1

Whenever a discussion of sex comes up, Evangelicals should just find a way to work it in that out of all women, married evangelicals have the most orgasms. That would turn the conversation around from worried about other people having fun to worried other people weren't having enough fun.

2

We must change the plausibility structure by showing how erotic art differs from p0rn0graphy.

3

Joe,

In light of some recent blog discussions about I've been involved in about the nature of lust, I have to say this is a very brave post.

One of my points has been that Evangelicals tend to widen out the definition of lust until it becomes an unstoppable boogeyman. As long as that's the case, I doubt we'll see much redemptive erotic art.

4

What a great post! I recently had a conversation with a Pentecostal friend who objected to a copy of a famous Picasso print that hung in the home of a mutual acquaintance. The print is a very simple sketch, just a few lines, suggesting a woman's back and buttocks -- nothing gynecological or explicit, and certainly nothing titillating. I personally think it's a beautiful print; my friend found the simple fact that it represented nudity unacceptable.

It is so important for Christians to take the stand you advocate, especially in this culture. Sex is a wonderful part of God's plan for us, and we need to re-establish it in its proper context -- not just for our children, but also for ourselves.

I recently was involved with a purity program at our church, designed to mentor young teen girls and help them see the wisdom of postponing sex until marriage. The mentors were a diverse group including one young unmarried woman, several married woman with marriages of varying durations, and myself: twice divorced in my life pre-Christ, and now married for 15 years in a relationship dedicated to Christ. The discussions we had were frank and open, and although we talked a lot about not having sex and how these girls could combat the sexualization that seems so rampant, we also discussed sex in marriage and how extraordinarily fulfilling it was. Many of the questions the girls asked centered around the very issue you raise: is sex a good thing in any circumstance?

It was really wonderful to be part of a church-sponsored program that allowed us to be plain-spoken about such a significant issue, and to share both the good and the bad from our own life experiences. A comparable program was run simultaneously for the young men in our church, and the response from both the program participants and their families was overwhelmingly positive.

(And Kevin, where did you get your data on orgasms and evangelicals? Fascinating if true!)

5

Great post.
I try to turn porno temptations into active fantasies about my wife, with both memories and future hopes. It helps a lot.

Women, especially, need to remember about the beauty of relationship in sex; one-night stand crap is junk.

Men, especially, need to remember the comfortableness of knowing the faithful wife is waiting; and how easy it is to seduce your wife -- but it's NOT automatic! Roses (all flowers), tender words, kisses, true desire.

And maybe jokes about the things a woman should know to please a man: "show up naked. Bring beer."

6

Five years ago, Mark Oppenheimer wrote about the same subject on Slate. He gave the "booming Christian sex-advice industry" credit for the orgasms statistic (although it came from poll data, not a scientific study).

7

tgirsch- Re: "Know it when I see it."

Justise Potter Stewart, concurring in Jacobellis v. Ohio in 1964.

"I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court's decisions since Roth and Alberts, that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

8

There is a problem in translation for using the OE word lystan', which means "like" and arrives modern English as 'lust' as in 'lusty boy' which means energetic, not drooling, for the Greek 'epithumaesai', which is elsewhere used to translate 'covet'.

The general drift of the Sermon on the Mount is to affirm the Text of Scripture against the alleged oral tradition from Moses that the rabbis were teaching at the time. This fits as well. "If a man looks at another man's wife in order to covet her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart". I submit that that is the correct translation, and not the usual old Evangelical 'if you do a double-take at a pretty woman, you have committed adultery'.

I remember the time in a very rural town where we were showing Dr. Schaeffer's _How Then Should We Live_ and he was discussing Nude Descending Staircase), where the artist, Picasso if my memory serves, was so deconstruction the human person, that it was difficult to discern the woman in the picture. When the class was asked what was the problem with the picture, several people said that it was that the woman was nude(!!?!?!?)

Evangelicals don't typically have a clue on what dress has been historically for women, nor the co-ed saunas of NE Christian Europe, nor breast-feeding, nor that children didn't have their own bedrooms, and that whether in a serf's cot or a king's hall, human sex wasn't exactly a hidden and unheard thing to children of any age. And this was Christendom. Somehow it wasn't a problem. There is some serious projection going on here, from sins of the heart to externally manifested skin that is not in fact, intrinsically evil (though possibly in some cases extrinsically unwise)

9

Seeing numerous typos, I realize I need to find my glasses. . .

10

The problems Christians have with sex is culturally rooted in some primary elements of Christian beliefs.

Christians basically view Mankind as having a dualistic either/or nature, a "Good" side, and an "Evil" side.

The "Evil" side has been associated with the natural physical needs and desires of men and women. The physical need for pleasure is portrayed as "Animalistic passion", "base desire" etc.

Unfortunately, for those who like orgasms, Christianity tends to see sex and spirituality as mutually exclusive of each other. They see it as Animal pleasure vs. Divine restraint. Pleasure = Evil. Restraint = Good.

Indulging in pleasure is seen strictly as that, an indulgence. The more pleasurable something is, the less spiritual or "Good" it is. So in order for sex to be "Good" it had to become a duty, even a sacrament. It's not a very appealing idea in terms of sexual appeal.

This dual view of the world got mixed in with gender stereotypes as well. Women were put on pedestals, Men were characterized as animals. Women consented or "gave in" to the man's desire. Women did their "wifely duty".

With those kinds of characterizations, it can't be any surprise that the sex wasn't much fun.

Fortunately for those who do like orgasms, married Christian women included, along came Feminism and the Sexual Revolution in the 70's.

While the most popular thing to do in Church today is to blame the Sexual Revolution for pretty much everything wrong with the world, there is no question that it did have positive effects as well.

11

'Women were put on pedestals, Men were characterized as animals. Women consented or "gave in" to the man's desire. Women did their "wifely duty".'

i grew up in an evengelical church. well put.

that fact is that i was generally led to beleive that women were somehow evil, and if not, my desire for them was. the other kids at church nodded their heads to all this, and they sang and spoke in tongues like everyones else, but they were having sex at ages 13-15 behind the their parents' backs. these are kids that went to church every week.

i don't have a problem with preaching and teaching abstinence, especially to teens. but, eliminating condom teaching altogether is assinine.

as adults there very few young people in serious, long term relationships that aren't going to have sex. they may not wish to get married, for the myriad of resons including finances, school, and where to live. and they may have questions about each other, and the timing may not be right. shunning unmarried couples from the church isn't right, and it is one of the myriad of reasons that i don't go to church.

12

As long as guys like Ashcroft are aghast at marble breasts on statues, it will be hard to change public perception of the evangelical attitude toward sex and nudity. I have heard of Christian nudist resorts, but I hardly think their clientele is evangelical.

13

Patrick,

That was the closest I've ever come to admiring one of your posts. It was unusually cogent and reasonable, until you tried to turn the corner and connect dualism with "gender stereotypes," which I find largely misguided.

Still, I agree with you that dualsim is hard to escape, and that idea impacts this topic directly, though I think it's a bit more complicated than just that. And I might even be persuaded to agree that the sexual revolution has had a good, if wholly unanticipated, side-effect IN THAT it may have challenged Christians to blow off some Puritan barnacles and re-define sex as a celebrated pleasure/gift of God (and that's as cliché as I'll get). But that's a very qualified agreement.

†††

Tommy,

How can your completely subjective experience be a "fact" by any definition of the word?

Is your comment about condom teaching in the same "church" context as the preceding paragraph? If so, that was a very different Sunday School class…

Okay, are they adults, or are they young people (which typically denotes teens)? And you think that unmarried "couples" should hold their heads up high in the church, that it's high time the church drop this "holy matrimony" line ("Transform not the world; be ye transformed by the world" ???) and embrace them, and that until it does, you're staying in on Sunday morning. Dude, that last paragraph is so confused.

Listen, the problem is not that living together without the sacntion of marriage is still stigmatized; it's that it'a NOT STIGMATIZED ENOUGH.
†††

Rob Ryan,

I don't think the Attorney General is a real shaper of Christian thought (at least, he hasn't made Joe Carter's "Know Your Evangelicals" list yet); he's at the most a product of that thinking, and, as such, hardly responsible for any prevelance in that attitude. You imply a causal relationship that I don't think is there. You didn't miss the opportunity for a dig, though.

14

Oh, yeah: thought-provoking post, Joe. Thanks!

15

great post, Joe!

When we allow false views of sex to remain unchallenged we are providing a silent affirmation that we don't really believe what we claim.

So true. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're right when you say many Christians do not have a redeemed view of sex themselves.

Peck's article is wonderful. What he says about sex as symbolism and sacrament is fantastic. Also about sexual privacy, which obviously has been most egregiously violated in our culture in everything from individual behavior to the media. Someone who doesn’t dress provocatively, flirt, or tell dirty jokes might be considered dull as dishwater, yet that person could have the most fantastic sex life. No one would ever know, though (besides their spouse), nor should they.

Focus on the Family magazine recently had some articles addressing sex as a truly sexy thing, to their credit. Some can be found at www.family.org/married.

16

(cont.)

Indeed, we are faced with a culture that doesn't want to be liberated from its false notion that sexual fulfillment is contingent upon technique, experience, and variety rather than in a deep-rooted commitment and loving relationship.

Yes, you don't hear much about the value of having a long sexual history with one person, i.e., of developing one's sexuality over the long haul with one person.

Not only do we need to capture the Christian erotic imagination in art, we need to capture it within a context of proper Christian community and love. Ephesians 4:1-3, Colossians 3, esp vv. 12-13. Boundaried must be established in our own minds & hearts, to reserve our most personal intimacies for our exclusive lifetime sexual partner.

The best book I've read concerning abstinence until marriage is Elisabeth Elliot's autobiographical work "Passion and Purity." It is truly sexier than any trashy novel. I've tucked a copy away in my daughter's closet for when she's "of age."

17

Winsome:

Complain to Rob Ryan all you want about his "dig," but there's a great deal of truth to his assessment of public perception, even if that perception is not an accurate representation of what evangelical Christianity is all about. As long as Evangelicals tolerate the Ashcrofts and Falwells and Robertsons of the world without prominent complaint, the public at large will continue to think funamentalism = evangelical christianity.

18

Good article Joe, but can we get one thing straight: The "puritanical" sexual attitudes that the Church is still associated with didn't come from the Puritans; we're talking about Victorian attitudes. I can't prove it, but I am pretty sure it is the Victorian conception of the puritans that created this whole myth of "puritanical" sexual attitudes.

The Puritans, while conservative in public displays of affection, had no qualms about praising the virtues of sex in marriage. In fact, I forget precisely who it was, but there is a writing by a prominent Puritan minister where he admonishes a husband not to withhold sex from his wife (it might be the other way around, but I don't think so).

19

Winsome: The causal relationship that I "imply" (I thought I was rather direct!) has nothing to do with evangelical thought; it has to do with how evangelical thought is perceived by the public at large. Have another look.

You're right about the dig, though. ;-)

20

'How can your completely subjective experience be a "fact" by any definition of the word?'

i never said my expereince was fact. i was relating my experience with the church. your hard line view on marriage has only supported it.

21

It is unfortunate that some evangelicals are trying to make marriage the forum for a legal form of lust, to paraphrase one Christian writer.

22

tommy's church is not my church. In ours we have several couples who live together without marriage yet. We're just glad they are no longer drug addicted and are trying to figure out how to be Christians. They know very well that the Bible teaches only marriage for sexual relationships, and soon enough they go to the pastor's office to have the ceremony. Then, they say they were "living in sin." They say it--we don't have to. Believe it or not, the Holy Spirit himself convicts them.

23

Could you explain what you mean by that statement Carrie?

24

Winsome says:

"That was the closest I've ever come to admiring one of your posts. It was unusually cogent and reasonable, until you tried to turn the corner and connect dualism with "gender stereotypes," which I find largely misguided."

____

I think I've been dammed with faint praise, but I did get a little lost. Dualism is so wrapped up with our culture and Christianity that it's a probably worth a whole discussion on it's own.

But "gender stereotypes" do have everything to do with the way men and women relate to each other sexually. The stereotypes define what is a man and a woman by what each does, rather than who they are. A husband is the breadwinner, the woman is the child-rearer and maid. An active role in bed vs passive.

The basic assumption is that men take and women give. People find these stereotypes comforting because the give everyone a set of rules and signals to go by. However, they also limit. If a marriage is to be a true partnership, then men must also give and women also take. And that means in the bedroom too.

The negotiation and communication that takes place in order to accomplish this serves to bring a couple closer to understanding each other. Including what pleasures the other.

This makes the sex a lot less selfish than the good ole missionary mindset. When a husband "gives" instead of taking, they learn to understand what is more pleasurable for their wife. And the wife does the same for the husband.
All this adds up to better sex!

But...
The catch is that this takes time to do. So it's usually only going to happen within the context of a long-term relationship such as a marriage.
This is why married sex can be better than a one-night stand.

The other catch is that men and women often confuse their actual gender with that of the stereotype. A "real man" doesn't give. A "feminine" woman doesn't initiate, or take. And your self-esteem as a man or a woman gets wrapped up in this. But the stereotypes are a false assumption.

To challenge the stereotype can mean a sacrifice of ego that most are unwilling to undergo. I think this is especially true for men right now, as they are still trying to find their place in the world in the post-feminist, post-industrial, service economy age, where the role of "breadwinner" no longer defines your gender.

25

Patrick--Wow--spot on! The whole issue of gender stereotypes and gender confusion has a huge effect on how a husband and wife relate to each other.

Truth is, the conservative church need to realize that it takes a strong man to handle a relationship with a strong woman. And every christian needs to understand the biblical model of mutual submission--submitting to one another out of love.

26

As a 22-year old virgin, let's just say the beauty of sex within the confines of Godly covenant and marriage are the only and I repeat, only things we often have to hold on to.

Golly...Christians have got to do a better job in this respect.

27

Puzzled,

"usual old Evangelical 'if you do a double-take at a pretty woman, you have committed adultery'."

I don't know about others, but my fundie church teaches that it is not seeing or appreciating the beauty of a woman or even feeling a desire for her, but actively fantasizing about sex with her or thinking about how to make it happen that is the sin. This is also taught by Gertz's book, "The measure of a man," which is credited with inspiring the Promise Keepers. So, a lot of us get it.

28

Rob & tgirsch,

As long as guys like Ashcroft are aghast at marble breasts on statues...

That is an urban legend. Maybe, you should say as long as people in society continue to make up stupid stereotypical jokes at evangelical Christian expense, many in society will continue to wrongfully perceive us as "puritans."

29

Joe, Rob, & tgirsch,

I agree with Joe's premises, but I believe that Christians have a good reason for avoiding sexualized art in modern society. Mostly it teaches attitudes towards sex that conflict with Christian doctrine. The problem with sex and nudity in modern art is not that it exist, but that the vast majority of the time, it teaches us that immoral sex is the best, most rewarding, and has no downside. The typical sex scene shows an unmarried couple having great sex, but fails to show the nasty custody battles, visits to the aids clinic, etc. How many sex scenes in movies can you think of that involve man and a wife? I don't even mind sinful sex in art, so long as it is not glamorize the sex. After all, the Bible has plenty of both good and sinful sex scenes. In the modern world, sex has been the leading sin that comes between God an man. I believe the way in which it is overwhelmingly portrayed in modern art is a big part of the reason why.

Joe, if I recall correctly, you have a psychology degree. You have probably seen the studies of what Robert Cialdini calls "social proof." You may recall that children's personalities have been changed by watching one movie. So, Christians are rightly wise to avoid exposure to such influences. Art may be a big part of the reason for the reason that many evangelical Christians believe in marriage but suspect that they are missing something deliciously fun.

This understandably leads to a reflexive dislike for erotic art. The only way to know if the art portrays sex appropriately is to watch it, but by then one has exposed themselves to the powerful psychological influence of the art. If one guesses wrong, then they reap temptation. Since the overwhelming majority of such art glamorizes inappropriate sex, avoiding the whole thing is a ration solution to the problem.

30

>>Could you explain what you mean by that statement Carrie?
Posted by Finlay at August 24, 2004 10:32 AM

Sure, many Christians view marriage as the outlet for sex. Thus, they take marriage as the opportunity for unrestrained lust. And that includes mutual lust - just because it is mutual doesn't mean it is justifiable. As Christians we are to overcome the lusts of the flesh, not channel them - or at least that is what I thought.

A minister friend of mine uses is that sex is like a fire - a fire is fine in the fireplace, but you wouldn't want a fire in the living room; meaning that sex in its right place is fine (the fireplace = marriage) but outside of marriage it is a problem. But I disagree with that opinion, I guess. I have seen many of my fellow evangelicals rush into marriage prematurely as a way of appeasing their lust, and I have seen lust among a husband and wife absolutely destroy marriages.

As Christians we should perhaps not just speak about the merits of sex within marriage, but also about denying eros as a legitimate type of love. At the risk of sounding like Jimmy Carter, referring to Jesus... is it any better to look at one's own wife with lust in his heart?

31

Patrick, you once again don't seem to know what you are talking about, when it comes to Christianity and the Theology of the Body.

BR, church discipline is one of the marks of the Church. If you are allowing them the Blood and Body of our Lord, without their having repented, then your church is in sin and rebellion against God.

I noticed that you used the word 'ceremony', as if you hadn't been taught by your pstor that marriage is a blood covenant that can only be broken by death.

Patrick, you are -sooo- confused about what Christianity is and teaches. What pray tell, is the "old missionary mindset"? And your talk of giving and taking, you have a -very- strange understanding of what you think Christians think.

Ambra, I'm rather older than you, and still waiting, also. It isn't just delayed gratification. That will wear thin. But we have a King, Who is Good, and we have sworn to Him.

32

"That is an urban legend. Maybe, you should say as long as people in society continue to make up stupid stereotypical jokes at evangelical Christian expense, many in society will continue to wrongfully perceive us as "puritans.""

Come on, JBP. Surely you know the difference between urban legend and verifiable fact.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0201/29/nation-402789.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845.stm

The only part I got wrong is that the hooter in question is aluminum, not marble.

33

Carrie,
The Bible teaches us not to have sex outside of marriage, nor to covet another person's spouse. It most emphatically does NOT say that husband and wife are not to like sex with each other, sexually desire each other, sensually arouse each other, etc. Read the Song of Solomon some time. The original Hebrew of the OT doesn't mince around with terms for sex and body parts the way English translations do. The strong sexual desire you condemn people for marrying for is -exactly- one of the reasons that the apostle Paul recommends marriage for.

You need to realize that God looked at creation and said "it is not good' because Adam didn't have a wife. He had God, he had pets, but he didn't have a wife. God didn't make him a buddy, but a wife. Sexual love was what was missing from perfect creation that made it "not good". God created your sexuality. It is a Good thing, you should dare not call evil what God calls good - see 1 Timothy 4:1-5. Beware this demonic teaching against hetereosexual sex and desire within lifelong marriage. It is not of God.

34

Carrie, it sounds like you are against the enjoyment of sex even in a marital context. Do you recommend the reduction of sex to a clinically detached child-producing mechanism or even marital celibacy? I have a naturalistic explanation for the obvious enjoyability of sex; do you have a theistic one?

35

Puzzled, I think that we might have some disagreements about the significance of Song of Solomon. (And I do read both Greek and Hebrew, so I do have a decent idea of what Paul and Solomon both said.) Additionally, Puzzled, you are arguing that God made sexual desire, based on your interpretation of the creation of Adam and Eve, and I think that many Christians would disagree with you on that belief.

John, Paul, and Peter all talk about the need of overcoming the lust of the flesh. They do not argue for lust within marriage. As Christians, why do we try to argue for lust, as opposed to arguing for holiness? Lust isn't holy, even within marriage. God did not create lust, even inter-marital lust.

I support the tender love and joy of intercourse between husband and wife. But there is a difference between married love and lust, or erotic desire. I would also hope that we can all attain marital celibacy. I am not there yet, but the closer I approach that, the more holy and harmonious my family life has become.

36

Rob,

Nice bait and switch. What someone was thinking is verifiable fact? Do you have a machine that reads minds? It is not like he has ever said that the statute's nudity bothered him. There has been speculation that Ashcroft did not want to be photographed in front of the statutes. Even if this speculation is correct, it is not clear why this was the case and it is not clear that this is because he was a prude. Maybe, he thought they were ugly. Maybe, he grew tired of reporters jostling to get a picture of him with the breast showing. It appears that this has become a bit of a sport. It could be distracting at a press conference. But this whole line of speculation is beside the point because he was not even aware of the decision to hang the drapes. His staff thought that a blue background looked better.

37

Carrie, "attain marital celibacy"? Oh what a horrible horrible thing that would be.

38

Carrie,

How do you define lust?

Can someone lust after the things of God?

39

Carrie,
If you can read the books in question in the original tongues, then I'm going to have to hold you accountable for them.

I'm not sure why you insist on using the word lust (OE: lystan, to like) instead of 'covetousness' in translating epithumaesai. You say you know the languages, you should know better, you should understand -English- well enough to see the impropriety of using lystan/lust for covetousness.

I know of no *Christians* who would disagree with the Bible about the origin of sexual desire - God Himself in creation.

Do you believe that an evil demiurge created matter and the universe, and then the New Testament God came to redeem the elect from a material existence?

From what you write, you are an Albigensian heretic, not an Evangelical or any other kind of Christian. You are a teacher of the doctrines of the Nicolaitans, condemned in John's apocalypse and a teacher of *demonic* doctrine according to 1 Timothy 4:1-5.

You are counseling disobedience to God (1 Cor. 7) by advocating refraining from sexual intercourse in marriage, and are opening a way for the devil in those to whom you teach this. You yourself are also in disobedience to this command.

Let you be anathema. Let all who support you be anathema.

40

More correctly, simply in affirming the Bible's anathamatizations and those of the early Church:

Let thise gnostic/Albigensian/Nicolaitan doctrines be anathema.

Let anyone who teaches the demonic doctrines taught by Carrie this day in those posts, be anathema.

41

Puzzled,

Maybe carrie is simply wrong.

42

Carrie's not wrong. She is not using "lust" as a synonym for sexual desire. Some time ago Pope John Paul II came out with a statement condemning lust within marriage, and was roundly ridiculed by the mainstream media for it, because they, too, equate lust with sexual desire. What *he* meant by that is, I think, what Carrie means. In short, it is the viewing of a person as a sexual object, and (when it extends to intercourse) the *using* of that person as the outlet of sexual tension rather than engaging in intercourse as a form of mutual self-giving.

Certainly it is possible, and immoral, to view your spouse as a sexual object; certainly, too, to use him or her merely as a tool for your own gratification. This is, I think, what Carrie means.

43

Puzzled says:

"Patrick, you once again don't seem to know what you are talking about, when it comes to Christianity and the Theology of the Body....

...Patrick, you are -sooo- confused about what Christianity is and teaches. What pray tell, is the "old missionary mindset"? And your talk of giving and taking, you have a -very- strange understanding of what you think Christians think."

_______

Perhaps. My experience of Christianity simply comes from what I was taught growing up in private schools, run by Baptist and Catholic churches. And of course it comes from being on the receiving end in person of the mindless preaching of rage by the Rev. Fred Phelps.

This may indeed give me an incorrect view of what Christianity is and isn't.

However I would put it to you that your being a complete ass about it doesn't exactly improve my (granted) already mixed view of Christianity. Nor does it provide any clearer picture of what Christianity is. Not for me, nor for anybody else, I suspect.

The only clear picture it does seem to provide is that of your ego. I do congratulate you on achieving such apparent perfection that you are always correct about anything and everything. Surely you are giving Jesus himself a run for his money. May it be of some comfort to you in Hell.

44

Rob,

Actually, I frequent several nudist resorts, and am a member of an evangelical nudist group. We are not as rare, or as prurient, as you may think.

45

Scott: Based on your post, it seems that evangelicals may be a more diverse category than I had supposed. Thank you for the information.

JBP: It's true I can't prove Ashcroft's motivation or even his involvement. These are the verifiable facts:
The Department of Justice spent $8000 covering the semi-nude statues.
Ashcroft is the Attorney General.
It was reported by at least one ABC correspondent that Ashcroft ordered the move.
Ashcroft supporters attributed the move to Ashcroft's discomfort with being photographed in front of the statue.
Ashcroft skirted an opportunity to deny his involvement on Late Night with David Letterman; he made a lame joke instead.

From these facts I infer that Ashcroft either initiated or approved the move. I could be wrong, of course. I thought you were denying the draping had taken place when you made your "urban legend" comment. It's not that big a deal, really. You are making a mountain out of a metallic mammary.
Now I'm sure you'll agree that we have "covered" this minor point in sufficient detail.

46

Sorry to Joe, but where is the Biblical basis of the enjoyment of nude art? I don't see it anywhere.

Christians are right to avoid nudity as art. Why? Nudity stimulates arousal. It makes a person think about sex.

Whether or not some kind of relationship is somehow depicted, it is not God's plan for people to go unclothed.

This is to be shared by the husband and wife alone, not by some person looking for a legitimate excuse to oogle at the female form. I agree with you on this being legitimate only in the life-time marriage commitment.( of course!)

But again, nakedness (for the purpose of enjoyment) is only legitimatized in a marriage relationship. However, in many places, it is condemned as shameful in public. Here are some examples.

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Gen. 2:25

So far so good. Then man fell.

And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:) Exodus 32:24-26

So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
Isaiah 20:3-5

Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man. Isaiah 47:3

Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame. Nahum 3:5

I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Revelation 3:18

Public "nakedness" is always displayed as something shameful in the Bible, and it should be.

47

"Actually, I frequent several nudist resorts, and am a member of an evangelical nudist group. We are not as rare, or as prurient, as you may think."

Scott,

I hope and pray you will all be convicted about this. It is not God's plan for man to go around unclothed.

Genesis 3:7 says this
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Later God asked them who told them they were naked. At their conscience's(which is a witness of God) most heightened point (right after realization of guilt), they realized their was shame in their nakedness.

In heaven we will not be naked, the saints are clothed in white.

48

As a visitor to this site, I just want to let you know that some of you have posted comments (presumably as Christians) that are not at all attractive to the outside eye.

Bickering over diction? Condemning the confused?

Does anybody here actually care about the person they’re talking to?

I wonder how many others might have valuable contributions, but would rather take them elsewhere in hopes of escaping harassment.

“And they’ll know we are Christians by our love” ??

Now I’m confused…

49

"Perhaps. My experience of Christianity simply comes from what I was taught growing up in private schools, run by Baptist and Catholic churches. And of course it comes from being on the receiving end in person of the mindless preaching of rage by the Rev. Fred Phelps."

I have seen that situation all too often, sometimes to close friends of mine. It is hard to find truth when insults are thrown from either side. I have been on the recieving end of this myself, and it is very hurtful. However, I have also given out some of it myself, and it is very tempting to take the high position.

Puzzled, as a brother, I am telling you that this kind of condemnation does no good. We are commanded to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:12).
I am sure you are not perfect and hole proof in your doctrine either, I don't know anyone who is.
Rather, remember that the goodness and patience of God is what leads people to change their minds, not condemning words. (Romans 7:4)

Patrick, I want to give you this advice because I believe it is what God wants. We are all weak in some way, and it is best not to focus on theological arguements and doubtful disputations (Romans 14:1). Stay grounded to the firm truth that God loves you, has redeemed you, and wants to be involved in every part of your life. As you walk and talk with God, His Spirit will help you understand the things you didn't before and it won't seem so mixed up anymore. When we are consumed with who Jesus is and what He has done for us... just being with Him - it makes these all of this seem trivial. If sexual tempation or your relationship with your wife are something you are dealing with right now, then by all means pray, read His Word, and seek His will out on this. Otherwise, rejoice in where God has placed you now, and trust Him to reveal things to you when you get there. I am not trying to be preachy here, and I am not saying everyone is wrong. But, I hope some of this may be of help. Either way, God bless you patrick.

50

"“And they’ll know we are Christians by our love” ??"

I'm sorry we have been bad representations to you. That saying comes from Jesus, who commanded us to love as He did. As christians, we can be very un christ-like at times. Alas my friend, we are all a work in progress to become like Jesus. The difference now is we have accepted his forgiveness for all our mess-ups and chosen to live out our live's for Him. I would hope if you were ever in need, it would not be a christian who would pass by and look the other way in not helping you.

51

Puzzled, I am not an Albigensian, nor am I a Nicolaitain, and I am not a Gnostic of any stripe. I believe in one God, the God of the Old and the New Testaments. I believe that he sent his son in the flesh, who lived in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and rose again in the flesh.

I am not "forbidding to marry" - not in the least. I consider marital love to be wonderful, and its expression in intercourse to be beautiful. I am not teaching anyone what they should do in their married lives. That is not my place. The Bible covers that. I am simply stating my own opinion, based in the Scriptures.

I understand the use of the word epithumeo. I understand that God has this longing for us, and we long for God. I understand I Corinthians 7, and I agree with Paul that it is better to marry than to burn and I understand how important it is for the husband and the wife to please one another in all things, in accord with righteousness. I simply to desire to "Walk in the Spirit, and...not fulfil the lust [epithumeo] of the flesh."

You are making broad and incorrect assumptions about my theology. I have no contest with you or with anyone else. You needn't anathematize me.

52

JBP, Carrie may be merely wrong, though she certainly attempted to attach authority to what she wrote. The wrong she wrote is by no means 'mere', however, but a ministerially-damaging manifestation of an ancient heresy.

Erin, Of course I can only respond to what is written, and not to what someone might have actually meant. Such responses can come when they clarify what they meant. Obviously de-personalizing persons is a very bad thing indeed. But I didn't get the impression that that is what she meant.

53

Matt, nudity -can- stimulate arousal which is not itself a sin, in those cultural contexts where nudity communicates sexual availability. It would be, I believe, sinful if it was intentionally done to communicate sexual availability outside of marriage. It should, one would think, be obvious that that is not always the case.

God created people unclothed, so to state that God's plan is different from God's plan is simply oxymoronic. You need some qualifiers (I write as I'm reading along, you may have them)

"Nakedness uncovered" is typically an allusion to sexual intercourse in the OT.

I think you are understandably misunderstanding the use of the terms. In each case, you have either a cultural context where such represented shame (do you also condemn going barefoot outside of the marital bedchamber?), or where nakedness refers, not to nudity, but to a lack of protection.

Your argument to Scott that Adam and Eve were living in a sinful, shameful condition before the Fall enabled them to realize it, (or so your post reads) has -serious- theological implications, which I'm reasonably sure you don't intend to put forth.

Matt, you seem to be unfamiliar with the condemnations of heresy in the Scriptures. You seem to somehow have a one-sided understanding of these things. Just because I speak to what I know, doesn't mean there is that concerning which I am not confident. I just don't spend as much time promoting what I'm not at all sure of.

Love which is *merely* 'niceness' and sentimentality is not love at all.

54

Carrie, I simply repeat anathematizations put forth by those in authority on the false teachings that you had previously posted. I was not anathematizing you as a person, but the teachings. I fear I don't understand how you can push marital celebacy, which is condemned in Scripture, and claim not to be teaching demonic doctrine as defined in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. You claim to understand certain passages, but then you (at least previously, and perhaps you did not post exactly what you meant to say?) things which are very harmful and blatant heresy. You make assertions, but don't show your work.

55

Acts 11:7 I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter, kill and eat!’
8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered into my mouth.’
9 But a voice answered me the second time out of heaven, ‘What God has cleansed, don’t you call unclean.’
10 This was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven.

1 Tim. 4:1 But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;
3 forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.
5 For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer.
6 If you instruct the brothers of these things, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, nourished in the words of the faith, and of the good doctrine which you have followed.

Col 2: 16 ¶Let no man therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day,
17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s.
18 Let no one rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels, dwelling in the things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding firmly to the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together through the joints and ligaments, grows with God’s growth.
20 If you (P) died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you (P) subject yourselves to ordinances,
21 “Don’t handle, nor taste, nor touch”
22 (all of which perish with use), according to the precepts and doctrines of men?
23 Which things indeed appear like wisdom in self-imposed worship, and humility, and severity to the body; but aren’t of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.

56

Nota bene: the word "stoichea" translated as "elements" is not refering to the periodic table of the elements, but rather to the Elementals, spirits that were thought to rule nature. These were also called the Aions, and the Bible reveals them as unclean spirits. e.g. "aion ta pneuma" - spirit of the air.

57

Puzzled,

Aeons in gnostic terminology are transcendent spiritual existances that are somewhat a part of the Living Father himself. That is why Jesus and Sofia are called "the High Aeons." In gnostic terminology, the proper term for the unclean spirits, from what I have found in researching gnosticism, is "archon" (ruler in greek; in gnostic mysticism, the dark rulers of the material world).

58

Re: Carrie, Oops, you're right. I just re-read her thread and saw that she was hoping to attain "marital celibacy"---umm, yeah, that's a problem. Sounds like Manichaeism to me.

Maybe she meant "marital chastity." I hope so.

Erin

59

Mike, I was using Christian descriptions of gnosticism, not gnostic ones. That might have led to the confusion.

Erin of the ten thousand lakes (and no fish),
Yeah. Well, blogs are not perfect forms of communication, so I attribute a reasonable amount of 'noise' to that.