Was that an agreement or a disagreement?
Submitted by Ray on March 03 1999 at 12:01:41
In reply to Paul & sex Submitted by F.O.D. on March 03 1999 at 10:33:20
|
Hi F.O.D. er Ray "I wish that I was you..." hehe Fathers of the 4th century, upholds the definition of a person as ecstatic and hypostatic. wow! what substance were those guys abusing?? I've always maintained a deep suspicion that the ruling Western philosophy of individualism and "self-realisation" is sinisterly dangerous. The Bible has lots to say about the Church being one body, though made up of many. I like the idea that we are defined as a person only by the relationships we share. Now, hadn't I already said I don't believe procreation is the main point of a sexual relationship. I don't see why you're downplaying the place of marriage in the NT though. Church ministers are instructed to be of but one wife. "Keep the marriage bed pure" doesn't seem to be implying we can hold a relaxed view of the marriage relationship. That the modern church denigrates heterosexual celibacy seems more to indicate a problem with the church than with the place of celibacy. I probably missed your other point again. I'm going away for a few days so maybe I'll get it when I return ;) Maybe the point is that in our relationships we are energised to fulfilling God's will (participating in the war, to use my own lanuage), but the exclusiveness of a sexual relationship is a hampering of that fulfillment, or something along those terms. Love, Fod |