Hmm.... well, okay, I'll bite.

Let's see, I consider myself a "progressive" Christian, which means, I kinda "interpret" things my own way.

So, what "I" see, is I kinda look through the "development" of concepts, you know, historically, like, how they first appear the "very first time" in the Old Testament (and "when"), and then how they develop, you know tracing the concept "forward" into the "New Covenant" and all that -

So that's one piece of the answer - I frame it in terms of what I believe (or perceive) to be some kinda "context", in terms of the historical development of the religiou and moral threads of thought -

But then the second piece, is this: I have a great deal of respecf for (and hopefully, understanding of) Buddhism, and the Buddhist "model". And, in my eyes, there are many many similarities with the Christian "model", it's just that the goal is different. But the "model" that's being used, in terms of describing how to "get" to that goal, has many similar elements of description.

And one of the interesting areas in which the approaches "differ" is the following: when asked whether "God exists", Buddha answered, "that is an irrelevelant question". So, I mean, when I translate that into English, it becomes the one thing you'll never hear any "politician" say, which is, "I have no opinion on that subject".

You know, so when I look through the New Testament (which is primarily what I'm interested in, 'cause I mean, I really wanna know what was going on with 1st century Christianity) - I kinda make the observation that Jesus "himself" doesn't have a whole lot to say, on the subject of sex. "Other" people (like Paul for instance), have a bit to say, but there's very little "directly attributed to Jesus". It's almost like, he had "no opinion" on this subject.

And then, when you look through "other historical material" that's available, like some of these so-called "lost Gospels" (Nag Hammadi and etc) - you start hearing "Jesus said this" and "Jesus said that", and I mean, it seems to be a pretty rich resource on Jesus's own personal opinions on a lot of things, and so.... you know, it's hard to say exactly what kind of "credibility" these things carry, but you, I'm not gonna reject them out of hand just 'cause they aren't in the "official" Bible.

So I mean, in the "official" Bible, we find Jesus ministering to hookers and stopping the people from acting on their moral outrage in that regard, and so right there, we find that sex has a "context", even "sex for money". And then in the "unofficial" Bible, we find Jesus saying some things about Mary and the like, when his disciples are asking him, "hey, what's up with you and her", and so, stuff like that.

But I mean, you know, you don't get "specifics", right? No one's gonna tell you that you can position ABC but not position XYZ. They're just gonna kinda give you this "gestalt" that says that you "should" be in some kind of a committed and "sanctified" (via marriage) relationship, and anything other than that, is kinda unhealthy (morally speaking).

And I mean, I even look at that "marriage" thing in a historical context, 'cause at that particular time, they still had all kinds of strange concepts floatin' around, you know, "women as chattel" and the "responsibility of the dowry" and all the rest of that kinda stuff -

And I mean, what I specifically don't buy into, is the later "doctrinal" developments that were mainly "political" in nature, so for instance, this whole mumbo-jumbo in the Catholic Church about how priests oughta be "wedded to the Church" instead of "wedded to their wives", or whatever - you know, it's based on a single line in the Bible, and there's a "context" around that piece too, right?

So, I mean, that's kinda my take - there are very few things that are "explicitly forbidden", and the "gestalt" I get from the Bible, in the way of counseling and wisdom on the underlying morality, is that the "sex" part is best done in the "context" of a loving relationship. And I mean, you know, different strokes for different folks, right? Some people "can't" have babies. Are you gonna tell 'em they "can't" have sex?

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?

i see what youre saying. the thing about bodily fluids is interesting; if thats the context, then it makes a little more sense for the argument in favor of non reproductive sex.

im trying to get a strong argument based on the bible, though. this is just for the sake of discussion. its not something im asking about because im at odds with my beliefs or anything, just to clarify.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

Yep, understood.

That's why I kinda said I didn't think thre was too much "specific guidance" in that regard, n the Bible.

All the rest of that stuff, was just "context".

Well, ah, look - if I were wishing to look at it "exclusively" from a Biblical perspective, what I'd probably do, is hack away at it using a "process of restriction".

So for instance, start with the space of "all possible sex". You know - me and amoeba, me and a horse, me and two horses, me just by myself, me and my wife in every conceivable position.... yadda yadda.

Okay, now, start looking in the Bible for guidance. Well.... so, we can find "low hanging fruit" in that regard, yes? There's stuff about bestiality - so right away, "animals" are out of the picture, right? Then, there's all kinds of stuff about homosexuality, so there's another restriction. Then, there's all kinds of stuff about "adultery", so there's another restriction.

So, see what I mean? And what's "left over", after all that is done, is probably "permissible", but I mean, then I'd still want to consider it in terms of the "gestalt" I mentioned, right? 'Cause I mean, this concept of "committed and sanctified", kinda cuts across that whole spectrum of "specific behavior", right? So, "even if", for instance, there weren't a specific admonition against prostitution in the Bible (which there is), then it still wouldn't be "committed and sanctified" to visit a hooker, right?

So then, if you're asking "exclusively within that domain" of "committed and sanctified", then I think, the statements you'll find in the Bible, are more "permissive" than "restrictive". And I mean, I don't remember them all, but basically they're along the lines of "enjoy each others' bodies". Hey, I mean, there's some pretty juicy stuff in the Bible, right? Song of Solomon? You know, pretty... um.... graphic descriptions of anatomy, and stuff like that? And I mean, I read the point to be, that it's all part of God's creation, and you know, you can marvel at the wonder of it, or abuse it for your own purposes - that's the "moral choice", right?

yea, but there are also things about natural use, and that thing about spilling seed. it is kind of hard to get a clear idea of what is and isnt ok.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

Spilling seed on the ground -- Meaning pulling out before ejaculation right?
Just wanting to make sure I am interpreting this correctly.

__________________
"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice." (Proverbs 12:15 NIV)

i would assume. i think semen has been referred to as something important in other sections of the bible. but i dont know anything specific off the top of my head.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

Yeah, see... exactly. If you go down that path, you're gonna drive yourself nuts. I mean, I can pretty much guarantee you, that you're not gonna find those kinds of answers in the Bible. You know, before you know it, you're gonna have to start "reading stuff into it" if you wanna get any farther, and I mean, that's where I draw the line right there. I will not making any assumptions about anything it says in the Bible. At least, I'll "try" not to.

Nah, see, I mean, I'm gonna tell you the same thing I'm telling these clowns over in the political section of this forum - you gotta come in at the "right level of description" with this stuff. You know, what I told you, I "think", is the right level of description - it's the "committed and sanctified" part. I think, if I'm not mistaken, this is the part that Jesus emphasized too, yes? He didn't spend too much time on the "biological details", correct?

So, I mean, if you wanna get into "specific words", then you're gonna have to deal with "historical context" (the "spilling seed" thing would be a perfect example), and I mean, "why" would you wanna even go down that path?

Just listen to Jesus - do the "committed and sanctified" thing, and you'll be okay. You know, don't worry about the rest. It doesn't matter. If Jesus didn't bring it to your attention, then it doesn't matter. That's "my" take.

Here - it occurs to me, that maybe I'm not being helpful.

I'm giving you "my" take, and maybe you don't want "my" take.

Um... "my" take, would actually be, dont take "my" word for it, but don't take anyone "else's" word for it either.

But I mean, if you're looking for "other opinions", my first though would be, Google keywords like "christian sex". So, like, here's someone's opinion (this is the very first link I found):

http://www.christianitytoday.com/mp/2001/001/4.34.html

Is that, kinda, more what you're looking for? Or, maybe it's a "starting point", you know? If you Google "christian sex" you'll get over 5 million hits.

That is a very good link you provided! It made a few statements about what I am currently struggling with -- Pornography. Is it wrong for me to think that it is better for me to use porn for sexual release or is it just as bad as being promiscuous. I always feel bad afterwards... maybe I answered my own question. I should stop completely.

__________________
"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice." (Proverbs 12:15 NIV)