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

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.