Yeah - that last thought, was supposed to continue, like this:

So, what about the people who "can't have babies"? Are you gonna tell 'em they "can't have sex"?

Do you think Jesus would have suggested such a thing?

I rather think, that is, it seems to me, that Jesus's response would have been more along the lines of "render unto Caesar".....

So you know, "render unto the baby", and "render unto your wife", and "render unto God, those things which belong to God".

Right? That's like the "gestalt" I get. So like, how that "translates", into "my personal sex life", has to do mostly with "where' my brain's at" when I'm in bed with someone. I mean, to be perfectly crude about it, it's like, am I thinking about myself, or am I thinking about her? 'Cause I mean, I "don't" think, I'm gonna be thinking about God, when I'm in bed making love with my partner. Know what I mean? That "God" part, comes later, or at least, "some other time"....

Well, it's not "quite" like that, but you know what I'm sayin', right? 'Cause I mean, you know, I even went through this kinda wierd "moral" phase where I wouldn't sleep with any woman that I couldn't see marrying "right there on the spot". Right? I mean, you know, people go through some awful strange gyrations when they're trying to make sense of this stuff. And I would certainly be "no exception" in that regard.

So you know, in today's world, even that bit about "sanctification", the meaning of that, has changed somewhat. I mean, as near as I understand it, the original idea of it was that you were kinda getting "society's blessing", and because religion and government were both part of "society", they both got involved, and we ended up with this wierd structure where "the law" recognizes "civil unions", whereas "people" want to get married in churches, and it's even wierder than that, 'cause marriage in "the law" only goes by States, so like, California and New York "reciprocate" in terms of recognizing marriages performed in each others' States. It's a very werid mish-mosh of legal spaghetti.

So today, you've got people who're more interested in getting "God's" blessing, as distinct from society's, so you know, they'll go off into the forest with just them and the priest, and do the ceremony there, or out on the cliffs by the ocean, or something like that. You know, it won't be a "social" thing, it'll just be a "private" thing. And then maybe the "social" part will be the reception or whatever.

Now, you know, as a "rebellious" Christian, where I "look" for my information, is mostly in history, in the Bible, in the natural laws of the universe that show me how God actually expresses Himself, that kinda thing. What I'm specifically not gonna do, is place any faith in "human" opinions - or let's say, any more faith than I'd place in y own. I'll "survey" the space of opinions, but at the end of the day, I reserve decision-making unto myself. Me 'n' God, that's the way that works.

So you know, if "someone" wants to tell me that sex is a bad thing, I'm gonna say, "prove it", and since they can't, I'm gonna just say "BS" and walk away, and actively ignore whatever moral rule-du-jour they pulled out of their butt that morning. 'Cause that kind of thing, would have nothing do to with Jesus, and nothing to do with the Bible.

Oh yeah - one last thought - that bit about "spilling seed" - back in the old days ("ancient" days), they used to think that "life", had something to do with "bodily fluids". 'Cause I mean, the blood drains out of you, and you die, right? So, this thing about "spilling seed", had more to do with the conservation of "life", and less to do with the concept of "sex". "Spilling seed" was bad for the same reason that slitting your wrists would be, it's 'cause your "life" is draining out to the ground. So, to get "that" context, you kinda have to go "outside" of the Bible, you gotta look at the prevailing "lore" from the various cultures in the area at the time, and I mean, they all kinda had more or less the same "model", that was just the "prevailing thinking" at the time or whatever.

So I mean, the symbology of that... you know.... Jesus on the cross, blood spilling on the ground.... kinda invalidates that whole "model", right? That would be, a "new" covenant, with "new" ground rules, yes?