I don't beat myself up because I'm not perfect, and I don't think that's what Ang meant. Aiming at perfection gives me a direction, but I know darn well noboody ever gets there. And it's okay, because I try and I fail and I get forgiven every day. God doesn't expect me to achieve perfection; God wants me to walk in that direction, to care enough to try.
Just as in marriage I blow my top at my husband, or behave petulantly and unreasonably because I don't feeeeel good, and I know he's not going to stop being my husband because of it; I tell him I'm sorry, and things are better, and maybe next time he's the one who makes the mistake.
Both marriage and religion—it's not a set of rules, it's a relationship. It requires work, but it's worth it. The rules are there to serve the relationship, not the other way around. You follow them because the relationship is important and because you love the other person.
adultery and the holodeck
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
Okay, Ang, you definitely shook things up. There's now a lot in this conversation that I disagree pretty strongly with. 
First off, just for clarity: I have never desired to be in anything other than a monogamous relationship. However, I have friends who HAVE so desired, and who ARE in other forms of relationships, and I feel quite leery of any argument that dismisses those relationships, diminishes their validity, or labels them sinful.
I need clarification on what you mean by "lust". I have to assume you mean something more than "feel strongly sexually attracted to" - because if that's the case, I'd be committing acts of infidelity to any future partner every time I walk down the street or go into a locker room at the gym. That's so inherently in the nature of being human and being sexual that I have a hard time seeing it as an act of infidelity if you happen to be partnered. Indeed, the words "act of infidelity" seem key to me - it's not an act, it's a mostly subconscious attraction.
Your standard also suggests that masturbation is adultery, as it is something sexual that does not develop your relationship with your partner. Heck, your standard not only includes pornography, but simple fantasy. Okay, very well - you've simply coined such a broad definition that only an asexual person could ever manage not to commit adultery against their partners. So be it. I just can't steal your standard for personal use.
I refuse to see my sexuality, or anyone else's sexuality, as a sin. By "sexuality", I mean, common, simple, everyday sexual attraction to/fantasy about other human beings. That doesn't suddenly switch off by virtue of entering into a relationship. And I don't see it as immoral that it doesn't.
My wording may be a little terse, but I'm not angry and I hope it doesn't come off that way. Thank you for adding life (i.e. disagreement) to this thread.
That is, if we are ALL going to be happiest in monogamous relationships, or we're ALL going to be happiest in heterosexual patriarchal relationships, or we're ALL going to be happiest in relationships with children, or we're ALL going to be happiest in legally sanctioned, government approved, church validated marriages, or we're ALL going to be happy engaging only in certain forms of adult, consensual sex, or anything else - then no, no one can define any other relationship with a hope of it being successful and happy.
Maybe I just built a pretty little strawman, because it seems pretty obvious to me that none of these things are the case. There are people - millions upon millions of them in all different countries - who are stating affirmatively that these "traditional" models DO NOT work for them. They are NOT HAPPY in such relationships. Such relationships are dangerous to their happiness. What your argument is saying is that these people are wrong about their own lives, their own happiness, and their own relationships - their definition of "what's a fulfilling relationship (or what's fulfilling sex) to me" is wrong, and yours is right, because that's just how things are. That's just the definition of things. I kinda disagree pretty strongly with that.
I see that after that, both you and Prim stated that your views regarded what is true for "most" couples. Very well. I tend to agree that for many - probably most - couples, the traditional order of things works just fine. I just am uneasy with anything - whether a legal system, a social order, or even normative declarations - that says that there's a monolithic pattern into which we all - or 99.9% of it us - can fit happily. There's not. We're too diverse for that.
I think I should probably...not say too much about Ephesians and its value as a hypothetical relationship model. The translation I grew up hearing said that wives should "obey" or "submit themselves" to their husbands, rather than "respect". The last time I had to hear that, I interrupted the parish priest in the middle of his homily. I don't deal with that verse very well. Especially because my father believes it. And my mother does not. Interesting times.
And lastly, as almost-always, I agree with vison.
First off, just for clarity: I have never desired to be in anything other than a monogamous relationship. However, I have friends who HAVE so desired, and who ARE in other forms of relationships, and I feel quite leery of any argument that dismisses those relationships, diminishes their validity, or labels them sinful.
Problem number one. As I see it, you're using a very specific definition of committed, namely "committed to physical (and romantic) monogamy." Now, I'll grant you that for a lot of people, myself included, that seems to be a likely relationship model. However, truth is, there are people who can and do define "committed" differently. Just one example - a bisexual, polyamorous classmate of mine, ten years older than me, who has been in a triadic relationship for five years (i.e. committed to one man and one other woman, both of whom are also committed to each other). Now, I can't even imagine myself in such a relationship, nor would I want to. I can't imagine it working for me in a million years. But the three of them are very much in love. They trust each other, and they have defined rules to their relationship (e.g. sexual intimacy with anyone else would be cheating). From what I hear, they are having excellent sex. And they claim to be in a fulfilled relationship, just as many on this board claim to be in monogamous, fulfilled relationships. I will not question their happiness anymore than I would question one of you about whether you were really happy, or only claiming to be so. There is no one-size-fits-all in this game; at best there can be a one-size-fits-most, and what does not fit you is NOT automatically wrong for everyone else, bad, sinful, or immoral.Ideally, sex is an emotional and spiritual union as well. It is an act of the heart more than of the genitals. And that level of spiritual intimacy is difficult. It takes time, effort and most especially, trust. The kind of trust that comes most easily (for most people) in the context of a longterm committed relationship. So if you want to have the best sex possible, you need to commit all of your romantic and sexual efforts and energies into this one relationship.
Don't assume that only guys do this all the time...every day...every hour. We females have hormones too.Looking at it this way, anything that diverts your romantic and/or sexual energies or efforts away from your partner counts as infidelity. Which makes sense, because if sex is an act of the heart, than infidelity must also be an act of the heart. This is what Jesus was getting at when He said that if you look at a woman with lust in your eyes, you have committed adultery in your heart. Yeah guys, I know we all do this - I do it too - but that's kinda the point. Strictly speaking, anything at all romantic or sexual that doesn't serve to deepen your relationship with your partner is adultery. Is this level of fidelity humanly possible? No, not really. But it's a good ideal to strive for.
I need clarification on what you mean by "lust". I have to assume you mean something more than "feel strongly sexually attracted to" - because if that's the case, I'd be committing acts of infidelity to any future partner every time I walk down the street or go into a locker room at the gym. That's so inherently in the nature of being human and being sexual that I have a hard time seeing it as an act of infidelity if you happen to be partnered. Indeed, the words "act of infidelity" seem key to me - it's not an act, it's a mostly subconscious attraction.
Your standard also suggests that masturbation is adultery, as it is something sexual that does not develop your relationship with your partner. Heck, your standard not only includes pornography, but simple fantasy. Okay, very well - you've simply coined such a broad definition that only an asexual person could ever manage not to commit adultery against their partners. So be it. I just can't steal your standard for personal use.
I refuse to see my sexuality, or anyone else's sexuality, as a sin. By "sexuality", I mean, common, simple, everyday sexual attraction to/fantasy about other human beings. That doesn't suddenly switch off by virtue of entering into a relationship. And I don't see it as immoral that it doesn't.
My wording may be a little terse, but I'm not angry and I hope it doesn't come off that way. Thank you for adding life (i.e. disagreement) to this thread.
Well, this is only true if "human nature" and "sex" are monolithic concepts - again, the one size fits all model. If all six billion of us fit inside one box...one definition, then you are right.I also think it is dangerous to think that the couple can define things however they want. Well, sure, they can. They can set their own rules. You can agree that the relationship isn't monogamous, or that some things are okay, while others aren't. But....you don't get to define human nature or sex...those kinda already exist, and they work a certain way.
That is, if we are ALL going to be happiest in monogamous relationships, or we're ALL going to be happiest in heterosexual patriarchal relationships, or we're ALL going to be happiest in relationships with children, or we're ALL going to be happiest in legally sanctioned, government approved, church validated marriages, or we're ALL going to be happy engaging only in certain forms of adult, consensual sex, or anything else - then no, no one can define any other relationship with a hope of it being successful and happy.
Maybe I just built a pretty little strawman, because it seems pretty obvious to me that none of these things are the case. There are people - millions upon millions of them in all different countries - who are stating affirmatively that these "traditional" models DO NOT work for them. They are NOT HAPPY in such relationships. Such relationships are dangerous to their happiness. What your argument is saying is that these people are wrong about their own lives, their own happiness, and their own relationships - their definition of "what's a fulfilling relationship (or what's fulfilling sex) to me" is wrong, and yours is right, because that's just how things are. That's just the definition of things. I kinda disagree pretty strongly with that.
I see that after that, both you and Prim stated that your views regarded what is true for "most" couples. Very well. I tend to agree that for many - probably most - couples, the traditional order of things works just fine. I just am uneasy with anything - whether a legal system, a social order, or even normative declarations - that says that there's a monolithic pattern into which we all - or 99.9% of it us - can fit happily. There's not. We're too diverse for that.
I can't answer that as to anyone but myself. And honestly, neither can you nor anyone else. Even just the question "What's the purpose of sex?" conjures up myriad answers. For some, the answer is, "For reproductive purposes within marriage only." For some, the answer is, "For reproductive purposes and pleasure within marriage only," OR "For pleasure only within marriage only," OR "For reproductive purposes and pleasure whether outside of marriage or not," OR "For pleasure only whether outside of marriage or not," and so on. There is no One True Purpose on which we can all agree. It means different things to different people. As do love, marriage, and obviously, human life.What is the purpose of love and sex and marriage and human life?
I think I should probably...not say too much about Ephesians and its value as a hypothetical relationship model. The translation I grew up hearing said that wives should "obey" or "submit themselves" to their husbands, rather than "respect". The last time I had to hear that, I interrupted the parish priest in the middle of his homily. I don't deal with that verse very well. Especially because my father believes it.
And my mother does not. Interesting times.And lastly, as almost-always, I agree with vison.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
-
Angbasdil
- The man, the myth, the monkey.
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:37 am
- Location: Woodstock GA
Note to all:
I am a monogamous heterosexual Christian male, and my post was written from that perspective. I make no apologies for that, because it's the only point of view I got. But I realize that many of my views won't apply to others.
vison,
You cut off my quote just when I was getting to the good news. So let me reiterate.
The point here is that morality is not a place, it's a direction. As dirtnap said in the "God's Debris" thread, you can go west, but you can never "get to" west.
So I disagree with the entire notion of saying that there is a line between moral and immoral behavior and if we can just figure out exactly where it is, we can all be good people all the time. Being a good person is not just about doing good things. And it's most definitely not just about not doing bad things. Being a good person is about being. And even when we do the right thing, it's often for the wrong reason, at least in part. Seriously, how often are your own motives 100% pure, 100% altruistic. I'd say pretty much never 100%. If we take the focus off of the details of our behavior and look at our hearts, I think we've all got some evolving to do.
But God says that's okay. No guilt here, just a determination to do better - No, to be better. Not because I'm afraid of going to hell, because I'm not. But just because I want to be a better person.
nel,
I know you're not angry. And I expected some people to disagree with me. This is nothing compared to the grief I get from fundamentalist Christians when I start talking this way.
As to your other points... uh... read what I said to vison above.
I am a monogamous heterosexual Christian male, and my post was written from that perspective. I make no apologies for that, because it's the only point of view I got. But I realize that many of my views won't apply to others.
vison,
You cut off my quote just when I was getting to the good news. So let me reiterate.
No self-destructive guilt to be found there. "For now there is no condemnation." God forgives us all our failings. For me to fail to forgive myself would not only be self-destructive (as you rightly point out), but would be placing my own judgement of myself above God's. God forgives me - I am therefore required to forgive myself.I wrote:And as bleak as this world view may be, it is offset by an even broader view of grace. For I believe in a compassionate and merciful God whose love is far far bigger than any sin I could ever commit. That knowledge frees me to strive towards that unattainable goal of perfection. Not because I'm afraid of being wrong, but because I want so badly to be right.
The point here is that morality is not a place, it's a direction. As dirtnap said in the "God's Debris" thread, you can go west, but you can never "get to" west.
So I disagree with the entire notion of saying that there is a line between moral and immoral behavior and if we can just figure out exactly where it is, we can all be good people all the time. Being a good person is not just about doing good things. And it's most definitely not just about not doing bad things. Being a good person is about being. And even when we do the right thing, it's often for the wrong reason, at least in part. Seriously, how often are your own motives 100% pure, 100% altruistic. I'd say pretty much never 100%. If we take the focus off of the details of our behavior and look at our hearts, I think we've all got some evolving to do.
But God says that's okay. No guilt here, just a determination to do better - No, to be better. Not because I'm afraid of going to hell, because I'm not. But just because I want to be a better person.
nel,
I know you're not angry. And I expected some people to disagree with me. This is nothing compared to the grief I get from fundamentalist Christians when I start talking this way.
As to your other points... uh... read what I said to vison above.
-
Angbasdil
- The man, the myth, the monkey.
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:37 am
- Location: Woodstock GA
On second thought...
Secondly, just because it's human nature don't make it right and moral.
But since "mostly subconscious attraction" is okay, let's talk about this girl who was in line in front of me a few Sundays ago in church while we were going to the altar for communion. She had a really nice ass. No act there on my part, just a "mostly subconscious attraction". Of course, at some point, I became conscious of the fact that I was staring at her ass. Was it still okay? How long can I stare at her ass before it becomes not okay? Is it still okay if I deliberately manuever myself behind her in the communion line this Sunday just so I can stare at her ass? If my wife catches me staring at her ass and gets mad at me, can I tell her that nel said it's just "mostly subconscious attraction"? And if the problem is that staring at her ass will make my wife jealous, then is it okay as long as I don't get caught? Where exactly is that damn line?!
Which they undoubtedly would.
As Prim said, it's really about relationships. If you're asking what the rules are for adultery, you're already off track. Instead ask whether it would deepen or damage your relationship.
Exactly! We all do this all the time. No one is completely faithful all the time with all of their being.nel wrote: I need clarification on what you mean by "lust". I have to assume you mean something more than "feel strongly sexually attracted to" - because if that's the case, I'd be committing acts of infidelity to any future partner every time I walk down the street or go into a locker room at the gym.
First off, no one "happens" to be partnered. Anyone who is partnered is so by choice.That's so inherently in the nature of being human and being sexual that I have a hard time seeing it as an act of infidelity if you happen to be partnered. Indeed, the words "act of infidelity" seem key to me - it's not an act, it's a mostly subconscious attraction.
Secondly, just because it's human nature don't make it right and moral.
But since "mostly subconscious attraction" is okay, let's talk about this girl who was in line in front of me a few Sundays ago in church while we were going to the altar for communion. She had a really nice ass. No act there on my part, just a "mostly subconscious attraction". Of course, at some point, I became conscious of the fact that I was staring at her ass. Was it still okay? How long can I stare at her ass before it becomes not okay? Is it still okay if I deliberately manuever myself behind her in the communion line this Sunday just so I can stare at her ass? If my wife catches me staring at her ass and gets mad at me, can I tell her that nel said it's just "mostly subconscious attraction"? And if the problem is that staring at her ass will make my wife jealous, then is it okay as long as I don't get caught? Where exactly is that damn line?!
Yes.Your standard also suggests that masturbation is adultery, as it is something sexual that does not develop your relationship with your partner.
Yes againHeck, your standard not only includes pornography, but simple fantasy.
Right again. An asexual person would just have to find other sins to commit.Okay, very well - you've simply coined such a broad definition that only an asexual person could ever manage not to commit adultery against their partners.
Which they undoubtedly would.
I figured most people couldn't. My point wasn't that people should adopt my standard. Hell, I don't even live by my standard (which, BTW, isn't my standard - it's God's.) Nobody ever could (well, there was this one guy...) My point is that if we make it about standards, we're missing the entiire point.So be it. I just can't steal your standard for personal use.
As Prim said, it's really about relationships. If you're asking what the rules are for adultery, you're already off track. Instead ask whether it would deepen or damage your relationship.
Good. Too many people see sexuality as a sin. Especially Christians.I refuse to see my sexuality, or anyone else's sexuality, as a sin. By "sexuality", I mean, common, simple, everyday sexual attraction to/fantasy about other human beings.
No it doesn't "switch off". Nor should it. But it should become focused and directed. Ideally, that is.That doesn't suddenly switch off by virtue of entering into a relationship. And I don't see it as immoral that it doesn't.
I don't agree with anything you said I said that you don't agree with
So that should be clear as mud
.
I do not take offense at anything you have written; I know you feel strongly about this, as you should - you didn't seem angry to me. Just...energetic
Nerdanel, I feel very strongly that there is objective truth. Some things are true - but by no means are they monolithic, simplistic, or able to be reduced to "sex means x"... unless x is something mysterious and deep and many-faceted. Also, I don't get to define this objective truth - it's, well, objective. I didn't say how sex worked - just that it did work a certain way. I have no problem with that 'way' being quite dynamic.
If I were going to explore the meaning of human sexuality, I would start with the fact that we have bodies. We are, among other things, physical beings - and it is our bodies that allow us to interact with the world. Even over something as disembodied as a messageboard, it is still my fingers typing this out, and your eyes reading it. Every relationship we have, with every person in the world, is only possible because of our bodies. Without the physical world, without my body, I cannot relate to anything, or anyone. [Of course, other things go into this, too - we have to be, for instance, self-aware].
So, if sex means anything, that meaning is going to spring from something fundamental about having a body. The connection between bodies and relationships is fundamental, so I would be pretty confident that asserting that sex had to do with human relationships would be right.
The reason I would start with bodies is because sex is something very basic to who we are - it isn't (just) about having sex. Our sexuality is, well, yeah, a part of who we are, what makes us us. There is something intrinsically 'female' about me, even if I don't always act 'feminine.' Even if I'm just sitting around doing a physics problem, not thinking about sex, not interacting with people at all, nobody sees me... it's still there. It doesn't go away and hide until I'm ready to bring it out.
And then, using what I've gleaned from the collective experience of everyone I know, I would say that sex itself has a lot to do with trust, with opening up to another person, with being intimate, offering all that you have. The simultaneous emptying out and filling up that is quite paradoxical but somehow makes a ton of sense. (Not how I've described it, of course - I make it sound like taking your car to the gas station
)
This is what I mean by starting from the question, "what does sex mean?" I haven't gotten to the particulars yet, but surely an approach like this could deal with many or most situations? Thus rape would be seen as a complete breach of the implied trust of that relationship, and therefore an abuse. This is good, because I knew rape was 'wrong' already, and if my little system told me it was right (or okay or irrelevant) that would be suspicious. It's just philosophy, and there can be good and bad philosophies.
Of course, I'm not finishsed yet. I haven't gone anywhere with a lot of ideas - like the issue of babies, or marriage, or any of that.... I could. It would take me a long time. I do not want to bore you all to tears, though, so I will cut off my musings (for now).
I don't think everyone needs to be married to be happy. I'm not married. I'm happy. But I do think there are good marriages and bad marriages. I can believe that marriage is good without believing that every example of it will be good. I would not advocate a cookie-cutter approach to any aspect of life, and certainly not something as fundamental as marriage. But because it is fundamental, I have to believe that it isn't something randomly arbitrary. I can't define marriage, saying 'marriage is x' and the act of my definition will make it so. I don't have that power. That is what I was saying in my original post - a caution that we cannot change things just by saying 'I declare it so.' I agree with yovargas - people do not always know their own hearts.
Oh, and about Ephesians - the 'wives, obey your husbands' part comes earlier. I didn't post that specifically because I didn't want to get started on that topic - though anyone who uses that quote and forgets the one about husband responsibility is being rather under-handed. I've checked Ephesians 5:33 in several different translations (NIV, NASB, King James, Hatian Creole, Spanish, French, New Living, Young's Literal) and they all have 'respect,' 'reverence,' or 'honor.' If it makes you feel any better, Paul also tells us all to submit to each other as Christians - he doesn't just pick on the wives.
So that should be clear as mud
.I do not take offense at anything you have written; I know you feel strongly about this, as you should - you didn't seem angry to me. Just...energetic
Nerdanel, I feel very strongly that there is objective truth. Some things are true - but by no means are they monolithic, simplistic, or able to be reduced to "sex means x"... unless x is something mysterious and deep and many-faceted. Also, I don't get to define this objective truth - it's, well, objective. I didn't say how sex worked - just that it did work a certain way. I have no problem with that 'way' being quite dynamic.
If I were going to explore the meaning of human sexuality, I would start with the fact that we have bodies. We are, among other things, physical beings - and it is our bodies that allow us to interact with the world. Even over something as disembodied as a messageboard, it is still my fingers typing this out, and your eyes reading it. Every relationship we have, with every person in the world, is only possible because of our bodies. Without the physical world, without my body, I cannot relate to anything, or anyone. [Of course, other things go into this, too - we have to be, for instance, self-aware].
So, if sex means anything, that meaning is going to spring from something fundamental about having a body. The connection between bodies and relationships is fundamental, so I would be pretty confident that asserting that sex had to do with human relationships would be right.
The reason I would start with bodies is because sex is something very basic to who we are - it isn't (just) about having sex. Our sexuality is, well, yeah, a part of who we are, what makes us us. There is something intrinsically 'female' about me, even if I don't always act 'feminine.' Even if I'm just sitting around doing a physics problem, not thinking about sex, not interacting with people at all, nobody sees me... it's still there. It doesn't go away and hide until I'm ready to bring it out.
And then, using what I've gleaned from the collective experience of everyone I know, I would say that sex itself has a lot to do with trust, with opening up to another person, with being intimate, offering all that you have. The simultaneous emptying out and filling up that is quite paradoxical but somehow makes a ton of sense. (Not how I've described it, of course - I make it sound like taking your car to the gas station
) This is what I mean by starting from the question, "what does sex mean?" I haven't gotten to the particulars yet, but surely an approach like this could deal with many or most situations? Thus rape would be seen as a complete breach of the implied trust of that relationship, and therefore an abuse. This is good, because I knew rape was 'wrong' already, and if my little system told me it was right (or okay or irrelevant) that would be suspicious. It's just philosophy, and there can be good and bad philosophies.
Of course, I'm not finishsed yet. I haven't gone anywhere with a lot of ideas - like the issue of babies, or marriage, or any of that.... I could. It would take me a long time. I do not want to bore you all to tears, though, so I will cut off my musings (for now).
I don't think everyone needs to be married to be happy. I'm not married. I'm happy.
But I do think there are good marriages and bad marriages. I can believe that marriage is good without believing that every example of it will be good. I would not advocate a cookie-cutter approach to any aspect of life, and certainly not something as fundamental as marriage. But because it is fundamental, I have to believe that it isn't something randomly arbitrary. I can't define marriage, saying 'marriage is x' and the act of my definition will make it so. I don't have that power. That is what I was saying in my original post - a caution that we cannot change things just by saying 'I declare it so.' I agree with yovargas - people do not always know their own hearts. Oh, and about Ephesians - the 'wives, obey your husbands' part comes earlier. I didn't post that specifically because I didn't want to get started on that topic - though anyone who uses that quote and forgets the one about husband responsibility is being rather under-handed. I've checked Ephesians 5:33 in several different translations (NIV, NASB, King James, Hatian Creole, Spanish, French, New Living, Young's Literal) and they all have 'respect,' 'reverence,' or 'honor.' If it makes you feel any better, Paul also tells us all to submit to each other as Christians - he doesn't just pick on the wives.
It occurred to me yesterday that the "traditional rules" that some are talking about would generally ban homosexual relationships, leaving me entirely out of the picture. Therefore, I can't honestly say I have all that much respect for the traditional rules. (Though I can respect those who believe in them which, given the number of Christians on this board, I presume is quite a few.)
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I suddenly feel terribly square ...nerdanel wrote:Just one example - a bisexual, polyamorous classmate of mine, ten years older than me, who has been in a triadic relationship for five years (i.e. committed to one man and one other woman, both of whom are also committed to each other).
Ang ...great posts, mate.
Masturbation as adultery? - dunno what I think about that one. I don't have strong feelings about masturbation.
I don't even regard it as a sin ... which is perhaps unusual given my traditional views on sexuality. But I don't really regard masturbation as proper sex. The holodeck scenario is more troubling to me. While masturbation is not that big a deal, IMO, it is of course usually accompanied by fantasy ... and conjuring up a fantasy person who can fulfill all your desires could well count as a kind of adultery.
The right use of sexual fantasy though ... yup, that matters to me as a Christian.
Everybody feels strong sexual attraction at least some of the time, most of the time, frequently or occasionally. As a Christian I am responsible for what I do with those feelings. Feeling desire is not sinful ... it's where you go from there.
Yov ... I guess that some, if indeed not many, who accept ''traditional' models would also accept faithful, committed, same-sex relationships.
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
And some, if indeed not many, would accept masturbation.Yov ... I guess that some, if indeed not many, who accept ''traditional' models would also accept faithful, committed, same-sex relationships.
And some, if indeed not many, would accept fantasy.
And some, if indeed not many, would accept pornography.
And some, if indeed not many, would accept...all sorts of stuff.
So whose model do you go by?
Your own.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
The Watcher
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: southeastern Wisconsin
Very much so, yovi. Very much so.yovargas wrote:And some, if indeed not many, would accept masturbation.Yov ... I guess that some, if indeed not many, who accept ''traditional' models would also accept faithful, committed, same-sex relationships.
And some, if indeed not many, would accept fantasy.
And some, if indeed not many, would accept pornography.
And some, if indeed not many, would accept...all sorts of stuff.
So whose model do you go by?
Your own.
There are also those out there who are in the midst of breakups of relationships, who have seperated, divorced, gone into new relationships, remarried, etc. There are people who enter marriage as more of an economic bond or one mainly based on friendship and companionship. There are those who never commit, but still have a series of relationships.
When push comes to shove, only you and the one(s) that you wish to be with can determine what is ideal or best.
While some may feel that God dictates expectations or idealized standards to them, the interpretations are all too subjective and fraught with human fallabilities.
As vison so aptly stated, we are more products of our own cultures and societies than we are subject to some universal moral standards, in my opinion only.
Why do I enter this discussion even if I know it will be painful for me ? Probably hurtful?
Many of you know my story. I am an adultery. I am even now still married and legally will still be married for a while. I met someone else, fell in love while still being married and I hid it for a while from my legal partner – my husband, thus, the man I had loved for many years. So, this is not theory for me, but a question: how did I make this choice in my life? How can I face and justify it? And in which way can I accept to be judged for it?
First, I am a heterosexual female. Before this adultery, I had been physically faithful for 16 years in my relationship – first while living together, then in marriage. Although I am not religious, I got married in church too, swearing to love my husband “today and on all our days.” ( I chose this formula).
But… I made a promise which in the end I could not hold. I had not shown it a lot, but my heart was empty for a long time and if I still shared my body, the spiritual union of which Ang talked, was gone. Still, I thought I could keep on… until I met this person, someone I had distantly known for years and fell in love. I hesitated for a short while – and then I let myself follow my heart, I did not feel ready to deny myself this happiness and the promise for a union of body and soul, for love. I knew I was acting against common moral laws, against rules I had thought I could follow.
Maybe had it only been a question of three adults, I would have told my husband the next day and gone. But there are children, it was a month before Christmas… I preferred to live a lie for a while, a few weeks only.
And now?
Now we’re on the road towards a divorce. And my husband does not miss a single occasion to remind me what I have done to him. “I don’t care if you have it once or twice or every day, it makes you a whore and nothing more.” Even in front of my children, I have been labelled like this, they are too small to understand fully… yet. I look at myself and I don’t feel like I deserve to be condemned in this way. I have done what I have done, I accept that I hurt someone tremendously, but I don’t think that in any case it should lead to what I am facing now. I am still a human being. So, I am now very sensible to the condemnation of adultery. Too many times, too long, too often and still in too many places, women pay their love with their lives. I know if he was not punished for it, my husband would lapidate me. For him, I don’t deserve any more to touch my children or to look at him.
Maybe that’s a different topic… I’m sorry.
Even in this posts, there are words and informations I hold back.
Many of you know my story. I am an adultery. I am even now still married and legally will still be married for a while. I met someone else, fell in love while still being married and I hid it for a while from my legal partner – my husband, thus, the man I had loved for many years. So, this is not theory for me, but a question: how did I make this choice in my life? How can I face and justify it? And in which way can I accept to be judged for it?
First, I am a heterosexual female. Before this adultery, I had been physically faithful for 16 years in my relationship – first while living together, then in marriage. Although I am not religious, I got married in church too, swearing to love my husband “today and on all our days.” ( I chose this formula).
But… I made a promise which in the end I could not hold. I had not shown it a lot, but my heart was empty for a long time and if I still shared my body, the spiritual union of which Ang talked, was gone. Still, I thought I could keep on… until I met this person, someone I had distantly known for years and fell in love. I hesitated for a short while – and then I let myself follow my heart, I did not feel ready to deny myself this happiness and the promise for a union of body and soul, for love. I knew I was acting against common moral laws, against rules I had thought I could follow.
Maybe had it only been a question of three adults, I would have told my husband the next day and gone. But there are children, it was a month before Christmas… I preferred to live a lie for a while, a few weeks only.
And now?
Now we’re on the road towards a divorce. And my husband does not miss a single occasion to remind me what I have done to him. “I don’t care if you have it once or twice or every day, it makes you a whore and nothing more.” Even in front of my children, I have been labelled like this, they are too small to understand fully… yet. I look at myself and I don’t feel like I deserve to be condemned in this way. I have done what I have done, I accept that I hurt someone tremendously, but I don’t think that in any case it should lead to what I am facing now. I am still a human being. So, I am now very sensible to the condemnation of adultery. Too many times, too long, too often and still in too many places, women pay their love with their lives. I know if he was not punished for it, my husband would lapidate me. For him, I don’t deserve any more to touch my children or to look at him.
Maybe that’s a different topic… I’m sorry.
Even in this posts, there are words and informations I hold back.
"nolite te bastardes carborundorum".
Nin, 
I am so very sorry about the pain you are in.
No matter what the circumstances of a break-up might be, there is no excuse for the horrible things your husband says to you
or how he treats you
Even when we understand the pain, that is still no excuse. When a marriage breaks up, behaviour can still remain civilised, even if both partners are hurting badly.
You will get no condemnation from me, dear Nin: I just really feel for you and your family in this extremely painful and stressful situation.
I am so very sorry about the pain you are in.
No matter what the circumstances of a break-up might be, there is no excuse for the horrible things your husband says to you
or how he treats you Even when we understand the pain, that is still no excuse. When a marriage breaks up, behaviour can still remain civilised, even if both partners are hurting badly.
You will get no condemnation from me, dear Nin: I just really feel for you and your family in this extremely painful and stressful situation.
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Nin, I am so sorry you have this trouble in your life. You are a good person, every word you've ever posted makes that very clear. Try to focus on that?
Your husband is hurting you because he's angry, which I'm sure you know without me telling you. But he should not speak to you that way in front of your kids!!!! I can't see any way for you to make him stop, but how I wish he would think of his children instead of his own misery.
Your husband is hurting you because he's angry, which I'm sure you know without me telling you. But he should not speak to you that way in front of your kids!!!! I can't see any way for you to make him stop, but how I wish he would think of his children instead of his own misery.
Dig deeper.
-
Angbasdil
- The man, the myth, the monkey.
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:37 am
- Location: Woodstock GA
Nin,
I hope my posts haven't added to your pain. That was not my intent. I also hope that they haven't added to the guilt you so obviously feel. That was not my intent either.
I don't know what your religious beliefs are. And I'm not sure that I've done a very good job of getting my own beleifs across in this thread. But I'd like to share a story from my own tradition that seems particularly relevant, and explains my own beleifs better than I ever could.
(You've probably heard this one before. )
I hope my posts haven't added to your pain. That was not my intent. I also hope that they haven't added to the guilt you so obviously feel. That was not my intent either.
I don't know what your religious beliefs are. And I'm not sure that I've done a very good job of getting my own beleifs across in this thread. But I'd like to share a story from my own tradition that seems particularly relevant, and explains my own beleifs better than I ever could.
(You've probably heard this one before. )
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared.
Wow this has really taken off since the last time I was here and gone to great places.
I gotta be quick here so here goes.
I agree with all of those who hold that perfection is a thing to strive for with the knowledge that you never attain it. I think of it like going west, you can go west forever and never get there. If your goal is to go west you are doing OK so long as you are going the right way. For sure if you turn East you are going the WRONG way even if you only go a short distance that way. repent=turn around
As for looking at pretty people in line at grocery stores, on the bus or going to communion-this is probably something that can't be avoided, or at least not for me. The question is not what thoughts enter my mind but whether I "entertain" them. In other words, its one thing to th9ink that someone has a nice ass and another thing to think about how it would feel to -------.
Thats enough for now.
I gotta be quick here so here goes.
I agree with all of those who hold that perfection is a thing to strive for with the knowledge that you never attain it. I think of it like going west, you can go west forever and never get there. If your goal is to go west you are doing OK so long as you are going the right way. For sure if you turn East you are going the WRONG way even if you only go a short distance that way. repent=turn around
As for looking at pretty people in line at grocery stores, on the bus or going to communion-this is probably something that can't be avoided, or at least not for me. The question is not what thoughts enter my mind but whether I "entertain" them. In other words, its one thing to th9ink that someone has a nice ass and another thing to think about how it would feel to -------.
Thats enough for now.
----------------------------------------------------
Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about him.
-Thomas Merton
Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about him.
-Thomas Merton
-
Democritus
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:18 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Pole dancing is pole dancing is pole dancing.... we all know what it is and we all what it isn't... to argue that pole dancing includes the may pole is like arguing that a triangle is actually a square.
As for sex and relationships, I think that casual fantasies are absolutely fine, as is watching pornography, masterbation (singularly or mutually) or appreciating a nice pair of legs. All or normal parts of a healthy relationship.
Problems occur when casual fantasies start to take on a particular focus and intensity and effect behaviour towards your partner and the fantasy figure. I never fantasise about making love with stars, celebratories or other famous people, my fantasies are always about people I know in real life and therefore it would be an issue if in a relationship my idle fantasies started to solidify into more concrete behaviour.
As for sex and relationships, I think that casual fantasies are absolutely fine, as is watching pornography, masterbation (singularly or mutually) or appreciating a nice pair of legs. All or normal parts of a healthy relationship.
Problems occur when casual fantasies start to take on a particular focus and intensity and effect behaviour towards your partner and the fantasy figure. I never fantasise about making love with stars, celebratories or other famous people, my fantasies are always about people I know in real life and therefore it would be an issue if in a relationship my idle fantasies started to solidify into more concrete behaviour.
"Sacred cows make the best barbecue"
-
Democritus
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:18 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
If the entire bible reflected this sentiment, and if every Christian exhibited this sentiment... I would become an Atheist for Christ.Angbasdil wrote:The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared.
"Sacred cows make the best barbecue"
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Kurt Vonnegut has often called himself a "Christ-loving agnostic.:Democritus wrote: If the entire bible reflected this sentiment, and if every Christian exhibited this sentiment... I would become an Atheist for Christ.
Jesus was definitely the Man.
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
-
Lidless
- Rank with possibilities
- Posts: 823
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 1:06 am
- Location: Gibraltar
- Contact:
Fantasy, even fantasizing whilst having sex with your partner, is a very human thing. It's something we do because sex frees the soul and the libido. Consciousness drifting whilst awake. Very Frank Herbert. It is the sweetest of releases from ourselves.
However, if those fantasies are from an underlying problem with your partner, then in itself it is not a problem, but a manifestation of another underlying problem. If it is *required* for satisfaction, then aye, there lies the rub. Or lack of it.
Whether it be during masturbation or sex with a partner I love, I have fantasized about real and imaginary people, about my current partner, about people I have met and people I have only seen in the media, about imagined experiences or reliving real-life experiences. A menu of sexual contentment.
Not everyone likes their favorite meal every day.
And I expect the same with my partners. I fully expect them to be fantasizing about a situation that does not involve me - I'm not *that* great a catch physically. Not many of us are. Duh.
Does that mean that you or I *love* our partners any less? No! Just so long as they are required in a non-mastorbatory sexual environment. Then that is one of the (minor) facets of love.
However, if those fantasies are from an underlying problem with your partner, then in itself it is not a problem, but a manifestation of another underlying problem. If it is *required* for satisfaction, then aye, there lies the rub. Or lack of it.
Whether it be during masturbation or sex with a partner I love, I have fantasized about real and imaginary people, about my current partner, about people I have met and people I have only seen in the media, about imagined experiences or reliving real-life experiences. A menu of sexual contentment.
Not everyone likes their favorite meal every day.
And I expect the same with my partners. I fully expect them to be fantasizing about a situation that does not involve me - I'm not *that* great a catch physically. Not many of us are. Duh.
Does that mean that you or I *love* our partners any less? No! Just so long as they are required in a non-mastorbatory sexual environment. Then that is one of the (minor) facets of love.
It's about time.