Sex takes on new meaning from Christian view
Issue date: 11/19/09 Section: Opinions
So you can see that Christians do not fear sex, we value it immensely. However, it would be a misrepresentation of the truth if I said the Christian community feels the same way about sex as everyone else. Christians do make distinctions. We do have boundaries on sexuality.
The first boundary is marriage. The old adage "sex should be kept in the confines of marriage" is useful here. Sex must be "confined" to one couple. Christian ethics forbid people from copulating with anyone who is not their spouse. In fact, Jesus says you shouldn't even think about it. There's no getting around it. This puts a boundary on sex. Just as fish should stay in water where it can grow, develop and play, so should sex stay in marriage.
Christian ethics also maintain that sex is meant to be shared between a man and a woman. There is no avoiding the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is not what God had in mind when he gave humans the gift of sex. In a post-modern world, many people find this viewpoint offensive and unacceptable. Others insist Christians only hold this belief because "the Bible tells me so." Although this religious formula is enough for many believers, I would suggest that God has given this commandment with good reason. The biblical witness exclusively supports sexual relations between a man and a woman because that is the only means of natural reproduction. Two men or two women simply cannot, on their own, create life. It is a biological impossibility. Further, God made men and women interdependent on one another, in both psyche and anatomy. In a way, each gender is incomplete - but sex is the completion.
I've done my best, in the last few hundred words, to lay out a Christian understanding of sex. There's a good chance in the process I've upset a few members of the Truman community, both Christian and non-Christian.
But, I hope you all will take this for what it is. It's not me sitting in an ivory tower claiming to have all the answers. In fact, I know I don't. You can reject what I'm saying. I just want you to know what you're rejecting. You're rejecting a sexual life without shame, guilt and heartache. You're rejecting a pleasurable and endless journey with one person. You're rejecting the unbelievable sex you were designed to have.
Zach Vicars is a sophomore philosophy/religion and linguistics major from St. Charles, Mo.
The first boundary is marriage. The old adage "sex should be kept in the confines of marriage" is useful here. Sex must be "confined" to one couple. Christian ethics forbid people from copulating with anyone who is not their spouse. In fact, Jesus says you shouldn't even think about it. There's no getting around it. This puts a boundary on sex. Just as fish should stay in water where it can grow, develop and play, so should sex stay in marriage.
Christian ethics also maintain that sex is meant to be shared between a man and a woman. There is no avoiding the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is not what God had in mind when he gave humans the gift of sex. In a post-modern world, many people find this viewpoint offensive and unacceptable. Others insist Christians only hold this belief because "the Bible tells me so." Although this religious formula is enough for many believers, I would suggest that God has given this commandment with good reason. The biblical witness exclusively supports sexual relations between a man and a woman because that is the only means of natural reproduction. Two men or two women simply cannot, on their own, create life. It is a biological impossibility. Further, God made men and women interdependent on one another, in both psyche and anatomy. In a way, each gender is incomplete - but sex is the completion.
I've done my best, in the last few hundred words, to lay out a Christian understanding of sex. There's a good chance in the process I've upset a few members of the Truman community, both Christian and non-Christian.
But, I hope you all will take this for what it is. It's not me sitting in an ivory tower claiming to have all the answers. In fact, I know I don't. You can reject what I'm saying. I just want you to know what you're rejecting. You're rejecting a sexual life without shame, guilt and heartache. You're rejecting a pleasurable and endless journey with one person. You're rejecting the unbelievable sex you were designed to have.
Zach Vicars is a sophomore philosophy/religion and linguistics major from St. Charles, Mo.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 24
anon
posted 11/19/09 @ 3:21 AM CST
I'm glad that this side of the sex debate can be shown as well. Though it may not be compatible with my views, I can appreciate a well written article displaying someone's personal opinions, so props to you, Zach. (Continued…)
Kathy Stewart
posted 11/19/09 @ 6:16 AM CST
Thanks for sharing, Zach. It is great that diversity of opinion is actually still allowed, if not welcomed, in this country.
Michelle
posted 11/19/09 @ 9:56 AM CST
The only couples who can have truly profound, loving sex are married Christians?
There are a lot of other religions out there with monogomous and faithful couples, and there are a lot of monogamous, unmarried, nonreligious couples who enjoy a healthy relationship based on respect, trust, and love AND have great sex. (Continued…)
ANON
posted 11/19/09 @ 9:57 AM CST
I do agree that this is a nice stand point to take and that every one has a right to their opinion. I'd like those who are willing to openly research this topic further, to visit the following site:
http://www. (Continued…)
Robert
posted 11/19/09 @ 12:07 PM CST
Being able to express diversity of opinion is a good thing. Being able to point out the errors in various diverse opinions is also a good thing. So here it goes. (Continued…)
Brittany
posted 11/19/09 @ 1:38 PM CST
1. Your anecdotes about large Christian families is NOT sociological data about the views and experiences Christians have with sex. And far from being a positive note about how Christians actually have sex, what those anecdotes say to me is that Christianity in some of its purest forms requires women to choose between having no sex/less sex or having more children than they might want, can afford, or can handle physically and psychologically. (Continued…)
Jake
posted 11/19/09 @ 2:08 PM CST
So if one member of a married couple is infertile, is there sex therefore sinful? Also, homosexuality exists in all forms of life, so to call unnatural is pure ignorance. (Continued…)
Jake Uhlenhake
Jake
posted 11/19/09 @ 2:19 PM CST
So what if a married, heterosexual couple is infertile? Are their fruitless sexual acts sinful and innappropriate? Also, FACT: homosexuality exists in a wide variety of species of life on earth, so to call it unnatural is pure ignorance. (Continued…)
Ryan
posted 11/19/09 @ 6:43 PM CST
I disagreed with almost all of this article, but you were doing pretty well up until the homosexuality part. I agree with you when you say that the Bible is essentially intolerant of homosexuality (and I disagree with Christians that say it isn't) but it simply amazes me that you think that this can be logically justified in the face of all modern secular evidence to the contrary. (Continued…)
An alum
posted 11/19/09 @ 10:03 PM CST
Since "the bottom line" (that's $$$) usually trumps morals, ethics, religion or lack thereof, perhaps this can be viewed in connection with the many debates about health care. (Continued…)
Post a Comment