Is there any basis in the Bible for the distaste Christian

[CanIgonow]

fundamentalists like Falwell and Robertson show for sex?Given the
fact sex is a life giving force, you would think they would treat it with some reverence and not turn it into a dirty activity.Their opposition to abortion while understandable seems to come with their opposition to birth control,essentially contradictory positions if you ask me.

While I am at it,their support for capital punishment and their opposition to abortion also appear contradictory positions.

Carrying this sex related thread one step further, why do they detest sodomy in this country while keeping silent about the sodomy on children Rumsfeld ordered at Abu Ghraib?

[liontamer]

1. People do what they want to do

There is very little correlation between religion and behavior.

[leesa]

2. I don't believe you will find any rational answers to these questions

The bible is what they use to justify their hate and bigotry and as a poorly edited document, you can justify most anything with it. That's why it cracks me up when people claim it is authored by God. I'm sure God has better editing capabilities.

[kikiek]

I'm with you.

[Maple]

3. Paul caused the trouble

Jesus never said anything either anti-women, or anti-sex.

Paul's statements were included in the new testament, while others were rejected by the church.

Power, and in this case religious power, comes from numbers, so people were forced into having children. No birth control, no abortion, no gays, no refusals by the woman.

[DemVIctory]

5. As Maple said and as I have said before

The Christian right does not listen to the words of Jesus but rather to Paul. Jesus was a liberal.

[Mr_Spock]

8. You got it - Paul ignored Jesus and brought the argument to the lowest

common denomonator. What a loser that Paul was - ruined the possibilities left after Jesus' death. He put his right-wing spin on the liberal Jesus and ruined the world as stupid bigots liked his manipulative version of things.

[noonwitch]

19. Paul hated women, unless they were old widows ripe for the fleecing

He must have had issues with his mother.

[MadProphetMargin]

23. Paul of Tarsus was the biggest fraud in history. Almost everything he

says contradicts Jesus.

Of course, the timing of his "miraculous conversion" was pretty bloody convenient, too.

[barb162]

4. I suspect they think the Ten Commandments

does it: Thou shalt not commit adultery. I suspect it all stems from that; that any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

I thought there was not sodomy at the prison; that those disgusting piuctures were staged for the cameras and to humiliate the prisoners but there wasn't actual forced sex. It was so disgusitng I could no longer follow the story.

[htuttle]

12. Then you missed that part, I guess

Yes, there was real sodomy in Abu Ghraib, and yes, there were children sodomized. It's on tapes that haven't been released to the public, but Congress, the Pentagon and a number of independent journalists have seen them.

Sy Hersch has written fairly extensively about it. Here's a video of him speaking about it at an ACLU event this summer:
http://www.sadlyno.com/uploads/sadlynoseymour.rm

Here's a transcript of the talk I found on a blog:
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2004/07/post_1.htm

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. It was the pictures with the British troops that were staged

Alas, the overwhelming evidence is that the pictures with U.S. troops were real.

[ET Awful]

6. You can't ignore all the begattin' that goes on in the bible :)

The bible is clearly pro-sex. . . otherewise there wouldn't be those pages upon pages of:

so and so begat so and so; then so and so begat so and so who begat so and so, ad infinitum.

You can't begat without some boffing :).

[johnnie]

7. Anybody who is too extreme with what they believe......

......runs a huge chance of being over the top. It doesn't just apply to Christian fundies (I'm not saying that is what you are implying here). I think that it becomes certain issues that a large majority tend to believe in a little, and the extremists run with it until it become ridiculous.
There is no real way to figure it out, because trying to ask one of these people about it, they tend to get defensive and can not carry on a decent conversation about it. At least with some serial killers, they will sit down and try to explain what they did and why they did it.
I guess the answer to your question is...this is one thing we may never really know.

[Xithras]

9. I've read the Bible three times

There is absolutely nothing in there that paints sex as immoral, evil, or dirty. On the contrary, it encourages men and women to "cleave" to each other, saying this is the will of God.

The roots of the anti-sex puritanism in this country derives from religious movements centuries ago that latched onto the Eve in the garden thing and proclaimed that women were the handmaidens of the devil. The thought process went something like this: God made man in his image, but made woman from mans rib, so women aren't as godly as men. Because of this, women are more easily swayed by the devil and become his tools to corrupt Godly men through adultery, debauchery, and witchcraft. In order to keep the devils women from corrupting God's good men, women should be desexualized and sex should only be discussed or performed between a married man and his wife.

Now, I don't think anybody really believes the whole "devils handmaidens" bit anymore, but the cultural norms that this belief system imposed on the western world are taking a lot longer to dissipate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Yes, the Bible gives many contradictory positions (sorry, no pun intended)

concerning sex.

Pesonally, I think Song of Songs is beautiful, even if I don't get all the imagery. *l*

The trouble comes in that they believe that the Bible is inerrant, and have trouble dealing with the contradictions, whether it be about sex, abortion, murder, etc. They just sweep those contradictions under the rug and pretend they have never heard of such a thing as cognitive dissonance.

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[babylon_system]

11. The apple in the Garden of Eden represents sex

Before the serpent convinced Eve to tempt Adam to taste the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve lived in a blissful state of innocence. Once they tasted the apple, they fell into a state of sin and were forced to leave the Garden of Eden. Hence, sex is sin.

Just one interpretation, of course...........

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. No, the fruit in the Garden of Eden clearly represents

knowledge of good and evil. It comes from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I see it as an allegory for the time in dimmest prehistory when people developed a sense of morality, a sense that their actions can harm or help someone else.

Morality is irrelevant for animals. A wolf is not a murderer, and a cat is not promiscuous. They just ARE.

At some point in our evolution, we developed a moral sense. The Adam and Eve story is a mythological explanation for that stage in our prehistory.

[babylon_system]

17. Yes, well, like I said there are many possible interpretations n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. The ancient Hebrew attitude toward sex was that it

was meant to produce children (well, yes), so the laws about when a couple could and couldn't have sex relative to the woman's menstrual period were kind of a reverse rhythm method to guarantee that pregenancy would occur.

Like a lot of ancient peoples, they were also big on female chastity (although not so much on male chastity). There were some nasty customs in there, like a rapist being exonerated if he agreed to marry his victim.

However, they also had a lusty exuberance about sex. If you don't think so, read the Song of Solomon. The fundies like to say that it's an allegory of Christ's love for the Church (yeah, whatever), but it's pretty clearly a pair of lovers raving about each other's bodies.

Jesus said relatively little about sexuality. The passage in which he says that anyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery in his heart is paired with a verse that says, "He who hates his brother is a murderer." That is, it's more of a blow at spiritual pride ("I'm purer than other people because I've never had non-maritla sex" or "I'm not like those murderers there"), reminding us that, no matter what our outward behavior, we all have the same destructive impulses, only some people are better controlled than others.

Jesus also condemned divorce, but it was a different world, one in which a divorced woman was disgraced and would either be disowned by her birth family (and therefore be forced to drift into prostitution to survive) or, if not disowned by her birth family, would spend the rest of her life being a "poor relation" with relatives who never let her forget what a "burden" and "shame" she was.

Other than that, I can't recall Jesus saying much about sex, other than that he violated the taboo against touching a menstruating woman when he healed the woman who had the chronic hemorrhage.

It was Paul, who was influenced by Greek philosophy, who is responsible for a lot of the warped attitudes about sex. There were strains of Greek philosophy that taught that the soul is good and the body is evil, an idea foreign to Jewish thought, but as Gentiles took over the leading roles in Christianity, soul/body dualism became the predominant ideology.

Monasticism exacerbated this tendency. In those days, a lot of monks and nuns were involuntary--putting unwanted children in a convent or monastery was a common practice. So the monastic elders handled the problem of dealing with a bunch of horny teenagers much in the way Buddhist monks and nuns did or in the way the Taliban did: by teaching that the opposite sex was a source of evil and temptation and that virginity was the highest state of being.

Yet that begs the question of why the Renaissance and eighteenth century were pretty uninhibited while the Victorian era was so repressed in both England and the U.S. You can't even put all the blame on religion, because religious affiliation was relatively low in the U.S. until the Civil War. (I learned that factoid on The American Experience on PBS--the most powerful institution in a typical 1830s town was not the church, but the Masonic lodge) Whatever the reasons, the change must have been pretty jarring for people who were young between, say, 1780 and 1830, but saw their children and grandchildren become uptight prudes.

Taking it to modern times, I think the sexual prudery of the Falwells and Robertsons is put-on and deliberate. They know that sexual issues can bypass people's brains, so they exploit them. "The gays are going to recruit your children." "Feminism makes women murder their families." "Condoms don't protect against disease." "Abortion causes breast cancer." They're all nonsense, but to someone who is bewildered by the modern world and not thinking critically, those statements go right to the gut.

No other issue will work people into a frenzy as fast, except possibly guns.

If guns had existed in Biblical times, the fundies would be preaching on them, too. Maybe they already are.

[Hoping4Change]

14. Matthew Fox the ex Dominican priest addresses sexuality

He is extremely interesting. I found this comment of his on the web


"SEXUALITY: We will not be ashamed or afraid of the body and its power of sexuality. For too long there has been a separation of the soul and body (due mainly to the belief that the soul is able to get closer to God than the body which many Christians believe to be corrupted by sin). Sex should be enjoyed and embraced as a gift from God. It is not to be despised or used as a weapon of control. The penis is able to bring life and as such it should be used in a responsible way. Love-making should be seen as an art."



http://www.faithnet.org.uk/Theology/cosmicchrist.htm

[Cocoa]

18. it comes from the Puritans, doesn't it?

[Gruenemann]

53. oddly enough, the Puritans were less uptight

than many today are. Premarital sex was common--many (most?) women were pregnant when they married; they had shown they were good breeding stock and were thus desirable marriage partners. Not only that, but a Puritan woman could sue for divorce if her husband failed to satisfy her in bed!

The Victorians get a bum rap too, but that's a different lecture.

[More Than A Feeling]

20. No, but there is support for incest..,

and a few other interesting activities. Check out the racy tale of Lot and his daughters. Then take a look at the genealogy of Jesus given in Matthew, and focus on the women mentioned in that list. Each one of them is a dirty tale suitable for penthouse forum.

Clearly, things were much more relaxed back then.;)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Rumsfeld did not order sodomy on children. Get facts straight.

Rumsfeld did not order sodomy on children. Get the facts straight or lose all your credibility.

[MadProphetMargin]

25. Doesn't matter. He's still responsible, as is our beloved CINC.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. True. Rumsfeld responsible. But Rumsfeld never ordered children's sodomy

[CanIgonow]

28. Have you ever heard of plausible deniability?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Yes, but there is enough to hang Rumsfailed without resorting to untruth

Rumsfailed never ordered sodomy of children. It is stupid tactically, strategically, ethically, and morally to claim so.

[CanIgonow]

31. When a man such as Rumsfeld holds so much power,he must be held

to a higher standard than us mere mortals.I will also offer something that may point to his ordering such a tactic to extract information from the prisoners.He had Bush sign a directive a year before Abu Ghraib absolving Americans in Iraq of any crimes.He is also the master mind of using 'contractors' as 'interrogators' thus circumventing any need for Congressional authorization or funding restrictions.Yes, as the report says, we do not have a 'smoking gun' for Mr.Rumsfeld but given his notorious history for the past forty years he is more than likely the scum that ordered this.He is such a well known bureaucratic stickler for details nothing ever gets done without his knowledge or approval.He was such a vile character even Richard Nixon was forced to confess he is the creepiest guy he had ever encountered.

[Swamp Rat]

32. No matter what, Rumsfeld is responsible for ALL the actions of the people

under his command, both military AND civilian. He is responsible for EVERYTHING that happened in Abu Ghraib. PERIOD.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

34. while I am big on responsibility

your position is a dangerous one to hold. No person can be truly responsible for the acts of another. Neither Rumsfeld or anyone else for that matter can control the acts of another human being.

Having said that, he should hold THEM accountable for their actions by punishing them to the fullest extent possible under the UCMJ. And then, if Rummy DID in fact order or give tacit authorization for the abuses, then he himself should be held accountable.

I am sorry, the people who ordered or carried out the abuse are the ones responsible. If it climbs to Rummy, then so be it...roast 'em. If he chooses not to punish...roast 'em. But if neither of those two options come to light...then you cannot blame the actions of some on one person.

And before someone breaks out, "He is responsible for the troops under his command..." He is responsible for the orders given them and the management of the military as a whole...NO ONE can be held responsible for the acts of one or a few people...unless he ALLOWS them to go forward without punishment.

OK...flame away.
theProdigal

[Swamp Rat]

49. no flames... I agree with you in general, but in Rumsfeld's case I make

an exception. He's a danger to us all.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Yes, hold Rumsfailed to a higher standard, but not higher than yourself.

Don't lie about Rumsfeld. He never ordered the sodomizing of children.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. You haven't supplied a single shred for your claim.

[CanIgonow]

35. It is Rumsfeld who has to provide proof of his innocence .

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. sorry...can't be done

that is why the burden of proof in law is on the accuser...

theProdigal

[CanIgonow]

39. If he abandons plausible deniability, yes.Otherwise, no.

[CanIgonow]

38. After I posted the above reply, I came across an item on the

report by the independent panel appointed to investigate the Abu Ghraib 'abuses'as Rumsfeld likes to call them; that panel says the 'abuses'were so widespread and systemic, that it is inconceivable that the commanders and Rumsfeld were unaware of them.To give this vile human being the benefit of the doubt that he is not willing to give helpless prisoners under his custody would be to violate all that we hold dear.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

40. vile or no...

the burden of proof always should rest on the accuser.

theProdigal

onEdit : if 'systemic abuse' is deemed acceptable as a burden of proof, the roast 'im. But he should not (nor should anyone) have to prove their innocence against a claim without evidence that backs it.

[CanIgonow]

41. When the game is rigged in favor of the man who exempted

himself before his crimes came to light, we can and should make an exception.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

42. while the emotional side of me agrees with you

the logical side sees the danger in this approach. It opens a Pandora's Box of potential abuse. Suppose the goverment comes to charge you one day with a crime for which they have no supporting evidence other than the word of a person who hates you...what then? Should you be required to PROVE your innocence in the face of that? I would imagine that if the burden of proof were shifted to the accused...things would get nasty in a hurry.

theProdigal

[CanIgonow]

45. I am sorry.I agree.My anger at what has happened in our name is so great

and even worse, the silence of our reps in Congress and the Press is so deafening, I had to let loose in some way.I am also well aware of Rumsfeld's reputation stretching back to his days in the Ford and Reagan administrations as a fixer and strong man.He is the man I think would have fitted William Shirer's descriptions of the Nazi courtiers the most.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

46. no problem!

I wasn't seeing anger there...just frustration that I really understand.

Hang in there...it WILL get better...
theProdigal

[Bernardo de La Paz]

43. This whole thread started with your foolish untruthful claim. Admit it.

This whole thread started with your foolish untruthful claim. You wrote " the sodomy on children Rumsfeld ordered at Abu Ghraib".

You haven't produced a shred of evidence for this and you can't. You know it is false. Admit it.

[CanIgonow]

44. As I said, yes, I cannot provide the smoking gun.But I do not have to.

I am not a prosecutor.I am just an ordinary citizen revolted by a man who wields enormous power in my and your behalf and has the foresight to exempt himself before his crimes come to light and can always fall back on a presidential pardon if things get hot.I am just connecting the dots, as it were, and drawing my conclusions.The independent panel I alluded to earlier also agrees with my conclusions.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. Another lie. Independent panel doesn't say Rumsfeld ordered child sodomy

Another lie. The independent panel (which one, you don't say) doesn't say Rumsfeld ordered child sodomy. It does NOT agree with your conclusion.

Stop your ridiculous claim. If you smear somebody with an untruth, it doesn't matter how icky the person is, you have descended to the level of smearing with lies.

Stop it.

[CanIgonow]

52. I have stated i response to another post here that I misspoke and am

sorry.But the fact remains that even a commission appointed by Rumsfeld himself stated that the knowledge of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib extended up the chain of command.If that is so, one would think these atrocities were committed under their orders or with a wink and nod on their part.What is striking to me is that when the original pictures of these tortures came out, Rumsfeld's first reaction was to prohibit the use of cell phone cameras at Abu Ghraib, a tacit admission that he was afraid this would result in further disclosure of atrocities at that nefarious prison.It also shows a complete lack of remorse on the part of this man.

I will readily admit my mistake in accusing an individual without proof.As a citizen living away from the seat of power I do not have access to the information these powerful people possess.But let me assure you after having lived through the Vietnam Era and the daily stream of lies spewing out of the mouths of our rulers, I am not inclined to disbelieve anything about these men.And as I said earlier as the father of seven children of my own I do not want to stand idly by when children are sodomized in our name by men who were not even elected by us.

[CanIgonow]

26. When the Nazis were trotted out at Nuremberg, this is exactly the

defense they put up.They did not personally order any of the crimes against humanity that were committed.Judge Robert Jackson,the American prosecutor,flatly turned down this defense and to this day he remains one of my heroes along with Sen.Byrd, of course.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. In the case of Nuremburg and the lesser known Tokyo trials

commanders were held responsible for atrocities committed by their troops because they were considered responsible for creating the atmosphere in which atrocities had occurred.

That is, even though they may not have ordered or even known of a particular atrocity, they were held responsible because they had either ordered or purposely ignored other atrocities, thus creating an atmosphere in which their subordinates assumed that they could get away with anything.

[Tsiyu]

22. Ummmmm

haven't any of you ever read Song of Songs?

[Tsiyu]

24. "My lover is to me..."

"... a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.

My lover is to me a cluster of henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi."

Song of Songs 1:13-14

beautiful literary imagery

[T Town Jake]

30. "Song of Solomon" in the Old Testament...

...is basically a somewhat steamy love poem, with subtle erotic undertones. Wonder what Messrs. Falwell & Robertson make of it?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. no, there is no reason for it...in the bible

The bible wholly endorses sex between married couples but restricts 'healthy' sexual relationships to those who are married. Sex OUTSIDE of marriage is what is considered to be the problem...so I really cannot figure out what these people are freaking out about. Sex in marriage is SUPPOSED to happen.

And for those of you slamming Paul on this one...while he might have been a homosexual and he probably had some issues with women, he DID see the value of and need for sex in marriage. It is Paul that states that a man does not own his body, but his wife does and the wife does not own her body, but her husband does (yes, many fundies miss that first part). He then goes on to say that sexual relations should not be witheld for one another except for a time and that time is to be dedicated to prayer and fasting and then you are to come back together and cleave to one another again.

So, why the problem with sex...well, in the context of marriage, "the marriage bed is undefiled." Which is taken by many interpreters to mean, "If you both go for it, GO for it." ... with that little caveat about being hitched.

Ok </rant>
theProdigal

[MaryH]

48. There are some references in the Nag Hammadi Writings

But it was used in more of a mystical way. The world is a corpse. The lusts of the world (sex but also other worldly things - I would put greed and love of material things in with that) are to be overcome. People who dwell just in the worldly things are right in there with the "beasts." And these ideas were attributed to Christ.

But they also say that Mary Magdelene was Christ's "companion."

The idea is to overcome such lusts so that one can dwell with God.

It is an interesting idea.

[Cheswick2.0]

50. I don't think they show a distaste for sex

I think they judge permiscuous sexual practices and there is a bais in the bible for that. They also judge homosexual sex and there is a basis for that in the bible if you are willing to misinterpret the bible and look only at the verse that back up your prejudice.

[yellowcanine]

54. Wonder how Falwell interprets the story of Ruth and Boaz?

"And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn: and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid her down." Ruth 3:7

My understanding is that "uncovering his feet" is a euphemism for "had sex with." And note what happens in the morning.

"14 And she lay at his feet until the morning: and she rose up before one could know another . And he said , Let it not be known that a woman came into the floor.

15 Also he said , Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city."

So she leaves in the morning while it was still dark - he tells his workers not to let anyone know she was there - and he pays her for her efforts.

Of course Boaz "does the right thing" and marries Ruth. But I wonder if the good Rev Falwell recommends this method of snagging a husband for the widows in his "flock". Note also that the whole plan here was Naomi's (Ruth's mother-in-law) idea and Ruth carried it out to the letter. So it is not as if this was some act of passion on Ruth's part. It was a calculated move.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. Au contraire, check out David's Psalms

To his "buddy" Jonathan (son of Saul). I'm not the first to have noticed the not-so-latent homosexuality in some of the passages.

For a hilarious take on this, read Joseph Heller's "God Knows".

[librechik]

56. The 3rd century Arab/Byzantine influence is what brought in the

prudishness to Christianity. Before that Christianity was a movemnet meant to counter the influence of patriarchy and celebrate women as equals, honoring them (that's why the men grew their hair long, to honor women) So my husband, the anthropologist and Bible scholar tells me.

From Abu Ghraib we know how prudish about sex Arabs are believed to be--
so it still has power today.