Sexual expression: your opinion

This was the day when Schraf revealed her complete lack of need for intelligent pillow talk.

For all of you that enjoy sex and think of God as some cranky old spoil sport, it is worth noting that model for it, as rolled off the factory floor was designed by him. There was no need to make it as enjoyable as it is - it could have made as much fun and have been as unavoidable as breathing - after all.Whether one considers spannering on the original to produce a custom-made version to be a good thing or not is, I think, down to the individual.Of all the variations on the theme that are possible (and the fact that I have tried to find satisfaction through my production of a wide variety of custom-models puts me in a position to comment) I cannot avoid the conclusion that the very best is that which is produced by the maker himself. The model called making love."And the two shall become one flesh" kind of puts it in a nutshell for me

Sexual expression? I suppose it's like any form of expression. One can express oneself physically and range from lovingly stroking a baby to punching someone in the face. Vocally it can range too: soft words whispered to a baby to screaming abuse at a motorist.If my world view contains no room for a God-ordained plan against which to evaluate and control self-expression, then I am left in the position of deciding it for myself. There is no absolute right and wrong as such. It is my own belief regarding right and wrong which operates - influenced to greater or lesser extent by the norms of the society I live in /nature of my upbringing etc.Society may have different views than me and it has the power to impose it's collective will on me (putting me into jail when I abuse a child, for example). In that case, it is simply a question of majority rule, with society deciding, arbitarily, that the action is 'wrong'. Whilst I may be locked up, I am under no compunction to agree with societies norms - and am free to maintain the view that I am right. And free to continue to act as I see fit once released.Right or wrong? Its up to me alone.In the case that my world view recognises God's ultimate authority to instruct on matters of self-expression, then the situation, although not laid out in detail, is reasonably clear. No sex before marriage and monogamous relationship for life with one spouse. No room for adultery,lust,fetishes etc. Naturally few attain this ideal. But there is room made for failing to achieve it. The goal is to reach for this ideal in so far as one can. Thus, whilst porn is wrong, involving amongst other things, lust, one can turn to God and be forgiven for indulging in it. I can accept that it is wrong (in an absolute, "it is actually wrong" sense) and attempt to reach again for the ideal. A fresh start as it were. I, of course, am not left alone in my pursuit of right expression. God assists in the process of repentance (turning away from wrong). But of course I have to know him to be able to listen to him.My own view on the reasoning God has for putting the limits he puts on sexual self-expression et al is less to do with his desire to control for controls sake and more to do with us not causing damage to ourselves and others. There is a natural attribute of humanity that leads them to enjoy excitement. There is nothing I know of in life which gives the same level of excitement, after a period of involvement, as it did in the beginning - when it is first done. First bungee jump, first motorcycle ride, first sexual intercourse. All these things may be continued in and many things found out about them which deepen the interest. But for raw excitement (pleasurable or otherwise), the first time(s) are typically the most exciting.Should one want to sustain the quality and flavour of excitment as originally experienced, one must over time and of necessity, seek a more intensified version of the original. Such is, I think, the mechanism whereby a person ends up molesting children in public parks. They weren't born that way but over time, a step by step series of decisions led them to that point. No one step taken was any bigger a step compared to the previous steps taken - each small step further replenishes and reinvigorates the quality of the excitement experienced at the beginning.It could be drugs, it could be sex, it could be drink, it could be materialism, it could be career. Same thing, same mechanism. Not for nothing is our society locked in an destructive embrace with the concept of MORE.Not everyone will allow things to reach rock-bottom (a term which pre-supposes such a judgement has some absolute validity). People will for various reasons manage to control and hold things at a certain level, not willing to pay the price required in order to gain that offered by the next step. For now. In suspending oneself over the the abyss one is taking a real gamble. To say that I am in full control and that I will never succumb and plumb further the 'depths' and that "a bit of porm" or "a bit wife-swapping is as far as I go" might be the case. It might not. What is true to say with regard to sexual expression, is that hard-core porn, fetishism, orgies, lap dancing and the like are the reserve of the people who have taken many mini-steps and are now far away from their start position. I imagine that like any drug, the need to increase the dosage amount and frequency increases the further I traval alongThe question God asks is: "why suspend yourself over the abyss in the first place?As with any medication one should always read the label...Edited to tidy upThis message has been edited by iano, 25-Nov-2005 06:41 PM

"He who lusts commits adultery" said Jesus. I truly wonder if someone can look at a porn movie without lusting. Like isn't that the very point of it? Your showing all the signs of religiousity yourself there Holmes - "if it ain't written specifically in the rule book then it ain't breaking the law" Spirit of the law anyone?p.s. After saving the prostitute from state sanctioned stoning, Jesus told her to go and "sin no more". He wasn't sanctioning her actions. He was forgiving her her actions. Different thing altogetherReligious fanatics? Kettle/pot/black Holmes, kettle/pot/black

Lust after another woman was Jesus context. One can twist and turn it to make ones own case appear noble. But sure anything can appear noble. "I'm watching porn on my own so that I won't submit to temptation to screw my neighbours wife. Or "I molested the teenager so as to offset the desire I have to molest babies" Jesus wasn't being subjective. Simple command: lusting after another woman is sin. And one can't watch porn of another woman without lusting after her I submit. See clarification above. Jesus was expanding in the context of OT adultery. Not punish due to the punishers being also guilty of sin. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" and "Judge not lest you be judged" And I agree. It is not for me to judge anothers actions. But there is nothing in what Jesus said that implied not restricting the behaviour. The NT way of dealing with such things was to deny a person community within the church so long as the behaviour continued. This was not punishing the behaviour but was stating that such behaviour would not be tolerated within the context of the church until the person repented of it. A mother throwing heroid addicted son out of the house is not punishment - it is protecting the rest of the household from the behaviour of the son. Sorry, I wasn't being clear. Fanatics tend to have a twisted view of the way things are, nested within their fanaticism. Your exposition of the meaning behind what Jesus was talking about was a prime example of it I felt. You used 'Religion' to make your point in a way that has the hallmarks of fanaticism. That kind of makes you a quasi-Religious fanatic.

Firstly, I don't blame anyone. I was making the point that your inference (top) that God isn't anti-porn/prostitution - is wildly incorrect. One can nit-pick and say the bible doesn't prohibit this specific or that specific act. There's a lot more it doesn't specifically prohibit than home made porn if that's the way you'd like to view it. In the exact same place that every other person fits. He was a sinner so naturally enough, he sinned. Via lust in the case of Bathseeba. God tells us not to sin but he is not surprised that we do. He tells us not to so that when we do we are breaking his law and are thus condemnable.Smart heh! I thought I did. But to clarify. Yes, he was against it. Against judging others or punishing them in a corporal way. Jesus would never have used violence to punish. But he hates the action and in no way condones it. He can not be looked to for support of sexual immorality. There will be punishment for all these sins (assuming the person holds onto them until they die), that is for sure. But Jesus says it is for God to carry out the punishment then - not man now You were (only in passing I might add) seemingly pointing to God as a tentitive support of your view. This pulls the truth about what scripture says wildly out of context to suit own ends. Pulling truths out of context is a hallmark of fanaticism. That it used a 'Religious' arena to do so makes it religious fanaticism

I don't know what that has to do with my point. The bible won't support the stance that porn/prostitution is fine. It does the opposite. Prostitution is called sin, lusting after another is called sin. You seem to think that because it doesn't specifically state its stance on every single possible act of sexual immorality thaen those acts not mentioned are now okay. How do you know that? Anyway I find it hard to imagine porn not being an object focussed activity. Ones excitment has nothing to do with the object at all? You seem to be able to exptrapolate the teachings of the bible here whilst condeming my doing so a minute ago. There was no TV then, nor am I aware of violent sports in his time that he spoke against.Only kidding Holmes, sexual immorality in a Christian is considered 'worse' because it is a sin involving the body and mind in a very complete way. And the Christian has God residing in him so they are committing an offence against the very residence of God as it were. (see below) ...sure to get excited? I didn't. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with talk of breasts or orgasms or sexual excitement in and of itself. God made these things to be pleasant. Its not the existance of these things, its a persons reaction to them and what they do with them that matters. Like I was saying.... Relatively speaking, he wasn't that bad. I thought him murdering someone was worse myself. A believers sins, Davids included, get forgiven and are punished in Jesus. Make no mistake, all sin must be punished: either in Jesus or in the offender themselves. No exceptions. David was forgiven by God. As can anybody be.And David was king - he was the state. No one could punish him.All sin will be punished by God irrespective of what the state does or thinks. If it is sin it will be punished by God. If it is not (although the state may think that it is and punishes you for it) then it is not sin and won't be punished by God. Gods standard - not mans is what is used by God I don't think governments see it as sin. I think they see it as upholding a standard in order to prevent anarchy. Laws and punishment are required to do this. Goverments tend to think that if limits aren't placed on all kinds of behaviour then the slide will only be downwards. Take a stroll through the red-light district in Amsterdam sometime. Unrelenting porn and vice and perversity (my personal view) on open display. On public streets. There is nothing to stop a child walking by and being subject to it. This I would argue is a form of child abuse. Unless you would hold that there is no such thing as child abuse. (relevant to sexual sin above) Jesus was in the temple one day and the moneylenders were there wheeling and dealing. In anger he overturned the moneylenders tables. He was not punishing people for their sin, he was objecting to the disrespect shown for his fathers 'house' being used as a place for profiteering. There is a difference between wanting to prevent 'sin' having free reign and 'punishing' people for their sin. And the way you prevent people having free reign to sin in our society is to invoke laws. The Christians didn't make it this way - but they have a right (like everyone) to use the system to those ends (prevention) if they can. I thought is was about porn and possibly prostitution myself. Porn is patently lustful I've argued. A person who comes to see that and agree with that view will likely see home-porn in the same light. A person who views porn as okay won't see home porn as a problem. It's a kind of either/or I think. Jailing for punishment no. Exclusion from the society of the church to protect the church and cause the person to come to their senses yes. Do the fundis want punishment or do they want the person prevented from ruining (in their view) the society in which they live? I know they can be quite radical. (another question to ask yourself is: are they Christians in fact? Or do they just call themselves Christians?) He didn't condemn them. He convinced them they too were sinners s'all. (it was the greatest answer to a catch 22 question I've ever seen incidently). I said that tendency to pull passages wildly out of context was one hallmark of fanaticism. I was extrapolating perhaps unfairly to accuse you of it. My apolgies for the slight.How about the The Holmes Wayward Biblical Interpretation Sect? The people who don't pull a passage out of context are the ones who aren't fanatics. But seeing as we don't know which ones have it right (if any) then I suppose we can't call any of them fanatics just yet

Fair enough. It does. And if fundis are promoting coporal sanction as punishment then they are off target I reckon. They would be better off forgiving. This doesn't however remove their right to have action taken to prevent what they see as damage to the society they live in. Is imprisonment as prevention alright for a fundi to promote without conflicting with the bible Whether one gets the chance, desire in fact or intends to makes little difference. Lust doesn't require an act to be intended or to happen in order to exist I pointed out the occasion where Jesus actually got angry and expressed it violently. His fathers house being defiled. And the Christians body and mind is where God resides. Why is it that way? I don't know but it explains why Christians might be more concerned about that than other 'sin' Designed to evoke sexual imagery is one thing. But you seem to conclude that excitement is a given - an automatic response to it. It is not. I made the point that governments needed to draw lines in order to stop the slide downwards where there was no restraint. And there is a line in Amsterdam. It may be drawn in a different place than in the States but it is still there. There are rules governing it, licenses to be issued, sanitary checks to be conformed to etc. I don't seem to recall male prostitutes displaying in the windows. A limit even for the Dutch etc. I call it child abuse for the reason that children need to be protected from such imagery of bestiality in order to prevent the idea forming that it is in anyway normal. It is not normal. It is abnormal. I say this not in a judging fashion but simply that it is a fact.And there are good reasons to think that a child should be thought what normal behaviour constitutes in a general sense. Society relies on people knowing and conforming to what is considered normal and not partaking in what is not. No society can hold that any and all behaviour is normal and acceptable. The places in the world where such general constraint is removed are ones where anarchy reigns I dunno. When a bloke demands evidence for there being problem with kids being exposed to bestiality images one wonders... This stoning would have been a Roman crime. The Jews were not allowed to stone people to death. Jesus prevented a crime taking place.This stoning would have been a biblical crime. Both adulteress and adulterer must die under Mosaic law. Mosaic law was specific and allowed for no deviations.IOW - there is more to it than meets the eye Read the passage. Jesus anger had to do specifically with the defilement of his fathers house. How it was being defiled was not the point. I think if you read the passage you'll find that he didn't even do that. He just said "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" s'all. If you want to get to the meat and potatoes of where Jesus does stick in the boot in relation to religiousity and false piety and rules and regulations etc, then there is ample where he is dealing with the Pharisees. I'm pretty sure some fundi's who are representing him as badly as you say (and I don't think you are wrong in many ways) will be hearing similar words at some pointNot every fundi is a Christian.ps: And if you're ever get tired of life in the Roze Buurt http://www.amsterdam50.nl/index.phpIts not far from you