stephan huller

no actually I don't think I've derailed the thread. the early Christians argued that desire was bad and making babies was worse. the fact that a man would likely never want an old woman who had already gone through menopause is probably taken for granted. but in the modern age with a sensibility about sex that has been completely filtered through generations of Christian monogamy has perhaps raised an interesting dilemma for early Christians like Clement, Origen, Methodius and the heresies too. If a man was married to a fifty five year old woman and decided to have sex with her - and especially if he was under the influence of viagra - I can't see a logical reason why any of those Christians could raise an objection.

sotto voce

'Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him.' Ps 127:3 NIV

'A helper in the church must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.' 1 Ti 3:12

Sheshbazzar

The religious beliefs and practices of the Early Christian church, if we are to believe the reports of early Christian writers, was one totally weird and mixed bag of extremes.
On one hand there would have been those who were convinced that it was a Commandment, the express will of their God, and a moral imperative for all men to 'be fruitful and multiply' (Gen 1:28) and fill their 'quiver full of arrows' (Psa 127:3-5, 128:3) Which when coupled with stories like the Abraham and Sarah example would have kept 'em a'banging away as being an express religious obligation as often, and for as long as they could, until they dropped dead.

On the other hand we have such advice as presented in 1Cor 7:7-8 and 7:32-33 which discourages marriage as being an unnecessary distraction that by its very nature places the husband in an position of being more devoted to serving the will and whims of his wife than to the serving of his God, with being married to a wife bordering on unfaithfulness, and hence bachelorhood and a total abstinence from engaging in sex is the preferable ideal.
In this scenario the man that marries has thus demoted himself to a second class status within the church hierarchy, and the sex-free batchlors get to pretty much run the show and call the shots, making religious pronouncements and running (or ruining) the lives of everybody else.

Then at the other extreme there are those who hold that the highest expression of religious devotion to their Jebus god is to cut off their st. peter so making themselves into "eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake" (Matt 19:12)

With this kind of mixed bag of advice, anyone can find themselves in a verse or two excuses to do whichever they find most appealing.
And if the Biblical texts don't say exactly what they want, they make up their own horse shit 'interpretations' and writings, and rules, and engage in whatever form of religious lunacy they want. So they did, and so they do.

Bronzeage

You talk about Viagra as if it were like heroin or cocaine. There is no such thing as "under the influence of Viagra." It does not alter perception.

How would the sensibility of sex in the modern age present a dilemma for people in the first century?

stephan huller

The best argument against religion is that it has been made obsolete by changes in our culture. My only point is that it is now possible to have sex (a) without desire and (b) without making children. I presume that in the old days men found it difficult to get aroused with old ladies. That is undoubtedly still true to this day.

There are also of course sterile women who can't have children even at 20 years of age. They are nevertheless going to partake in the attractiveness associated with young 'meat.' As the French say, all cats are grey at night.

stephan huller

Apparently it is not a French expression but:

Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, explaining why to take an older woman to bed[1], but appears in John Heywood's book of proverbs (1546) as 'When all candles be out, all cats be gray.'

sotto voce

Then are we to believe that professional theologians over many centuries devoted themselves to total weirdness? Or that one internet poster shames them all?

While there may be apparent contradiction, perhaps one merely needs proper, professional exegesis.

Genesis does not say that. The allegory reflects the superiority of humanity over animals, command already obeyed, command de facto. Off to a pretty awful start, eh.

Oh, yes, the psalms we were just reminded of.

Find the logic in that, dear reader.

Hierarchy? What hierarchy? Are we to suppose that the real church is so terrifying that it necessitates thugs of Satan to keep it under control?

The emphasis changes in the NT because of the urgency of the gospel, and because of persecution. As is very obvious, the biblical precept is constant that there is no objection in principle to marriage and procreation, natural consequences of the created world; though neither are they obligatory on any one individual. Marriage is permissible for both elders and helpers in the church. But because of the demands and the dangers of evangelisation, or even of just minding one's own business as a Christian, it may be preferable to remain single. That is light years from the notion that Christians somehow marry themselves, and think that sexual intercourse is wrong, as is now suggested in this forum. Absolutely potty ideas. Though perhaps useful for those who favour monasticism and the thug-led religion it promotes.

Those are antichrist thugs, of course. Antichrists everywhere have only their own sort to blame if they find their sexual behaviour circumscribed, because Christians don't care. The Christian is a christ-ian, i.e., delivers only the message that there is a christ, or saviour, who changes one's own attitude to the way one behaves, making legalism redundant. Legalism that represents itself as Christian is fatal, is Satanic, according to the Bible. As can be seen as readily as any other of its ideas. Like this:

'Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?' 1 Co 9:5 NIV

Is this serious?

Bronzeage

Sex without desire? Women have been doing that for a very long time. Men, maybe not so much.

You will need to gather more data if you want to support these assertions. How old are you?

outhouse

I doubt that has anything to do with it.

your talking about people who thought the end was near early on un the movement.

as the movement gained strength after the fall of the temple, it became more positive.

not everyone early on was reading pauls negativity

stephan huller

i'm not sure it's that simple. first off, who was the messiah of the christian tradition? it wasn't jesus. so say the marcionites and many others. even the gospel used by those who claim that jesus = christ is not convincing