3 ms·

> So you're saying Christianity's discouragement of sex (which is not from the bible) actually came from the Roman/Greek world? No, not at all. The original l

> So you're saying Christianity's discouragement of sex (which is not from the bible) actually came from the Roman/Greek world? No, not at all. The original link was about a hermeneutic developed in the 7th century. The post I replied to was speaking about what's in the Bible itself. My reply concerns the latter.

ars 7y ago
I read it again a couple times, and your reply is super confusing, I don't understand what you are saying. > about what's in the Bible itself. My reply concerns the latter. Which is what? In particular what do you mean by "very Old Testament in its sexual ethic"? The Old Testament is positive towards sex, but Christianity is not.
- Brendinooo 7y ago
  Ha, when I went to break this down I saw why my reply is confusing. Thanks for pushing back. Original claim: "Of all the myriad human issues dealt with in the Bible, sexual misconduct isn't particularly important" That claim is followed by a parenthetical that hints at an argument I hear often: "<<issue>> isn't all that important because Jesus didn't talk about it". The poster is heavily implying[0] that apart from some talk about divorce, Jesus didn't talk about sexuality all that much, therefore sexual misconduct isn't particularly important. Then from there, you usually hear something along the lines of "Paul ruined Christianity" or "The Old Testament God is way different than the New Testament God". My response was to disagree with all that and say that the Bible treats sexual conduct and misconduct as very important, and to state that Jesus's relative quietness on these issues is a tacit endorsement of most of the Old Testament sexual ethic. > The Old Testament is positive towards sex, but Christianity is not. Depends on who you're learning from, I guess, as well as how you'd define sex positivity. Christian theologians have struggled with Song of Solomon for centuries, but most of the people I listen to have no problem saying that it's actually about a romantic relationship instead of exclusively some allegory about Christ and the church. This original link is pretty weird to me, very much out of step with how Christians understand marital sex today. [0]: To be clear, I could be reading this implication wrong. But I don't think I am.
  - ars 7y ago
    You don't need Song of Songs, Exodus 21:10 tells you that the Bible is positive toward sex in marriage. I don't understand how the twitter thread can claim a requirement to minimize sex in light of that. (And thanks for clarifying.)
cardiffspaceman 7y ago
In this connection I am reminded of the famous 1 Corinthians 7:9 and if they have not continence -- let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn;. Scanning back to the beginning of 1 Corinthians 7 for context, and reading the commentaries at [1] it seems that St. Paul recommended celibacy but recognized that sex was a major distraction, as did many other authorities of the time. As a bonus we see here that Paul says that in this matter the spouses each yield to each other (1 C 7:4) [2] and that Paul is not speaking from the law from his own opinion [3]. I can understand why people would say that the New Testament says, "Don't do it" but it only took a little effort on my part to see nuances. And in the commentaries I've linked to, I think I see some support for GP's comment. [1] https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-9.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-9.htm [2] https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-4.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-4.htm [3] https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-6.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-6.htm

ars 7y ago

I read it again a couple times, and your reply is super confusing, I don't understand what you are saying. > about what's in the Bible itself. My reply concerns the latter. Which is what? In particular what do you mean by "very Old Testament in its sexual ethic"? The Old Testament is positive towards sex, but Christianity is not.

Brendinooo 7y ago
Ha, when I went to break this down I saw why my reply is confusing. Thanks for pushing back. Original claim: "Of all the myriad human issues dealt with in the Bible, sexual misconduct isn't particularly important" That claim is followed by a parenthetical that hints at an argument I hear often: "<<issue>> isn't all that important because Jesus didn't talk about it". The poster is heavily implying[0] that apart from some talk about divorce, Jesus didn't talk about sexuality all that much, therefore sexual misconduct isn't particularly important. Then from there, you usually hear something along the lines of "Paul ruined Christianity" or "The Old Testament God is way different than the New Testament God". My response was to disagree with all that and say that the Bible treats sexual conduct and misconduct as very important, and to state that Jesus's relative quietness on these issues is a tacit endorsement of most of the Old Testament sexual ethic. > The Old Testament is positive towards sex, but Christianity is not. Depends on who you're learning from, I guess, as well as how you'd define sex positivity. Christian theologians have struggled with Song of Solomon for centuries, but most of the people I listen to have no problem saying that it's actually about a romantic relationship instead of exclusively some allegory about Christ and the church. This original link is pretty weird to me, very much out of step with how Christians understand marital sex today. [0]: To be clear, I could be reading this implication wrong. But I don't think I am.
- ars 7y ago
  You don't need Song of Songs, Exodus 21:10 tells you that the Bible is positive toward sex in marriage. I don't understand how the twitter thread can claim a requirement to minimize sex in light of that. (And thanks for clarifying.)

cardiffspaceman 7y ago

In this connection I am reminded of the famous 1 Corinthians 7:9 and if they have not continence -- let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn;. Scanning back to the beginning of 1 Corinthians 7 for context, and reading the commentaries at [1] it seems that St. Paul recommended celibacy but recognized that sex was a major distraction, as did many other authorities of the time. As a bonus we see here that Paul says that in this matter the spouses each yield to each other (1 C 7:4) [2] and that Paul is not speaking from the law from his own opinion [3]. I can understand why people would say that the New Testament says, "Don't do it" but it only took a little effort on my part to see nuances. And in the commentaries I've linked to, I think I see some support for GP's comment. [1] https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-9.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-9.htm [2] https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-4.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-4.htm [3] https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-6.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/7-6.htm