----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:21 PM Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
> > > Edmund Storms wrote: > > > > > > > revtec wrote: > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmund Storms" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 4:43 PM > >> Subject: Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible > >> > >> > >> > >>>> I admire your effort to calculate the size of the common flesh pool, > >>> > >>> > >>> which essentially makes us all brothers and sisters in sex. However, > >>> was > >>> Paul not using this concept as a quaint way to describe making a baby? > >>> > >>> Ed > >> > >> > >> > >> I don't think so. Here is the verse in New King James version: I > >> Corinthian > >> 6:16 > >> > >> Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with > >> her? > >> For "the two" He says, "shall become one flesh." > > > > > > We all know that we do not become literally one flesh when we have > > sex. We do not even join in any spiritual way. The act is simply the > > sharing of pleasure, except if a child results. The only time "one > > flesh" results is when love is present before the act. Therefore, > > this way of describing the sex act must have a nonliteral meaning. > > What do you think the nonliteral meaning might be? > > Keep in mind that "transubstantiation" of the mass was accepted as real > among the early Christians. Similarly, your 21st century notion that > there is no physical alteration of the flesh of the partners either as > a result of intercourse or as a result of undergoing the marriage > ceremony should be viewed as anachronistic when attempting to interpret > the words of Paul. > > Furthermore, you must be a little careful when reading what Paul had to > say about sex. It's been a while since I went through those sections of > the Bible with any care, but as I recall Paul is a big-time prude and > appeared to have some major hangups in the area. I would hesitate a > long time before I'd rule out an interpretation of what he had to say on > the grounds that it doesn't sound reasonable! His point about being single makes sense. He is saying that a single man can spend his life pleasing God, while a married man must spend much of his life pleasing his wife. See 1st Cor 7:33 > > Specifically, IIRC, he says (in one of the early, undisputed letters) > that you should avoid sex entirely if possible. But, he goes on, if, > unlike Paul himself (!!), you find that difficult, you should take the > next-best choice and get married so you can have an outlet for your > passions. He's not, as I recall, totally judgmental about it but his > POV doesn't seem quite normal to me. > > With that said, I don't think he was telling folks not to fornicate > because it makes illegitimate babies, any more than he was telling men > not to have sex with men for that reason. And as to his statement that > we "become one flesh", he took it as "really symbolically true" AFAICT > which is to say it meant _something_ of importance to him, but what it > means isn't exactly clear! Note well that this same line is quoted > someplace or other in support of the notion that divorce should not be > allowed. Jesus clarified the full extent of the Law on this subject when He said "Any man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew. 5:32). Paul added more clarification in Romans 7:2-3 to the extent that, divorce or not, a woman is bound to her husband until he dies. But, we who choose to be under the grace of God thru the Blood of Jesus are not under the law. We are unable to keep the Law. The Law shows us what sin is, but does not enable us to rise above it. As Paul said in Romans 7:10 "The commandment that was to bring life, I found to bring death". He goes on to say, "The Law is spiritual, but we are carnal......For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do......Oh wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death." We are all buried under a mountain of bad things we have commited, and each day, inspite of our best efforts, we continue to add to it. Do we want to justify this pile of crap in front of God at the Judgement or should we put it under the blood of Jesus and have it lifted from us? Jesus paid the price for all of our sin: past, present, and future. Out of reverence, respect, and gratitude, we must try to minimize the future stuff. God's salvation plan is so simple tha many people consider it too good to be true. It may be simple, but it is not easy. Salvation is free but it was not cheap. Can you imagine a God so loving that He would allow Himself to be murdered by His own creation in order to save it? Would God have the right to be angry with those who reject this plan? Jeff
