Original Sin and Deviant Behavior

[MoralValues.info]

Remaining "outmoded" State laws invalidating deviant sexual behavior and premarital sex continue to be overturned by state and federal courts. Just recently a Southern State Supreme Court overturned a law prohibiting premarital sex, and a Texas law barring deviant sex will come before the US Supreme Court.

Modern society assumes that the elmination of these laws is the path to a free and fair society, but is it?

With the new morals has come a wealth of terminated pregnancies, children confused into believing they were born into the wrong sex body, an epidemic of deadly sexually transmitted diseases, rampant pornography, and an increase in violent crime against women to the degree that it is unsafe to walk the streets at night.

Ancient religions could not prohibit a child from being a valid participant in the birth process. To do so is ungodly and absurd. Therefore, any form of birth control is anti-religious, and it is equally wrong to terminate an unborn child or bring an unwanted child into the world. The only things left are the principles of religion: Self control, respect for others and for the body, and a shunning of short-lived physical pleasures for high spiritual values such as the adoring (as opposed to cursing) of a newborn child.

Saint Augustine of Hippo, an important early Christian Church figure, wrote that thought of child must be first and foremost in the mind of the couple or it is sin. It is, in fact original sin, and the explanation for how every child is born in sin and imperfect, short of a family unity that should have been his by birthright.

This simple religious principle isn't winning any popularity tests these days, even among Christians. One may think the Catholic Church has not lost the ancient truth, but it has, at least somewhat, and has to an extent institutionalized a reverse policy with the condoning of the rhythm system, embraced as a workaround, so that Augustine's ancient teachings would remain valid and the modern flock appeased. However, the baby was literally thrown out with the bathwater, for the new Catholic requirement to be "open to life" simply places the child second fiddle to the desiring of physical pleasures and entirely loses Augustines message and warning.

Once the concept of "thought of child" is understood, then all of the ills and rationales of a deviant society fall apart. Homosexuality is illogical and stupid, for no child can come of it. Masturbation will cause (spiritual) blindness. Premarital sex can no longer be justifiable. Children will plan their child's future by making a lifetime contract in advance, because they've been taught to respect the to-be-born life, and nothing less. Adultry will become an absurdity, because no child will be desired.

A continuation down the present path accomplishes exactly the opposite. Of course two men can "love" each other, and why should not a man "love" his younger female employees and share this joy with them. What purpose can there be for two kids in love to wait until marriage?

A society may be able to withstand the legalizing of such activities but will have real problems when the moral voice of the ancient Church caves into it, problems that are very self-evidenct. They won't get any better until we do.

[DouglasKC]

Saint Augustine of Hippo, an important early Christian Church figure, wrote that thought of child must be first and foremost in the mind of the couple or it is sin. It is, in fact original sin, and the explanation for how every child is born in sin and imperfect, short of a family unity that should have been his by birthright.

Thanks for posting this. It's very interesting.

I'm not sure if I agree with this...does this mean that there is no justfication for sex between a married couple without the goal of creating a child?

[narses]

Ping.

[MoralValues.info]

This would be true, and Augustine addresses it, saying that a man that does otherwise reduces his wife to the role of a prostitute, and he argues that when a child does come of it there will be resentment, creating conflict in the marriage. A reasonable person might ask why simply obtaining a (marriage) license will authenticate a behavior, and the logical answer is that it will not. The behavior must be authentic. A marriage license is for security of the children and protection of the mother, not for "having sex" (not a purchasing of a life long prostitute). Children are the important element. They are lasting and are eternal. We should focus on those things that are lasting and shun the desire for earthly physical pleasures that neither see nor hear nor walk, or here today and gone tomorrow.

Present logic is contradictory. One should love his brother yet love has been redefined to be the sex act. It's no wonder that homosexuality is rampant. The sex act is the beginning process of birth. Those wishing to abuse it will have to live with the consequence, and see a soceity full of broken and problem children.

People typically will not agree with an things which affects themselves. We find no problem in criticizing homosexuality or adultry, and homosexuals haven't a problem condemning our contrary (and seeming hypocritcal) values, and impatient youth reject parental attitudes of waiting until marriage. Each one knows that just the other is wrong. Religion requires us to look within and change ourselves, and this corrects the shortcoming of others.

[onedoug]

Personally, I believe no one should have sex with anyone with whom they are not prepared to accept the possibility of, and the consequences and responsibility for nascent human life, which is really just another way of saying no sex other in heterosexual monogomous marriage.

[DouglasKC]

A marriage license is for security of the children and protection of the mother, not for "having sex" (not a purchasing of a life long prostitute). Children are the important element. They are lasting and are eternal. We should focus on those things that are lasting and shun the desire for earthly physical pleasures that neither see nor hear nor walk, or here today and gone tomorrow.

Hmmm...I guess I would still disagree if I'm reading this right. Sex is holy and good because it can lead to the creation of children, but it doesn't cease to be holy and good when engaged in within the framework setup by...i.e. a married man and woman. God gave us sexual pleasure and part of building love, a oneness, a bond, between a man and a woman is intimate physical contact.

Eating when hungry can be pleasurable as is a cold glass of water on a hot day. The bodies God gave us has needs and God provided mates in part to satisfy those needs. Of course sex shouldnt' be the primary focus, but it's certainly important.

Present logic is contradictory. One should love his brother yet love has been redefined to be the sex act. It's no wonder that homosexuality is rampant. The sex act is the beginning process of birth. Those wishing to abuse it will have to live with the consequence, and see a soceity full of broken and problem children.

I'll agree with that. Sex is no more love than eating is. But sex is an a way to build a bond and a relationship that will strengthen the family.

A question: Should a marreid couple physically unable to produce children have sex?

[MoralValues.info]

Hmmm...I guess I would still disagree if I'm reading this right. Sex is holy and good because it can lead to the creation of children, but it doesn't cease to be holy and good when engaged in within the framework setup by...i.e. a married man and woman. God gave us sexual pleasure and part of building love, a oneness, a bond, between a man and a woman is intimate physical contact.

What you argue is agreed to even by most contemporary churches, but I believe you will have a difficult time justifying it by scripture. "Having sex" for any purpose but for producing a newborn requires an intentional blocking of a life from being produced, and cannot be construed as anything but a selfish act, from a religious perspective.

Churches have redefined the sexual act as a family unity issue but it in reality causes jealousies and separation. A look at the number of divorces in present times should be ample enough proof. Does mom and dad having sex really bring their children closer to them and strengthen the family? Was this a message of Christ or any other religious teacher? The answer is clearly No!

If Christ condemned fornicating and adultry and did not condon marriage or say it was necessary to religion then what can be the purpose of marriage? It is a lifetime security for the mother and children, and the better solution for those lacking discipline and self-control.

It may be that, as with other habits, the engaging in repeated sexual activity while having no desire for children, whether married or not, will bring a spiritul dullness and cause one to lose sight of the purpose of religion, and the desired family unity may become a family of misfits and rebellous children, and this of course is commonplace now.

A question: Should a marreid couple physically unable to produce children have sex?

For one who has come to accept the religious idea that the birth process is pleasurable for the very reason that it produces children, the idea of a couple "having sex" when they are incapable of producing a child (and not dreaming for a miracle) will be as foolish a behavior as is homosexuality, either being the performing of a futile act and the sending of a message to others that the new life of a child is of little importance when compared to the experiencing of physical pleasures, and may be compromised for that end.

The strict position of an honoring of the birth process entirely eliminates the social sexual ills that our nation is presently experiencing, and any deviation will compromise a religious and healthy reversal. With the sexual process respected as a birth process, there can be no justification for homosexuality or sex outside of marriage, or other deviant sexual practices. The justifying of sexual pleasures within marriage with child out of the equation perverts the message and turns it on end. If marriage is for the experiencing of sexual pleasures then no reason exists for two men not to "marry", or for children to "marry" in thought and experience this same pleasure taken for granted by their own parents, and of course incest and adultry will "rationally" follow. Weaker and confused fathers will try to "love" and find "unity" with their rebellous or distant children, as the church pastor instructed him to do for his wife. The "cure" may be literally the problem, regarding family unity. When you compormise religious ideals out of desire for pleasures, others will also, particularly when "you" represents the established church.

Ghandi, a 1940's era religious and political leader in India, wrote about the wholsomeness of abstinence, and it's healthy effect on him, but I believe "abstinence" is the wrong term, and should imply the abstaning from producing children, not "sex".

I understand your balking at the strict and seemingly foreign idea, but such thinking was mainstream just 50 or so years ago, prior to the "sexual revolution", and was a cornerstone of Catholic and other Christian thought. Early pilgrims, steeped in strict religious priniples, fully understood that sexual activity was for the producing of children and to be otherwise shunned as lustful activity, and that a break from this practice was damaging to society's most precious commodity: newborn children.

In my opinion, our religious ancesters never fully reconciled the feelings of lust with the bearing of children, fulfiling the bibilical scriptures of children being "born in sin", but the resolving of this riddle will cast off the chain of imperfection with genuine family unity.

[MoralValues.info]

Modern birth control and termination methods can entirely eliminate your justification for the requirement of monogomous marriage, and homosexuality is not applicable to it at all. The policy will bring about a natural erosion of moral standards, and has.

[ninenot]

Nope.

Quotations from St. Augustine litter the landscape in the internecine wars between Catholics over the question of regulation of birth. Generally, those who quote St.A. do so to 'stick it to' the current Pope and his predecessor, Paul VI. Be careful when you read this stuff.

The properly-formed Catholic couple understands that contraceptive utilization is a grave moral evil because by their very nature, contraceptives thwart nature for the purpose of preventing conception. (Newer 'contraceptives' prevent implantation, which is equivalent to abortion--obviously ALSO a grave moral evil.)

However, those couples who do NOT thwart nature and are open to the possibility of procreation with every act of intercourse are not sinners.

Further, there is ample moral justification for use of sympto-thermal (best) or rhythm (better.) For example, in the case that should a woman be subject to grave physical harm or death due to pregnancy, avoiding relations at the fertile time is perfectly acceptable. It's a little more murky when using economic considerations to "justify" avoidance of conception, and a couple should seek solid spiritual guidance on this.

HOWEVER, John Paul II got into 'hot water' with some by working out a natural-law approach to sexual relations. In his approach (briefly and not-TOO-accurately,) one begins by observing nature in the act of intercourse. This act produces BOTH marital satisfaction AND (sometimes) children. JPII went on to state that since both these effects were inseparable, it is wrong to think that the act is limited to either one or the other effect.

Thus, he effectively moved the "effects" of intercourse from a heirarchical order (first children, then marital satisfaction) to a co-equal: both at once.

This drives some people nuts, but seems obvious to me. All he did was propose that nature (as created by God) was right.

The nerve of him....

[ninenot]

Having sex" for any purpose but for producing a newborn requires an intentional blocking of a life from being produced, and cannot be construed as anything but a selfish act, from a religious perspective.

Such perspective is you happen to be a Jansenist, maybe.

If I have relations with my wife and it does NOT result in pregnancy, is this wrong?

By your definition above, it IS wrong.

I think you want to re-state your definition more clearly.

[ninenot]

We can certainly agree that deliberately "sterilified" sexual relations, whether homosex or hetero-chemically-birth-preventing sex, are moral equivalents.

They are both un-natural acts.

[ninenot]

I understand your balking at the strict and seemingly foreign idea, but such thinking was mainstream just 50 or so years ago, prior to the "sexual revolution", and was a cornerstone of Catholic and other Christian thought.

You are wrong. Pius XII, the Pope who reigned 50 years ago (and more...) had no problem with marital sexual relations which did NOT produce children.

HOWEVER, the Church has ALWAYS taught that it is possible to 'lust' for one's own wife in an improper manner.

JPII filled this out with his theology of the body, in which he proposed that sexual relations have an integrity which BEGINS with GIVING of self, not TAKING of another.

With this understanding, it is perfectly clear that self-satisfaction per se is not moral.

The challenge, of course, is in not making unwarranted assumptions about those who are childless---it's entirely possible that the condition is a result of some irreversible physical problem, and it is entirely perverse (I say again, PERVERSE) to declare that marital relations between people who have a physical bar to procreation is sinful.

Re-state your thesis more clearly, please.

[onedoug]

Thank you.

I believe heterosexual monogamous marriage is holy, and that sex within it is holy with the acceptance of the possibility, consequences of and responsibility for potential reproduction as I mentioned. I don't believe in artificial birth control, nor in homosexuality either.... Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

If - God forbid - I were widowed, I cannot say I would never have sex with another woman again. Though it would definitely be with this notion in mind as I believe it is the ideal borne out by Torah and ethical monotheism.

[DouglasKC]

What you argue is agreed to even by most contemporary churches, but I believe you will have a difficult time justifying it by scripture. "Having sex" for any purpose but for producing a newborn requires an intentional blocking of a life from being produced, and cannot be construed as anything but a selfish act, from a religious perspective.

I think there are scriptural precedents for my position. For example:

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

In a physical sense man and women actually become one flesh when engaged in copulation. I think the reading here is that since woman and man were once literally once flesh, then it's natural now for them to be one flesh.

Note that this comes after and is separate from the command to be "fruitful and multiply" and isn't mentioned in the context of conception.

When condemning sexual immorality, Paul uses the same physical comparasion of two becoming one flesh:

1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Paul also makes a rather clear statement on sexual relations in 1 Corinthians:

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

God's Word Translation renders 1 Co 7:3 as:

1Co 7:3 Husbands and wives should satisfy each other's sexual needs.

I think that what Paul is saying is that within the context of marriage between a man and a woman, sexual release and pleasure without the objective of having children is perfectly normal and natural.

Churches have redefined the sexual act as a family unity issue but it in reality causes jealousies and separation. A look at the number of divorces in present times should be ample enough proof. Does mom and dad having sex really bring their children closer to them and strengthen the family? Was this a message of Christ or any other religious teacher? The answer is clearly No!

Sexual acts outside of marriage and sexual lusting after others mentally or spiritually is certainly the cause for many, many divorces. But a Godly sexual relationship with your spouse does build and strengthen a family...at least it does mine. :-)

I understand your balking at the strict and seemingly foreign idea, but such thinking was mainstream just 50 or so years ago, prior to the "sexual revolution", and was a cornerstone of Catholic and other Christian thought.

I realize the history, but I'm having a tough time finding any scripture that indicates that sex is only to be used for procreation. Do you have any references?

[ET(end tyranny)]

Note that this comes after and is separate from the command to be "fruitful and multiply" and isn't mentioned in the context of conception.

Fruitful and multiply are found in the first creation. These words are absent in the second creation.

[MoralValues.info]

I had never heard of Cornelis Jansen until just now when I looked it up.

The rhythm system of the Catholic Church is kind of a loophole in Augustine's law. Augustine said the child must come first, but the Church has the child playing second fiddle.

By what I'm suggesting, if you have relations with your wife out of desire by both to have a child and with a presumption by both that the act might indeed produce a child then it is very right. Otherwise it is wrong.

Consider that a child conceived (or even feared to have been conceived) by any other primary reason by you or by your wife will likely result in resentment and perhaps anger or fear, and will destroy family unity. This was Augustine's primary concern. Modern birth control methods still hold the same concerns: a society teaching no respect for the birth process will produce a lot of unwanted babies and unhappy or terminated children, plus the sexual orientation confusion issue.

[MoralValues.info]

I said 50 year or so, and you've provided example of about the past 50 years or so. I don't recall which Pope changed Catholic policy. It was sometime between the 1930's-1950's, and more like the latter, I believe. It may have been Pius XII, but I think it was John. I seem to recall tha Pius stopped short of endorsing natural birth control.

Regardless, it is clear the the rhythm system is contrary to Augustine's message, and Augustine is a foundation of all of the Christian Church (because he lived prior to the Protestant separation), but particularly Catholic.

This idea must hold that any sexual relations of any kind are wrong when no child is desired. Religion teaches to love others, but not to have sex with others. A person need not have sex with his wife to love his wife.

[MoralValues.info]

Well, we must look at these quotes with an understanding that none actually encourages an intentional blocking of a child, not even hinting of the rhythm system except possibly due to a lack of self-control, so I don't believe there is a justification found in these (excepting for those with no self-control). Some are also necessarily out of context, and this: "Husbands and wives should satisfy each other's sexual needs" is an interpretion, not exact quote.

None are inconsistant with Augustine, who said that love and pleasures should not be witheld or shunned, and all must be read with an understanding that large families were generally desired at the time, so a marital partner's "needs" cannot be viewed similarly as it would now, with limited births advantageous and modern birth control available. Sexual desires and for increased family size were congruous.

Where we can best look to answer the different needs of modern society would be the underlying religious principles taught by Christ.

Your supplied quote: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband", rather than speaking of the rightness of sex, seems to be a warning that man's failure of self-control is better served by marriage and loyalty to one person. Let's focus on those words "to avoid fornication". This is a primary message of Christ, that fornication is unholy. Augustine, who lived only a few hunderd years after Christ, proceeds to lay down a law that a man desiring not a child essentially "fornicates" with his wife by reducing her to the level of a prostitute, because what he requires of her is no diferent than what he would demand from the prostitute.

Christ placed no real importance on marriage, instructing the flock to love one another, but he condemned fornication. He also warned that to look at a women with lust is a sin equal to adultry. Was he excluding a man's wife? It wouldn't seem so. Lust is condemned, as are jealosies, possessions, etc. It would seem that Christ would equally condemn the looking at one's wife with lust, a truth clearly understood by Augustine. He could not have made the exclusion: "he who looks at a woman other than his wife with lust", for a wife is then indeed thrust into the role of a prostitute, there being only the lifetime commitment separating differentiating the two. This cannot be Christ's stern spiritual message, instead representing hypocracy.

Thus, becoming "one flesh" cannot mean lust, but must mean something much greater. Can two people give of each other while blocking a child from being born? There is an illogic to this, the giving by the withholding of a new life. It cannot be true.

Augustine's mesage, however, seems to generate new problems for a modern marriage. How do marital partners render "due benevolence" to each other? If Augustine is to be believed, it is hardly a kindly act for a man to reduce his wife to the role of a prostitute, or for one to lust after the other. Due benevolence thus may take on a very different meaning when marital partners find it unwise to bring forth new family members.

[MoralValues.info]

I quickly read through your reference and will try to study it more thoroughly when I have more time. Nothing in it seeems to be inconsistent with Augustine's message.

I note this: "[Marital sex] ensured that sex no longer dominated society"

Jewish/Christian society has begun slipping back into excactly what the article argues marital sex brought the world out of: a sex crazed society. And it is exactly because the society took a wrong direction when the choice came about of accepting or rejecting birth control. With the former, sex again moves to the forefront of society, and all of the ills of earlier civilizations; homosexuality, premarital sex, adulty, incest, beastality, come back! What caused Western moral values to work was the limiting of sexual activities to the bringing forth of children, and rejecting it as entertainment. Birth control reverses that entirely. Sex dominates society as a primary form of entertainment, and we can easily see the results materialize right before us. I now receive undesired emails sexual advertisements that become more and more bold daily, and they cannot be outlawed because the society has accepted sex as a "liberty" of the people rather than the disease that it is. When married couples use sex for entertainment then sex is for entertainment.

[onedoug]

I personally believe that there's nothing wrong with married couples enjoying sex, even to the point of fantasizing whatever they will, so long as the Commandment enjoining (even consentual) adultery is observed, and given the acceptance of the potential for new life, as I've mentioned.

I believe God wants us to be free and happy, yet good, always through the understanding that freedom without responsibility is hedonism, which is contributive of evil.

L'chaim!