of people in the sense of restricting God-given liberties. In these
teachings there was an appeal for transparency in human relationships. This
transparency, which really implies both vulnerability and trust, was to reveal
itself in the common bonds of family and social relationships.
Jesus challenged both family and social relationship
structures, suggesting that following him would break down traditional
allegiances and create new ones.
Today we are seeing the serious breakdown of monogamous
marriage and the traditional nuclear family of European and North American
cultures.
For the most part marriage and family practices and
structures are the product of culture, rather than of specific biblical
teachings.
In other writings Dave and I have challenged the Christian
tradition of monogamy. The breakdown I mentioned above suggests that the time
has come for Christians to seriously reconsider the entire range of marital and
sexual teachings that have been handed down to us in traditional Christianity.
It is time to realize, for example, that monogamy has never really worked as an
exclusive marital/sexual option (we've discussed reasons for this elsewhere)
and to seek new structures and bonds that will better express the vitality and
creativity of sexual loving.
Monogamy and a host of other sexual restrictions are the
products of a sexually repressive Christianity.
How has this history of sexual repression come about?
Various reasons, including the body/pleasure-negative traditions of some of the
Greek thinkers of the time of early Christianity, have contributed to this
history. In addition, there has been a tendency of Christians to turn the
liberating teachings of Christ and the apostles into rules to obey and to be
enforced by religious authorities (more power structure). The nature of these
rules has also tended to reflect small errors of interpretation, misplaced
emphasis or overemphasis on a particular teaching or a particular aspect of a
teaching and translation or interpretational errors stemming from a moral bias
(for example, the tendency to apply the term "porneia", usually
translated "fornication" or "sexual immorality" in older
English Bible versions, to every case of sexual intercourse outside of
monogamous marriage; the misinterpretation of the story of Adam and Eve as
supporting monogamy and as teaching that nakedness is sinful; interpreting the
biblical concepts of purity and holiness primarily as calling for abstinence
from sexual "contamination").
With the passage of time these small errors and their
resulting moralisms have continually increased to the point that the
fundamental teachings of Christ have often been forgotten (for example, loving
one another) and the minute and burdensome rules of Christianity have won the
day (for example, the extension of the idea of "fornication" to any
kind of premarital sexual contact, from heavy petting to holding hands --
really, this is actually frowned upon by some Christians; the sometimes
organized Christian opposition to social nudism --trying to close down nude
beaches, etc.).
It is my contention that the general repression of sexuality
and the repression of nonmonogamous loving is not inherent in the Bible, nor
was it the intention of Jesus and the apostles to be understood as teaching
these views. Yet, it is true that these ideas are part and parcel of the
baggage of traditional Christianity, which has emphasized them to the neglect
of love and liberty.
The French writer Jacques Ellul makes a helpful distinction
between what he calls "Christianity" and "the faith of
Christ". True Christianity (the faith of Christ) he defines as "the
revelation and work of God accomplished in Jesus Christ"; "the being
of the church as the body of Christ" (as opposed to the church as
religious institution); and "the faith and life of Christians in truth and
love".
Christianity as tradition he describes as a movement which
has virtually abandoned its commitment to the above principles and has
degenerated into a moralistic religion, devoid of true love for God and
neighbor and obsessed with enforcing a moral code demanding "chastity,
absolute obedience... (and) sacrifice". (The Subversion of Christianity,
pp. 11, 17)
It is this perverted version of Christianity which imprisons
people in guilt and shame about their bodies and their God-given sexual desires.
(This is not to say that there is no such thing as sexual sin or that we are
given license to do anything we please at anytime and with anyone in terms of
fulfilling sexual desires. It is to say that Christian love, properly
understood, will both live freely in terms of sexual loving and at the same
time respect all persons in their relationships, so that fulfillment is
accomplished without harming others.) This is not the Christianity of the
Bible, that is, the Christianity that Ellul calls "the faith of
Christ".
The purpose of Jesus in his life and death was to enable us
to fulfill the demands of the law of God, not by sacrifice and legalistic
obedience, but by loving God and loving our neighbor.
I believe that it is in the intimacy of sexual relationships
where this kind of love can be expressed in a very full way. One of the
greatest deformities of true Christian faith is the collection of teachings
that seeks in every way possible to remove godly love from the sexual
experience.
Contrary to this is the simple, yet beautiful, statement of
a Christians brother who is involved with his family in a sexually loving
community in another state: "We believe that sharing sexual pleasure with
one another is an extension of the love of almighty God."
Obviously, such sharing presents the problem or
vulnerability -- the challenge of opening ourselves to others. Many people are
afraid of such openness. I believe that it is only within a loving, caring
community, manifesting the kind of love that Jesus taught, that sufficient
trust can be created to make truly "open" relationships possible.
In a recent newsletter Dave wrote extensively about nudity
and that subject was also discussed at our first introductory couples' session.
It was clear from the response at the session that several people were fearful
of experiencing nudity with others. There may be various reasons for such
fears, including past religious and parental teachings and attitudes. These may
need to be worked through. But I believe that the primary issue with nudity is
the same as that for sexual openness --vulnerability.
Overcoming this problem in a loving fellowship setting can
change a person's life in a major way -- in terms of body shame and guilt as
well as being a preparation for sexual openness. This is why we emphasize
nudity in our materials and group session discussions.
The elements of fear and distrust are very significant in
terms of all aspects of the religious and cultural attitudes toward sexuality.
In other writings Dave and I have discussed how various
attitudes and beliefs of ancient peoples have contributed to the understanding
of sexuality that is present in modern Christianity. Much of the content of the
sexual belief systems of ancient peoples derived from superstition, born of
ignorance of the working of the human body and psyche. The ideas of conception,
pregnancy and childbirth were regarded with a mixture of fear, awe and even
worship. The phenomenon of human fertility and the mystery of sexual bonding
were likewise sources of superstitious wonder and little or no practical
understanding. Without birth control it had to be assumed that sexual
intercourse would result in pregnancy. All of these elements of life were
viewed in almost magical ways and indeed witch doctors, soothsayers and the
like were often involved in ritual practices associated with sexual events.
(It might be observed at this point that the availability of
many near-foolproof methods of birth control today opens the way to much
greater sexual freedom in general and should make possible some of the
restructuring of marriage and family models mentioned earlier. It is worth
noting that such restructuring on this basis would not have been possible in
the ancient world and indeed would not have been feasible until very recent
times. It seems to me that practical/scientific developments such as safe,
reliable contraception should make the church rethink the possibilities of
sexual behavior and patterns. I believe that alert and aware Christians have
the opportunity to explore new and exciting options in these areas.)
It happened that Christianity was born in a culture in which
these views of sexuality were common. Thus, all of Christianity's sexual
teachings have been compromised by such views, almost to the point of
continuing to treat sexual phenomena as magical, thus calling for the many
controlling taboos.
Today we know that sex is not magic. It may be
awe-inspiring, exciting, confusing and even properly regarded as containing
elements of mystery. It may be the most emotionally meaningful aspect of human
life. But it is not magic and should not be treated with the fear and taboos of
the past. I believe that traditional Christianity perpetuates these outdated
views and we must work to rid ourselves of them in the fellowship of Christian
love.
It is these old views that lead to the emotional/spiritual
abuse for which many people reject this version of Christianity. These views
are not characteristic of what Jacques Ellul calls "the faith of
Christ".
It is our hope in Liberated Christians that this kind of
faith can set us free to love freely, joyfully and responsibly the way we
believe God has made us to love.
Liberated Christians
PO Box 32835, Phoenix Az 85064-2835
Promoting Intimacy and Other-Centered Sexuality
Below is Taken from http://www.libchrist.com/bible/history.html
COPYRIGHTED 1997 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED OR
QUOTED FROM ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN LIBERATED CHRISTIANS, MAILING ADDRESS IS
SHOWN AND WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.
History Of Sexuality In Cultures
10,000 to 3,000BC
A family was viewed as belonging to the male as his
property. A female in a family had to be monogamous but a male could mate with
unattached females..and he sure did! The world's population exploded to over
one hundred million by 3,000BC. Women were totally subservient to men -
possessions to be used as men wished, in these early civilizations. Some of
history's earliest writings contain references to laws against a women having
more than one husband.
About 400BC
One of the most sacred positions for a single women was as a
temple prostitute. "Every women..must once come in her life go and sit in
the temple and there give herself to a strange man....She is not allowed to go
home until a man has thrown a silver coin into her lap and takes her outside to
lie with him....The women has no privilege of choice - she must go with the
first man who throws her the money. When she has lain with him, her duty to the
goddess is discharged and she may go home...Tall handsome women soon manage to
get home again, but the ugly ones stay a long time before they can fulfill the
conditions which the law demands - some of them, indeed as much as three or
four years." (Herodotus, a Persian historian who lived from 484 to 425
B.C.)
If a Babylonian wife committed adultery, it was the
husband's choice whether she lived or died. Likewise if she spent too much
money, the husband could divorce her or make her a slave. If the wife could not
bear children, she was required by law to find her husband a surrogate!
In Egypt a man had one main wife, but as many secondary
wives and mistresses as he could afford. With such readily available sexual
partners, the Egyptian male found no need for a prostitute. The rich had access
to slaves and traveling groups of dancers and musicians - always a good source
of sexual favors. The poor lived in communes and shunned the idea of marriage
altogether.
The Hebrews in Biblical days also allowed the man as many
wives as he could support. King Solomon supposedly had over seven hundred
wives. Then the Hebrews started worshiping one God as opposed to many. They
discovered they were the "chosen" people to bring this new message to
the world, and to prove it they instituted a number of sexual practices and
prohibitions, starting with circumcision to show Gods preference for their
race. Likewise the Jews began to impose monogamous standards in part as a way
to ensure the purity of the race and the multiplication of the "chosen
ones".
The First 1000 years A.D.
The Emperor Constantine in about 300 A.D. was perhaps the
world's most important convert to the new religion of Christianity. It was
perhaps the only thing left to try and hold the Roman Empire together. While
the political empire fell in the next century, the Church stepped in as the new
central authority. Threats of burning in hell were even more effective than the
army for controlling large and diverse populations.
Augustine (354-430A.D.) was a primary theological shaper of
thought and went so far as to argue that sex was sinful even within wedlock
unless the specific purpose is always conception! This reflects the need at the
time for many more children. Infant mortality was very high, the economic and
political structures were based on families. Likewise clerical celibacy was in part
shaped by fear that offspring would fight over Church property.
Christianity
Thanks to widespread illiteracy - or apathy, whatever the
Church said was now law. Intercourse was no longer natural and good, sex was
dirty and only for procreation. Celibacy was the new standard for the clergy.
And it was a great money maker! If you sinned by enjoying sex, you must come to
the Church for repentance which required a donation to demonstrate your faith.
What a perfect way for the Church to raise capital. Make everyone a sinner
because of their innate sexual desires, and then offer to absolve them for a
sizable donation.
The sexual morality of Christianity did not come from Jesus.
It instead came from his followers whose main interest was the control of the
masses. They had good cause for their actions at that time in man's evolution.
But it is important to recognize the source of religious dogma about sex - when
and where it came from -and put it in perspective in present time and
circumstances.
China
Sex was understood to be natural
and a duty to be done as often as possible if one wanted spiritual harmony with
the Tao (The Way).
India
The emphasis was on love and spiritual union by Tantra which
could not be produced through sex with one's own spouse. Therefore, there was much wife-swapping and lots of work for
the sacred prostitutes.
The New World
As the exploration of the New World began, "civilized
man" was introduced to bizarre sexual customs,
such as those of the Incas and Mayans, who preferred
homosexuality for adults. The Incas
also attempted to preserve the purity of their race
through incest; the Aztecs practiced polygamy;
and the Mexicans perfected the art of prostitution.
Hawaii
The Hawaiians engaged in
indiscriminate sex for decades. Everyone loved and accepted everyone else.
There was no disease or dissension of jealousy.
It was only after Capt. Cook brought the European
CHRISTIAN influence into their society, forcing women to cover their breasts
and allowing their good "Christian" men to rape and abuse the natives
that their society began to experience jealousy and hatred.
Coming to America
As Europeans game to America,
they brought strict puritan views of sex. By the 1800s the woman was
more than content to be the weak, vulnerable creature, needing protection by a
man. American Doctor Alice Stockholm (a woman) wrote in 1894 that any husband
who required marital intercourse except for conceiving children was making his
wife into a private prostitute. Sex with a "real" prostitute, however,
was fine as long as there was no love or passion involved. Unofficial estimates
claim there were over 100,000 prostitutes in Paris by 1900. Philadelphia had
about one prostitute for every 60 people.
With an increase in prostitution came an increase in
sexually transmitted diseases, giving impetus to Puritan desires to make it
illegal. The rise of syphilis and gonorrhea also created a demand for virgins
who were assumed to be "clean". In the early 1900s the increasing
importance of supposed virgins, led younger and younger girls into
prostitution. In Britain nearly 5% of the prostitutes were under age 13.
The anti-pleasure climate of the Victorian sexuality in part
was shaped by the need of the Industrial Revolution for a public morality of
hard work, dedication and delayed gratification. The sexual revolution then
came to America, not about sex, but about women's rights to have career
opportunities and be independent of men.
Should we bring back traditional Biblical family values?
Concubinage, polygyny, (men multiple wives) capturing
women in battle and forcing them to be wives, levirate marriages, fathers
forcing their daughters to marry a man that pays the father the marriage price,
regardless of girls wishes, and women as property of husbands, may not be a
good thing, but they sure are Biblical!
Ex 22:16 says
"When a man seduces a virgin who is not yet betrothed, he shall pay the
bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father refuses to give her to him,
the seducer shall pay in silver a sum equal to the bride-price for
virgins."
Deut 22 tells about a husband's
property rights in his wife. If a bride was not a virgin at
marriage, she was regarded as "damaged merchandise." While a girl
should be a virgin, nothing in scripture suggests a man has to be a virgin. It
was terrible for a girl since it lowered her value to her father since her
bridal price would be lower.
One of the ironic things about the downfall of Jimmy
Swaggart is that his sin was actually perfectly Biblical. It was not wrong for
a man to consort with prostitutes (even if he was married). Temple prostitutes
was a different matter.
Today women's fathers don't tell the women whether to marry
of not for a price. Women are empowered to enjoy sexuality for themselves, not
as property. The marriage at the option of the father in Biblical times was
recognizing that women were property and also recognizing that children would
result - very different today.
In today's culture we have more need for delayed marriage
and education. In Biblical times the girl was married at 13 and served the
function of breeder and companion. Today marriage is long delayed due to a
changed society and marriage is no longer necessary to pass on the family name
or to have children within, since we no longer does sex equate with having to
have children. In Biblical days, they needed more people (especially sons) to
toil the fields and pass on the family name. Today we have an overcrowded world
and need fewer children.
Moses in regards to the acts of Peor, against the Lord,
directed "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that
laid with men...but all the women children, that have not known a man by lying
with him, keep alive for YOURSELVES". In other words - keep all the
virgins for yourself.
When Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the men of
Sodom, this was proper in accordance with the rules of sexual hospitality. A
father could use his daughters sexuality as he choose. God seemed to bless Lot
for offering his daughters to be gang-raped since the angels rescued them
before the city was destroyed.
Christian Sexual Bloodletting
The medical nightmares of bleeding began in the early Middle
Ages, initiated not by doctors but by Christian monks who viewed the procedure
not as a curative (like Greek and Roman physicians) but as a preventative
against sexual arousal.
Cloistered in monasteries that dotted the dreary landscape
of the Dark Ages, monks were the only members of the Western community who
could read and write. They alone interpreted Latin medical texts. Sworn to
celibacy, they continually had to suppress natural sexual urges, and ancient
Roman physicians taught that withholding the semen led to the poisoning of a
man's blood. Hence a truly chaste community of men should be one riddled with
disease. Unless, that is, men vented the toxic imbalances by bleeding each
other.
The practice was done monthly. Senior monks bled junior
ones, and the runoff juices were examined for the decayed matter that should be
present if a man weren't illicitly copulating or masturbating. A monk who
confessed to great temptations of the flesh was forced to shed volumes of blood
until his desires abated. Such profuse bleeding surely must have taken the mind
off sex, for a while at least.
Monks spread their medical theory among the laity. Since
premarital sex was among the most grievous of sins a man could commit,
unmarried men were bled to cleanse them of "evil juices" that caused
disease. It was thought that menstruation in women was natures own way to
detoxify her body. But a postmenopausal women was supposed to undergo periodic
bleedings.
In this manner, bloodletting moved from a onetime medical
cure-all to a prophylactic and then to an abuse of bodies of both the healthy
and the sick. for the physician of the Middle Ages, bleeding became his
"take two aspirin and call me in the morning." Bleeding hemorrhoids
even became an ailment to be desired.
Heyday of Abuse
There was money to be made in bloodletting, and
barber-surgeon guilds sprung up throughout Europe, advertising with their
red-and-white barber poles as the symbol of a bloodied, bandaged arm that had
been well vented.
Bloodletting banishes melancholy and passion," began a
ballad of the day. "It quenches the fires in the blood of the
lovesick." From the sixth to the sixteenth century, there was such a
medical abuse that it was killing tens of thousands of patients annually,
including many of Europe's leading monarchs.
The medical rule of thumb was: For any malady, regardless of
the patient's degree of ill health, bleed him or her a minimum of three to five
times, taking about two pints of blood each time. That's a near lethal amount
of bloodletting. Consequently when the ghost-white patient passed away, the
physician blamed not the letting of blood, but lamented only that the procedure
had not been begun earlier in the course of the disease and been done more
aggressively. By this logic, bloodletting itself never killed, it only came too
late.
This page was last updated on: June 25, 2003
