Sex and the REAL Meaning of "Adultery" (Questioning Christianity - Part 2/3)

In this video I discuss adultery's lost meaning, following an exploration of superstitious attitudes about sex and lust that have plagued Western society for centuries. Even as a Christian, I had no idea how ridiculous it could get, and seeing the absurdity of it all made me realize that my own views were skewed, fueled by the irrational fears handed down over the centuries. The fact that "God" did nothing to correct the church's absurd views of sex for centuries left me disillusioned and disheartened with the faith.

The ideas presented in this video were pointed out in a number of books I studied, especially "Divine Sex" by Philo Thelos and "The Poisoning of Eros" by Raymond J. Lawrence, Jr.

-----
Footnote at 7:32 - I realize I am making a claim here without providing any references to specific, reputable scientific studies, so please do your own research rather than take my word for it. It is normal to have a lowered sex drive when dealing with immense stress. When I talk about going for significant lengths of time without sex, the assumption is that you are attempting to suppress your own desires a little too much as they naturally occur. I would also like to emphasize that "health" here refers to more than just the physical--do not forget psychological, emotional, and mental health.

Regarding the statement immediately after this (about the link between sexual repression and violent crime in society), again, I urge you to research it yourself rather than take my word for it. I am simply pointing out that this is my own understanding, rather than attempting to reference a specific study.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• sex
• Bible
• Christianity
• sexuality
• Jesus
• Christ
• Catholic
• Augustine
• Tertullian
• Jerome
• fornication
• adultery
• bloodline
• religion
• spirituality
• superstition
• lust
• polygamy

[ALDean292]

But, wouldn't the heart attitude by definition include what God wanted? And therefore, if (just for a moment accept that for the sake of argument) God said sex before marriage was wrong, wouldn't any kind of heart attitude, even if that was all that mattered, that wouldn't bow to what God said be a wrong heart attitude? And therefore, it truly would be the heart attitude that mattered and the heart attitude that was wrong.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 See how difficult it is to lose your rule-based paradigm? You want a rule, such as no sex outside of marriage. But God isn't interested in that, he's interested in your heart. Do you think you can impress him by obeying a rule out of fear, at the expense of your willingness to live from the heart?

[ALDean292]

@scotthorlbeck I am sorry to hear that... Guilt is not an illusion, it is a very real consequence of disobeying the God of the universe, for which He has condemned us to hell. I would love to make a difference in your life, I pray that you know Jesus as saviour and that you know He is the only way to escape our destiny.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 Thank you. And I wish you well, hoping you will realize that guilt is based on a sense of wanting to be "good enough" to be acceptable to others, and that there is not one shred of evidence that hell exists, and that belief in such a place DOES constitute superstition. Take care.

[ALDean292]

heart to truly be pure towards the other if they are having sex before marriage, because a truly pure heart would wait. For a variety of reasons, sex before marriage can cause all kinds of issues. The people are less likely to be faithful once actually, married, you deal with the possibility of unwanted pregnancies, diseise, etc... And, since God's plan is to wait, a pure heart would do what God wishes, and wait til marriage.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 I expected you would say that. Is it possible there is a good pure heart attitude outside of marriage, in a situation you are unable to foresee, where the heart attitude is what matters? If you can't see this possibility, then you are the one bound by legalism, failing to consider your OWN point about heart attitude.

[ALDean292]

And, who said I was obeying by fear? For one, we ARE to reverently fear God. "Fear not him that can harm your body, but he who has power over the soul", (a close paraprhase). Secondly, who says obeying the rule puts my obeying from the heart at risk? In fact, the two walk hand in hand. When my heart attitude is right, then not only will I want to accomplish what's right, I will want to do it in God's way, and therefore, have both the proper heart attitude and the proper actions.

[ALDean292]

So, to answer the question, as I have said before, God is interested in the rule, but He typically states it in less than a "Thou shalt not" format, by way of principles, etc. There is nothing ridiculous or far fetched about this. You don't ask that everyone treat you only in EXACTLY the way that you painstakingly specifically spell out, there are understood things, or things that people learn by interacting with you. God is the similar in that respect.

[ALDean292]

Ok, maybe I have been stating this wrong... It obviously isn't just the heart attitude or just the action, it's both. My point in bringing that up was that in Matthew, along with the other issues Jesus addresses, He tells them that they have been viewing it legalistically, and taking just the actions part. He talks about adultery being more than just the sexual act, murder being more than just the physical, it includes hate, love needing to extend to those who hate us, not just those who're kind

[ALDean292]

@scotthorlbeck I can understand that, thank you for the answer.

[scotthorlbeck]

@ALDean292 And I care about what Christians think because the ideas they spread (which I used to preach) are harmful and superstitious, loading people down with all kinds of unnecessary guilt and shame.