|
|
|
|
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/7/2008 12:09:27 PM | but remember its really only the abrahamic religions the 'demonize" sex in ancient pagan cultures sex was celebrated and the most iconic "deities" were fertility goddesses
and male fertility gods were often worshiped aswell so i think we should go back to the old ways celebrate sex as what it is...a pleasureable experience to be shared by many...also depriving oneself often leads to "acting out" take the multitudes of catholic priests accused of molestation ......hmmm dont see that so often in religions where the priest are allowed to marry......wonder why? | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/7/2008 12:59:25 PM | pedronnial:
also depriving oneself often leads to "acting out" take the multitudes of catholic priests accused of molestation ......hmmm dont see that so often in religions where the priest are allowed to marry......wonder why?
Actually, that's a myth.
Catholic priests do not commit sex abuse any more or less than ministers of other denominations and religions, although for various reasons, the media prefers to report Catholic priests more boldly than other ministers (a bit like how the media prefers to report kidnappings of blonde Anglo women than of any other type of person). A serious study of sex abuse among religious authorities will show that the issue of celibacy or marriage has nothing to do with it at all. Furthermore, the "multitudes" of priests that you speak of actually make up less than one-tenth of a percent of the entire American Catholic priesthood....
According to a New York Times report, in the Protestant churches collectively, there are 260 accusations of sex abuse by clergymen against minors, whereas in the Catholic Church, there are 228. Similar statistics can be found among Jewish rabbis, Islamic imams, and clergy of all other faiths..... and most of those are indeed allowed or compelled to marry. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/us/16protestant.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Furthermore, most of the sex abuse that does take place in religious institutions are by lay volunteers, most of whom are, you guessed it, married. According to the Christian Science Monitor: "Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers." http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
This webpage is a blog that records cases of sex abuse by Jewish rabbis. http://jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/ I guess we should tell rabbis that they need to get married, huh? Oh, wait........ they are. Well, so much for that argument.
Also:
but remember its really only the abrahamic religions the 'demonize" sex in ancient pagan cultures sex was celebrated and the most iconic "deities" were fertility goddesses
Buddhism also has a tradition of celibacy and monasticism. Buddhism is not Abrahamic. | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/8/2008 8:46:12 AM | simple
Because sex is a major drive for human beings.. right up there with food, water, air and sleep. Now you can't REALLY control those things... otherwise the person DIES, but sex is one of the major needs that CAN be suppressed. It's a control issue. I think that sex is such a powerful internal drive that some people are afraid of their urges and desires... and when the concept of separation of spirit and body happened (with the main patriarchal religions) it became easy to see the "flesh" and it's needs as somewhow less than spiritual. This divorce of the spirit and the body began quite a ways back, but I doubt if it could be pinpointed exactly. By the middle ages the body was completely rejected as something actually 'ungodly'.. and flagellation and asceticism, denial of the flesh's needs became a way to prove piety, or one's "love' of god. Unfortunately this mindset continues today... and I think it's because sex.. and especially orgasm are ways we feel "out of control'... but really what closer way have we to feel bliss? There is an element of guilt to feeling good that comes from the puritanical ideology of the early and middle ages. Another reason is that pagans revelled in their physicality and saw it as part of nature, sacred in itself..and that might have lent to christianity and other patriarchal forms to reject it to distance themselves from paganism. ... many of the matriarchal and goddess worshipping sects celebrated sexuality as sacred... and that was a no no. Women need to be 'controlled' in a patriarchal society.. and sexuality can be power as well. Then there is the patriarchal line of inheritance part of it. Also the demonizing of Eve is obviously scapegoating.
I have never understood it myself... "god" created us flesh, how could it be something abominable? It isn't what it IS that is negative, but how it is expressed. Using another without regard for them is what I consider negative sexuality.. as is not accepting the consequences of sexuality.. not the act itself. This is where I thing the "church" went wrong.. they threw the baby out with the bathwater.
People are still freaked out by their own sexuality.. and cling to these ideas out of that fear.. and use the concepts of days gone past to feel more in control.. or "better than'.. others. Sad really. I've yet to meet a person with a good responsible sex life who was bitter or hateful. There is a common saying in our society when we see someone who is constantly cranky, "They probably just need to get laid" hahahaha.. maybe we should listen to our own inner wisdom and realize that sexuality is not only natural and normal, but essential for emotional and psychological health.
Peace | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/8/2008 10:06:35 AM |
I have never understood it myself... "god" created us flesh, how could it be something abominable? It isn't what it IS that is negative, but how it is expressed. Using another without regard for them is what I consider negative sexuality.. as is not accepting the consequences of sexuality.. not the act itself. This is where I thing the "church" went wrong.. they threw the baby out with the bathwater.
People are still freaked out by their own sexuality.. and cling to these ideas out of that fear.. and use the concepts of days gone past to feel more in control.. or "better than'.. others. Sad really. I've yet to meet a person with a good responsible sex life who was bitter or hateful. There is a common saying in our society when we see someone who is constantly cranky, "They probably just need to get laid" hahahaha.. maybe we should listen to our own inner wisdom and realize that sexuality is not only natural and normal, but essential for emotional and psychological health.
I don't consider sex abominable, but I think that it should be understood for its purposes, and there are guidlines that are inevitable to whether the sex is healthy and nurturing or whether it is destructive. In the beginning sex was simple and explained as such..."For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
So sex is not merely an act of fleshly pleasure that is shared, but is a spiritual union and bonding that is formed between a man and a woman that makes them become 'one flesh'.....and this 'one flesh' isn't reliant upon thier individual committment to each other either, because in the same manner, if a man joins himself to a prostitute, he becomes 'one flesh' with the prostitute and forms a spiritual union and bond with the prostitute.
The problem is that casual sex, doesn't recognize ethe union and bond that is formed and the union becomes dysfunctional. And the fruit of what is experienced is a dysfunctional and unhealthy bond. I have seen many times how a sexual union between two people, holds them together in a completely loveless and abusive relationship. From the perspective of an outsider looking in, they will see the abuse and dysfunction, but for the person who has been forged in this union, they cannot see past the obsession of thier own dysfunctional and abusive realtionship, and consider the feelings within them as love. The result is that people are completely deceived into thinking the obsession they are experiencing that is formed by the sexual bond, is what true love is for them.
So there is nothing wrong with sex, the error of sex comes by not understanding that a spiritual union and bond is formed through sexual actions...and only can a healthy sexual relationship function accordingly, if the bond that comes along with sex, is treated with the proper respect. And that cannoyt happen outside of a committment alsoworking in companionship with the sexual union shared. | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/8/2008 10:56:10 AM | That was my point about how it is expressed
however I do disagree that it HAS to be constrained in a long term relationship. Sex can be mutually satisfying, respectful and a loving act between people who are not committed to one another as life partners... IF they understand that by having sex they are merging not just their bodies but their spirits as well. Emotional vulnerability is another thing that must be included as a byproduct of sexuality... there is also the responsibility factor... if you can't imagine sharing parenting with a person, maybe having sex with them is not a good idea. Sex has consequences.. and for mature sex there has to be the ability to accept responsibility for one's choices.
This takes a WHOLE lot of maturity and affection for your partner... basically one would have to put the well-being of one's partner before their own. I think some people are evolved enough for this, but most aren't. So far in our history marriage was the simplest and most effective way to define and enforce the very great responsibility of human sexuality. Of course when one only lives 45 years or less it's a whole lot easier to make a lifetime commitment. It's still a viable option for sharing one's body, mind and spirit with another but I don't believe it is the only one, and I think society is trying on different ways of relating and parameters for relationships. It wasn't that long ago that to remarry after a divorce (if not divorce itself) was unthinkable...
Peace | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/8/2008 12:41:43 PM | ravenstar66:
Because sex is a major drive for human beings.. right up there with food, water, air and sleep. Now you can't REALLY control those things... otherwise the person DIES, but sex is one of the major needs that CAN be suppressed. It's a control issue. I think that sex is such a powerful internal drive that some people are afraid of their urges and desires... and when the concept of separation of spirit and body happened (with the main patriarchal religions) it became easy to see the "flesh" and it's needs as somewhow less than spiritual. This divorce of the spirit and the body began quite a ways back, but I doubt if it could be pinpointed exactly. By the middle ages the body was completely rejected as something actually 'ungodly'.. and flagellation and asceticism, denial of the flesh's needs became a way to prove piety, or one's "love' of god. Unfortunately this mindset continues today... and I think it's because sex.. and especially orgasm are ways we feel "out of control'... but really what closer way have we to feel bliss? There is an element of guilt to feeling good that comes from the puritanical ideology of the early and middle ages. Another reason is that pagans revelled in their physicality and saw it as part of nature, sacred in itself..and that might have lent to christianity and other patriarchal forms to reject it to distance themselves from paganism. ... many of the matriarchal and goddess worshipping sects celebrated sexuality as sacred... and that was a no no. Women need to be 'controlled' in a patriarchal society.. and sexuality can be power as well. Then there is the patriarchal line of inheritance part of it. Also the demonizing of Eve is obviously scapegoating.
What a strange way of viewing the medieval period.........
For example, in regard to "the puritanical ideology of the early and middle ages"..... Puritanism didn't exist until the 16th century.
The notion that the Middle Ages had Puritan-like ideals would be a sad mis-representation of the richness of medieval spirituality, and is really quite the opposite of what medieval worship was like.
Medieval Christianity was rooted in the Incarnation. This is the belief that, since God took on the form of man in the person of Jesus, the material world was sanctified. Transubstantiation (the belief that the ordinary bread and wine at Mass literally transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ) was also a central aspect of Christian piety, leading to the development of Eucharistic adoration and Corpus Christi processions.
A cursory study of Christian art and architecture from the medieval era will reflect what I said above. There are, of course, many painted icons, statues of saints and angels, lifesize crucifixes, rood screens, etc. The famous Gothic cathedrals may look white or grey today, but when they were first raised, they were painted inside and out in many vibrant colors.
Outside of art, Christian piety of the Middle Ages was expressed through sacraments and sacramentals. The ordinary medieval Christian was illiterate, so he did not read Scripture at home. Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ at Communion, kissing the pax, Passion plays and mystery dramas, pilgrimages, the use of holy oils and blessings, and processions were all characteristic of this time period.
And yes, the medievals even enjoyed having sex.
Now, when you consider the 16th century Puritan reactions to medieval worship....... the great bonfires of statues and paintings as being impure and unholy representations of God, the rocks thrown into stained glass windows, the whitewashing of walls and ceilings, the tearing down of altars, and the teaching of Eucharistic theology as cannibalism, THEN you know what Puritanism is.
By the middle ages the body was completely rejected as something actually 'ungodly'.. and flagellation and asceticism, denial of the flesh's needs became a way to prove piety, or one's "love' of god.
Eh, not quite the best way of describing the Middle Ages. Flagellation was not a widespread practice until the 1300's with the Black Death. Asceticism was certainly a big deal in medieval times, but it was not unique to them. The Vestal Virgins in ancient Rome are an example of one of many different pagan ascetics.
Also, a society that has ascetic orders does not necessarily demonize sex. I can guarantee you that sex didn't have anywhere near as many taboos in the Middle Ages when monks and nuns abounded in the land than it did in many countries after the Reformation and the destruction of monastic life.
Finally:
I have never understood it myself... "god" created us flesh, how could it be something abominable?
The simple answer is that, at least in traditional Christianity, it isn't. | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/8/2008 1:30:47 PM | There were, it turns out, practical reasons behind many of the rules that were codified as religious tenets. Shellfish were an 'abomination' -think of it; critters that eat ocean garbage unhealthy? Duh!
We know now from science that sex creates bonding by generating certain chemicals in the body. It's unwise to bond with someone unsuitable, dangerous, etc. I suspect the injunctions against sex also, at base, are simply good practices in terms of mental and physical health.
An advanced Intellect couldn't explain the scientific principles behind these rules to pre-scientific people; how better to get the point across than to threaten them with dire consequences if the 'rules' were broken? You don't explain the mechanisms of burnt skin to your toddler as he reaches for the stove; you say "no! HOT! hurt!" | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/8/2008 1:39:16 PM | however I do disagree that it HAS to be constrained in a long term relationship. Sex can be mutually satisfying, respectful and a loving act between people who are not committed to one another as life partners...
Looks good on paper ravenstar, but in the real world where the rubber meets the road and all things are tested, this falls to peices. Emotions cannot be set aside and dealt with viaintellectual approach, thier are consequences and reprocussions in the emotional realm that are unavoidable, because of the nature of men and women. And unless the nature is removed(which is impossible except through death) then we are subject to a world that is effected by emotions. And the trickness of dealing with emotions is that they are neither right nor wrong....they just are and exist. Certain things cause certain emotions. Rejection being the main root of all emotional issues, is best seen at work in a rejected and jilted partner. And no matter how mature and responsible a person is, there will always be a feeling brought about of rejection, as soon as one person is replaced for another. If this is possible as you suggest, then I disagree that 'love' has anything to do with it....it is all about satisfying a person's own selfish motives in every case, if the motives could be truly examined.......I have also seen this rejection come alive and begin to work in woman who have been divorced for 10 years, remarried another, and yet still feel issues of rejection when thier past husband remarries again. And it isn't that they are bitter about anything, nor do I undestand why they feel like this.....But I don't think the feeling is right or wrong either, like I said already, I consider the feelingto be nothing more than an effect of something else that roots and fuels it. And the root of the issue is what needs to be dealt with, not the feeling.
Certain feelings manifest unavoidably from certain causes. Grief folllows death, this is unavoidable. I have a very positive attitude about death and even maybe look forward to it at times, but that doesn't mean I can stop the feeling of pain through grief when I lose someone I love in the world, even though I know I will see them again in a better place.
There are natural laws of reaping and sowing and sex follows a natural law of union and bonding. What God has joined together let no man separate...and if we try to toy with the notions of uncommitted sex, we are trying to defy natural laws of bonding and unity that go against the very purposes of God's purposes of perfect love.
Even if you believe that this type of a uncommitted relationship can work in a very remote case between 'evolved' individuals, you should agree that this uncommitted relationship is not at its healthiest possible goal when it comes to the emotional well being of the two who are involved. | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/8/2008 2:35:30 PM | I don't know if I would categorize this as "non-committed".. I would think there would have to be some sort of committment even if only to be caring of the others feelings and needs. I don't think "casual sex' as we think of it is what I am referring to.. maybe it's more polyamory.
I'm not a jealous person...at all, and I've never had the need to "own" someone's body or sexuality (except my own of course) and yes I have had one or two sexual relationships that were not based on a pair bond- but more on friendship and mutual desire/need. The circumstances were right, they were people I cared for deeply, and still do... but never "fell in love" with, nor could I. I also didn't experience rejection when they found their present partners, I was happy for them. I've also seen this in a few other people I know who are capable of being loving and sexual, without commitment. But as I stated earlier it requires an ability and willingness to accept any consequences of such a choice.
I am still very close friends with these people.. and care as much for them now as I ever did. I guess what it comes down to for me is that I believe there are no limits on love... just depends on how secure, self-honest and open one is to others. But.. I wouldn't look down on anyone who was not comfortable with this kind of arrangement, it isn't common...nor would it be easy.
But, how many of us here are serial monogamists?... really, is it so much different?.. to love more than one person? What really is the difference if it's one at a time or a few at a time.. the love is the same, is it not? If people REALLY believed in that "do not sunder" stuff then divorce, except in cases of abuse, would be almost unheard of. How many of us are divorced? (Obviously this does not apply to the widowed) How many here have been married MORE than once? Lived with two or more people? I think in some cases people are dishonest with themselves and talk themselves into believing that THIS TIME it's true love, sanctioned by god, when it's really a fear of being alone, fear of one's sexual needs, a need to be socially accepted, a fear of independence.. and many other things than just love.. and they do this for each relationship they have, because the last one MUST have been a mistake.. and the vows are basically thrown under the trainwreck of the prior relationship. Off to the next one...oh, but I'm not an adulterer or fornicator because I'm MARRIED (again) I truly think in a lot of cases it's dishonest. If I read my Bible right.. and I looked this one up several times... divorce is a no-no..though not completely taboo, but remarriage is a definite no-no, no how, no way. A woman is considered a man's wife even if they divorce and can NOT remarry without becoming an adultress until he is dead. THAT is the NT's view on marriage and divorce.. there is no wiggle room there..even Jesus spoke to this issue... the whole basis of the Anglican church was because one king wanted a new wife. I find it interesting that as social morals change, so does the interpretation of the scriptures to make people feel comfortable with what they really want anyway.. and that is most apparent in the area of sex.
Human beings are not exclusively a pair-bond species... I don't know if any primates are (maybe, I don't know) Not to say there aren't advantages to pair-bonding... but then we get into child-rearing and genetics and such.
So yes, I can disagree.. I believe it is possible for a sexual relationship to be very healthy even without a pair-bond.. however I think it's extremely rare.
Peace | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/8/2008 8:17:35 PM |
divorce is a no-no..though not completely taboo, but remarriage is a definite no-no, no how, no way. A woman is considered a man's wife even if they divorce and can NOT remarry without becoming an adultress until he is dead. THAT is the NT's view on marriage and divorce.. there is no wiggle room there.
Ravenstar, I will give you an agreement, because I cannot debate against what you have experienced and come to understand. I'm not the jealous type either but I am possessive, and in my reality, I could never function in anything but a committment, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't insist on a pre-nup to protect my interests. So even though I understand a committment is necessary for my own well being in a relationship, I don't want lip-service to this, but I want a committment that comes from the heart, is alive and grows. The committment I am speaking about is something that is more than a peice of paper, but is a living reality that grows and needs to be nurtured...in my world love and committment are two in the same whole.
But despite all that we have discussed on this, and to get more in the topic of the demonization of sex....I understand and believe that God has a desire to teach us greater spiritual truths through the purposes we experience in this earthly realm...for example, God gave me the opportunity to become a father, and in being a father, i can better understand the father heart of God through my own experience of fatherhood. In the same way I believe that God gives us relationships to help us better understand the greater spiritual reality of being married spiritually to God.
Sex imo is a shadow of a greater spiritual reality of worship, and I believe that my thoughts are correct as far as scripture teaches, because when the children of Israel went after other gods to worship, they were considered as adulteress in the spiritual sense. So there is a connection between spiritual worship as being a greater reality that is shadowed in earthly relationships/marriage and sexual intimacy. I bring this up because my understanding of the principles and purposes of sex, comes mostly from how I understand the principles of spiritual worship. Now, in true spiritual worship, the expression of worship and gratitude given to God comes from the heart of appreciation. I don't worship God because I want to be closer to Him or have an experience with Him, I worship God because I have seen Him and have been given a glimpse of His glory and have been brought closer to Him, and because of all this, it is in my heart to worship. So my motivation is not to seek after worship, but is to seek after God's love, and after I experience God's love, worship follows as natural as cause and effect.
Now when comparing motives with how we approach sex....when the motive and purpose become seeking the sex, I consider that sex has been demonized or defiled from the pure essence that it was meant to be experienced through God's purposes. I consider that the pure essence of sex is expressed in the highest manner, through the experience of being in love, and that sex is only for the purpose of expressing love in the physical realm. When I can only see God as the creator of sex, then I think that He must have a purpose of teaching us something about Himself through our sexual experiences.
When Jesus talked with the Samaritan woman, he discussed things concerning marriage that she could relate to and then He made mention of true Spiritual worship in the same passage. It was not coincidence that the topic with the woman was both her experiences with marriage and also proper worship practices. And Jesus also specifically said that the Jews understood what worship was about because salvation was to come through thier race. So here we have salvation and worship going hand in hand in conversation topic, with sex and marriage. There is a lot of spiritual insight in the passage regarding the proper perspectives of sexual intimacy according to God's standard by comparing it with worship in Spirit and Truth. but to just touch on the highlights, true worship comes from the heart that understands and appreciates what they have recieved. And I think that the proper purposes of sex should be considered with the same light, that sex is something that comes from the heart of appreciation and love. Sex is a fruit of love. And love is what needs to be questioned as being the true motivator or not.
So I can't sit here and question whether your sexual actions were motivated by love or not as I don't know, only you know and can give an honest response if this was the case or not.
I know that mine, when I honestly assess them, have mainly been motivated by my own desires for gratification, even though there was a bond of love being shared.
As far as the commandments go,well my perspective is completely different. i don't see them as rules that can be broken, but I see them as prophetic spiritual authorities and powers that rule the spirit realm of God and are enforced. If we can break them, then we are not under them in the first place...but that is for another topic cand requires a lot more indepth explanation than what I can go into now.
always a pleasure
ravenstar | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/9/2008 1:59:03 PM | Ravenstar, You are entirely correct, But let me add this, In eastern cultures, Sex was considered to be a mutual act of enjoyment between both people. In western culture, Sex is seen as male-dominated.
peace to you as well | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:37:00 PM | I have no idea where the demonization of sex and women came from. It definitely doesn't come from Judaism.
In Judaism, a man has to have sex when his wife wants it. But if he wants it and she doesn't, no sex, and he has to accept it.
In Judaism, every time a man and his wife have sex, he has to give her an orgasm. But she doesn't have to return the favour.
In Judaism, if he hurts her in any way at all during sex, even emotionally, she is entitled to take him to a Jewish Court. But governments don't uphold the decision of Jewish Courts, and Jewish Courts don't have any legal power in the West, so you never see it.
Jews teach the sin in the Garden of Eden, as the Sin of Adam. Only Adam is blamed for the sin. Only Adam.
Jewish Law teaches that Miriam was a prophetess, and so was Deborah, and so was Esther.
Jewish Law teaches that women have less things to do in Jewish tradition, because women are on a much higher spiritual plane than men, and hence have less to do to achieve spiritual enlightenment and to earn their places in Heaven, and a sign of this higher spiritual plane is women's intuition. In short, Jewish Law teaches that women are smarter than men.
As I said, I cannot see where this idea of demonizing women or sex comes from. | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/9/2008 5:10:36 PM | Ah, scorpiomover, my favorite poster.
I have no idea where the demonization of sex and women came from. It definitely doesn't come from Judaism.
I agree, and I think those are some interesting points you made. If I understand it correctly, then orthodox/traditional Judaism ultimately holds men and women as equal in dignity but different in nature. That's what traditional/orthodox Christianity teaches, in any case. For instance, in traditional Christianity, the Blessed Virgin Mary is believed to be without sin and Queen of the Apostles. Yet the Apostles, as fallible and sometimes idiotic as they are portrayed in the gospels, are given the priesthood, and not Mary. She was greater than them, but priesthood didn't accord with her nature.
Going back to what I said earlier, I don't think the people of the Middle Ages, who revered the Virgin Mary as highly as they did and who raised up many women to the dignity of sainthood, can be accused of demonizing women. Nor can they be accused of demonizing sex. | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/9/2008 5:47:30 PM | If, as I surmise, not without considerable conviction, that we are gods; that is, that we are all part of the Great Conscience, really the only rule we need to abide by is whether or not our actions, in this case with respect to things sexual, are causing harm to anyone. It is the harm that we've done to others on our selfish quests during our lives that weighs on our soul when we die. Though religion demands marriage for life we are far too free in spirit to ever carry such a burden it's full distance. Most of us eventually utter these three little words: "please release me...." And maybe to live together longer from that point on truly is a sin.
Reading the near death account of Mellen Thomas Benedict (http://www.mellen-thomas.com/stories.htm) revealed a lot of truth to me. As he died of brain cancer and was dead for over an hour and a half, his miraculous cure and return to life and his revelations might be considered messianic and providential to anyone who's seeking truth and is free of prejudice. Apparently it doesn't matter what religion we are, what race we are or what our sexual orientation is; our mission is to experience life in every way we feel inclined so long as our actions have the blessing of any other people (gods) who might be affected or who join us in our experiences.
It was revealing to hear Mr. Benedict in one of his radio interviews explain that there are a lot of angels in the astral realm who are sitting around with nothing to do. They are our creations which we gave a job to do through our longings (prayers) and who we haven't called to duty since then. | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:30:14 PM | I think Nietzsche was mistaken. Just because he said it doesn't make it fact. I believe that christianity placed an emphasis on quality monogamous sex which is far from demonizing it.  | |
|
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/10/2008 3:46:24 PM | RE msg 88 by Jacobus101:
Ah, scorpiomover, my favorite poster. Thanks. I learned a lot from your posts too, Jacobus.
I have no idea where the demonization of sex and women came from. It definitely doesn't come from Judaism. I agree, and I think those are some interesting points you made. If I understand it correctly, then orthodox/traditional Judaism ultimately holds men and women as equal in dignity but different in nature.
That's what traditional/orthodox Christianity teaches, in any case. For instance, in traditional Christianity, the Blessed Virgin Mary is believed to be without sin and Queen of the Apostles. Yet the Apostles, as fallible and sometimes idiotic as they are portrayed in the gospels, are given the priesthood, and not Mary. She was greater than them, but priesthood didn't accord with her nature. I had a feeling that traditional Christianity thought similarly. But I didn't want to start claiming to know about it, in the presence of so many others who were brought up with it.
Going back to what I said earlier, I don't think the people of the Middle Ages, who revered the Virgin Mary as highly as they did and who raised up many women to the dignity of sainthood, can be accused of demonizing women. Nor can they be accused of demonizing sex. From what I have studied of the Middle Ages, women weren't considered either subservient or demonised, and sex wasn't demonised either. At least, when I watched versions of The Canterbury Tales, it seems that sex was OK. Also, according to documentaries by Terry Jones about the Middle Ages, women often handled the family business when a husband was away, and sometimes fought wars if their husband's castle was attacked. He also said that it was quite common for women to kidnap men they wanted to marry, and force them into marriage. So it does seem that traditional roles in the Middle Ages seemed to be quite pro-sex and pro-women.
In my studied of the history of the UK, it seems that it was mainly in the Victorian times when sex and women were demonised. This is also the time when protestantism and in particular Calvinism, came very strongly to the fore. According to another historian, it was protestant beliefs that gave rise to the work ethic, that one's place in heaven was only attained by achieving as much as possible in this world. It is quite possible that sex was demonised because it took one away from work.
It is also quite possible that women were demonised in order to keep the lower classes subservient in a post-Feudal society, where the Industrial Revolution had taken place, and there was a great need for cheap manual labour to work and maintain the machines for long hours and as little pay as possible. There is a saying: "Behind every great man, there is a great woman." Make women subservient to all men, and a woman is no longer great. So her husband is no longer great too. Once mummy and daddy are subservient, it's not hard to get the children to be subservient too. So it would make a great way to keep the lower classes subservient.
It is entirely strange to us that such machinations would go on. But Henry VIII declared himself as the head of the Church of England, just so he could divorce Katherine of Aragon. When you consider just how complex the machinations of British politics have been over the centuries, this is child's play by comparison.
Just thinking out loud. | |
|
| |
| The Demonization of Sex
Posted: 5/16/2008 11:44:10 PM | "Medieval Christianity was rooted in the Incarnation. This is the belief that, since God took on the form of man in the person of Jesus, the material world was sanctified. Transubstantiation (the belief that the ordinary bread and wine at Mass literally transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ) was also a central aspect of Christian piety, leading to the development of Eucharistic adoration and Corpus Christi processions.
A cursory study of Christian art and architecture from the medieval era will reflect what I said above. There are, of course, many painted icons, statues of saints and angels, lifesize crucifixes, rood screens, etc. The famous Gothic cathedrals may look white or grey today, but when they were first raised, they were painted inside and out in many vibrant colors.
Outside of art, Christian piety of the Middle Ages was expressed through sacraments and sacramentals. The ordinary medieval Christian was illiterate, so he did not read Scripture at home. Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ at Communion, kissing the pax, Passion plays and mystery dramas, pilgrimages, the use of holy oils and blessings, and processions were all characteristic of this time period."
Umberto Eco has written a series of books exploring the aesthetics of medieval philosophy and theology. Basically in the Middle Ages, the world was seen as a theophany of God's glory, or a reflection of the majesty, beauty and infinity of the divine nature, but not God himself. John Scotus Eriugena (somewhat unfairly condemned for pantheism) said somewhere 'No word can accurately capture the majesty of the divine nature', but even so, he was one of the major founders of this sort of view of the world. Later Christians were not afraid to draw a connection between this and the incarnation, and in Orthodox Christianity especially, the entire universe is seen in incarnational terms; Hans urs Von Balthasar's writings about St Maximus Confessor's theology seem to analyse this quite well.
In Orthodox Christianity, it is heretical to believe the world is intrinsically evil, or was the creation of some evil force or spiritual entity. If you hate sex or the world, that is not an Orthodox Christian viewpoint. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
