Sensuality among Christians

[Skwim]

No problem with that at all. I was answering your question in general as to the general stance of Christianity. Not my personal views on the matter which are personal and I would never try to impose on anyone else.

Your "Yes to all the above, within the confines of marriage" isn't a personal view? Is it a tenet of your religion then? Christianity says that sensuality is desirable and even to be encouraged within marriage? If it is it's a new one to me.


.

 

[David1967]

Your "Yes to all the above, within the confines of marriage" isn't a personal view? Is it a tenet of your religion then? Christianity says that sensuality is desirable and even to be encouraged within marriage? If it is it's a new one to me.


.

My understanding of your question was that you were asking what the Christian stance on this subject in general. With that in mind. The Christian stance is that fornication and adultery are a sin.

 

[Skwim]

My understanding of your question was that you were asking what the Christian stance on this subject in general. With that in mind. The Christian stance is that fornication and adultery are a sin.

So what does this have to do with sensuality outside of marriage? Are you really equating it with fornication and adultery? Sensuality = fornication, fornication = sensuality; and sensuality = adultery, adultery = sensuality?


.

 

[David1967]

So what does this have to do with sensuality outside of marriage? Are you really equating it with fornication and adultery? Sensuality = fornication, fornication = sensuality; and sensuality = adultery, adultery = sensuality?


.

Wherever you want to go with it. I simply answered your question. It's not something worth debating to me.

 

[roger1440]

I am still looking for a "clothing optional" church. So far not much luck...

http://www.faceofmalawi.com/2015/08...-god-naked-because-jesus-was-crucified-naked/

 

[Acim]

What other way can it be taken?

That it's not about me, but about Christianity, as inquired about in OP.

Fine, but just how does encouraging such ideas such as the desirability of sensuality advocate for "confusion around Self identity" among we spiritual beings in this world? .

Just to be clear, you ware wondering how: encouraging "pursuit of physical, especially sexual, pleasure" - advocates for confusion around (Christian/Spiritual) Self Identity?

To me, the answer is obvious. Or like asking, "why wouldn't material scientist advocate for observers to get in touch with their spiritual side before each step of scientific experimentation, especially encouraging personal feelings around this?"

 

[Skwim]

That it's not about me, but about Christianity, as inquired about in OP.

You said: "Because [sensuality] ultimately deals with what is inherently meaningless (the physical), encouraging such ideas are advocating for confusion around Self identity."

Which I can only take to mean that you equate "the physical" with being "inherently meaningless."

Prompting me to remark "I take it, you don't encourage anything that has to do with the physical." The physical be meaningless.

Which you find to be interesting, although I don't know why.

So I asked, "What other way can it be taken?". . . . (other than that you don't encourage anything that has to do with the physical. The physical be meaningless.)

To which you reply with a total non sequitur "That it's not about me, but about Christianity, as inquired about in OP."

Just to be clear, you ware wondering how: encouraging "pursuit of physical, especially sexual, pleasure" - advocates for confusion around (Christian/Spiritual) Self Identity?

No. I asked " Just how does encouraging such ideas such as the desirability of sensuality advocate for "confusion around Self identity" among we spiritual beings in this world?" Other than defining "sensuality" for yourself there's no need to rephrase your words. You said them and I understand them.

[

To me, the answer is obvious. Or like asking, "why wouldn't material scientist advocate for observers to get in touch with their spiritual side before each step of scientific experimentation, especially encouraging personal feelings around this?"

Your irrelevant simile aside, just what is your obvious answer? Exactly how does encouraging such ideas such as the desirability of sensuality advocate for "confusion around Self identity" among we spiritual beings in this world?


.

 

[Acim]

You said: "Because [sensuality] ultimately deals with what is inherently meaningless (the physical), encouraging such ideas are advocating for confusion around Self identity."

Which I can only take to mean that you equate "the physical" with being "inherently meaningless."

Prompting me to remark "I take it, you don't encourage anything that has to do with the physical." The physical be meaningless.

Which you find to be interesting, although I don't know why.

So I asked, "What other way can it be taken?". . . . (other than that you don't encourage anything that has to do with the physical. The physical be meaningless.)

To which you reply with a total non sequitur "That it's not about me, but about Christianity, as inquired about in OP."

I would say the non sequitur occurred when you made it about me, and then magnified as not following from what I said based on your assertion of "what other way could it be taken?"

So, let's back up and ask: why do you take it that I don't encourage anything that has to do with the physical?

No. I asked " Just how does encouraging such ideas such as the desirability of sensuality advocate for "confusion around Self identity" among we spiritual beings in this world?" Other than defining "sensuality" for yourself there's no need to rephrase your words. You said them and I understand them.

I don't think you do understand them. Your words thus far show you don't. You have "I take it" and "what other way can it be taken" rhetoric that I so far see as not readily defensible. We'll see if you can defend it based on precisely what has been stated so far, and then see if you do understand what is being stated.

Your irrelevant simile aside, just what is your obvious answer? Exactly how does encouraging such ideas such as the desirability of sensuality advocate for "confusion around Self identity" among we spiritual beings in this world? .

The simile is spot on as far as I'm concerned. Your OP inquiry said "in the life of Christians." I responded with what I understand to be Christian understandings, not my personal views, unique only to me. That is how you've responded thus far to me, as if I responded to OP with my personal beliefs and they are only unique to me. Therefore, it would be like asking "in the work of material scientists, are observers encouraged to get in touch with their spiritual side before each step of experimentation?"

And if you responded with, "no, that would not be encouraged because it is not how objectivity is achieved." I then could respond how you did with me, by saying, "I take it you've never achieved personal satisfaction in your life." And you say something along lines of, 'that's odd for you to see it that way." To which I'd reply (if being like you in this thread), "what other way is there to take it?"

 

[Skwim]

I would say the non sequitur occurred when you made it about me, and then magnified as not following from what I said based on your assertion of "what other way could it be taken?"

Not about you, but what you said. That's the way we operate around here: discussions based on an exchange of statements or questions.

So, let's back up and ask: why do you take it that I don't encourage anything that has to do with the physical?

Nope, I'm not holding your hand through all of this. If you can't grasp it that's fine with me.

Take the last word and have a good day.


.

 

[Acim]

OP question: In the life of Christians is sexual sensuality acceptable, desirable, encouraged, or not?

My response: Yes, yes, and no.

First response to that:

Gotta wonder, If you find sensuality desirable why don't you find it worthy of encouraging?
.

Second response to that:

So, I take it, you don't encourage anything that has to do with the physical.
.

Later, the lie:

Not about you, but what you said.
.

 

[Glaurung]

In the life of Christians is sexual sensuality acceptable, or not?

That depends on the Christian's station in life and the obligations proper to that station. A monastic under vows is in a very different station than a married layperson.

How about desirable?

How about encouraged?

Celibacy is superior. Matthew 19:11-12. But to marry and begin a family is also a most valid path for a Christian. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 1 Corinthians 7:28.

What you cannot do is separate sex from the obligations of marriage. That's called fornication and it is always a mortal sin.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes to all the above, within the confines of marriage.

Why? How does sharing property make the act not a sin?

 

[Skywalker]

That depends on the Christian's station in life and the obligations proper to that station. A monastic under vows is in a very different station than a married layperson.


Celibacy is superior. Matthew 19:11-12. But to marry and begin a family is also a most valid path for a Christian. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 1 Corinthians 7:28.

What you cannot do is separate sex from the obligations of marriage. That's called fornication and it is always a mortal sin.

So marriage is kinda a necessary evil? The Christian teachings on sexuality make the idea of marriage unappealing and almost creepy, because it almost seems like a necessary evil to me.

 

[David1967]

Why? How does sharing property make the act not a sin?

Sharing property?

 

[Skywalker]

Sharing property?

Isn't that what marriage means? When people think of marriage, they usually think of a church ceremony and the girl wearing a fancy white dress and changing her name, but there are people who get married without that-for example, justice of peace weddings and keeping the maiden name. Those things i mentioned things are just things people do when they get married.

 

[David1967]

Isn't that what marriage means?

Not necessarily. Many couples especially if a second marriage , have a prenuptial agreement that seperates property owned prior to marriage. Not sure I understand your meaning of sin regarding this.

 

[Skywalker]

Not necessarily. Many couples especially if a second marriage , have a prenuptial agreement that seperates property owned prior to marriage. Not sure I understand your meaning of sin regarding this.

So what does marriage mean? I read on reddit that it means getting benefits from the government, but the problem with that is that marriage is an older institution than governments, and people in civil unions get benefits.

 

[Glaurung]

So marriage is kinda a necessary evil? The Christian teachings on sexuality make the idea of marriage unappealing and almost creepy, because it almost seems like a necessary evil to me.

Neither marriage or sex are "evils".

 

[Skywalker]

Neither marriage or sex are "evils".

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/necessary-evil

something unpleasant that must be accepted in order to achieve a particular result:

Marriage is the deodorizer to justify animalistic acts done by human beings. Is that incorrect?

I just don't see the logic, how sharing money or property somehow magically transforms an act into something else.