Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Sex, the Bible and the real world

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Putinism
    Posts
    5,212
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Sex, the Bible and the real world

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/o...ticles/5635807

    Sex, the Bible and the real world



    By Brian Sewell, Evening Standard
    8 July 2003


    There are many who absolutely believe in the holiness of Holy Writ, particularly those in the Evangelical wing of the Church of England who, with the casuistry of the skilled Jesuit, struggle to justify as God-given the Bible's every word.

    I am not one of them. It is time we recognised the Bible for what it is - a thing of three testaments, not two. The Old Testament is a compilation of convenient myth and a history of racial justification and aggrandisement, threaded through with rules of hygiene and behaviour, all devised to convince the Children of Israel that as God's chosen race, no matter what calamities befell them as victims of Babylon and Egypt and no matter what calamities they wantonly inflicted on other races and religions, they should strive to increase in number, power and extent.

    The New Testament, as expressed in the four Gospels, is a dispensation from the narrow and proscriptive uncharity of the Jews, appealing to the Greek and Latin temperament. And the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St Paul, that sanctimonious master of self-adulation, record his efforts, physical and intellectual, to reverse the generosity of Christ's Christianity and wrestle the hopeful new religion back into the stifling folds of Jewish law and custom.

    What we have witnessed in the past few weeks in the affair of Jeffrey John, the would-have-been Bishop of Reading, is, 2,000 years later, what we see in the New Testament - a tussle between the generosity of Christ, whose response to sin was a benign "Be off with you and sin no more", and Paul and his followers, who were prepared to condemn, blind and dispatch to perdition anyone whose actions and arguments offended them.

    To the agnostic, it seems extraordinary that half the members of the C of E, while proclaiming the divinity of Christ, should prefer the hellfire teaching of St Paul, a mere man, and an unpleasant man at that, who was never in the physical presence of Christ, who could claim only to have seen a vision of him on the road to Damascus, yet who usurped his authority as a teacher, diluting the humanity of the Sermon on the Mount and the example of Christ's compassionate response to sinners.

    Jeffrey John is homosexual and has been hounded for it, yet not one of his enemies - and enemies they are indeed - can point to any words of Christ that condemn the acts and emotions of the man who physically loves another man.

    They can, however, in their assumption that homosexuality is sinful, point to the Old Testament for such condemnation, and to St Paul's fulminations as their secondary authority, but in both cases they are obliged to assert the nonsense that not only must every word of the Bible be accepted as divinely inspired, but that every act of the ferocious God of the Old Testament must be applauded, every instruction obeyed.

    Consider the daughters of Lot after their flight from Sodom - girls who got their father drunk and themselves pregnant with his semen; surely such incest is further up the scale of sin than sodomy?

    Consider Tamar, who seduced her husband's father, Judah, and conceived his twins - this after Onan, her husband's brother, had been struck dead by God for refusing to inseminate her, preferring to spew his semen on the ground; would the Evangelicals condone such behaviour among the families of the nearest housing estate?

    With such examples before us, knowing them to be wrong, why should we observe any instruction or prohibition advanced in the Old Testament on any matter, social, political, theological or sexual?

    If Christ was indeed the Son of God, then he was a very different kettle of fish from his irrational, vengeful, baneful and merciless papa. Christ was forgiving, merciful, forbearing, and the pity of it is that he preached largely to the Jews, who were none of these but, under Roman domination, were more unforgivingly Jewish than before.

    The unforgiving old pharisees of the C of E, for whom homosexuality outdoes all other peccadillos, threatened their church with schism were Jeffrey John ever to don his mitre, the Queen's position as Defender of the Faith imperilled, for she must defend either bigotry or buggery.

    I can understand a certain squeamishness at Holy Communion if, at the utterance of the words "Take and eat this, drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee...," a parishioner has the thought of his priest in sexual conjugation with another man only hours earlier - but is that so much more heinous than sexual conjugation with a woman?

    Surely it is to the priest's engagement in the grunting, sweating business of ejaculation that the congregation should object, his surrender to those sexual triggers that, hetero as much as homosexual, turn men's minds to sex and for which there is no safety catch.

    No preaching of procreation and the sanctity of marriage should blind men to the fact that for years before they were snared in that sanctimonious bondage, and after, they masturbated, after conjuring all sorts of images to enhance the solitary pleasure.

    Take these thoughts for the deed and all men, even priests and homosexuals in stable relationships, are in some sense adulterers. Christ forgave adultery.

    Perhaps all clerks in Holy Orders should be celibate; I think not, for though some saintly few may manage abstinence, for most, in sexual frustration, forms of madness lie. Perhaps they should be castrated, as was Peter Abelard, great theologian, after seducing his pupil, Eloise; I think not, for desire remains, even when the testicles are gone.

    Perhaps we should revert 2,000 years or so, to the mores of ancient Greece and Rome, most of whose male deities loved boys and girls alike and whose Diana was a vengeful lesbian. Both these societies had rules for homosexual relationships, but both took samesex relationships in their stride - and that is the solution now.

    Who does what to whom, and the how and the when and the where of it, should be of no greater interest than the socks we wear and what we had for supper. Sex should be as integral and unremarkable a part of life as food and drink, breathing and sleeping, emptying the bowels and bladder.

    Sex is not a sacrament - marriage is, if we choose to make it so, but not sex. Sex in any of its forms is about as animal as we can get and the rumpled bed is not the place for piety.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, December 9th, 2003 @ 03:16 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Mormon country, AZ
    Gender
    Occupation
    busser
    Politics
    juris naturalist/strict construc
    Posts
    33
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    What was the point of this thread?

  3. #3
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Putinism
    Posts
    5,212
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by dinarid love
    What was the point of this thread?
    What was the point with your post?

  4. #4
    Sideways to the Sun
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,745
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post

    Where do I start......well first of all I recognised the name of the author. Knowing him to be an open homosexual, I was fully prepared for a stream of erroneous reasoning and filth.
    I suppose I will have to disect this piece of literary refuse into parts.

    "And the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St Paul, that sanctimonious master of self-adulation, record his efforts, physical and intellectual, to reverse the generosity of Christ's Christianity and wrestle the hopeful new religion back into the stifling folds of Jewish law and custom."

    Well, there is really no excuse for this wild inaccuracy. You don't have to be a trained theologian to simply flick through the Bible and see this statement is false.
    St Paul was the one who argued against Jewish customs such as circumcision and was the most committed to spreading the message to the Gentiles.
    In fact he chastised St Peter to his face when he felt Peter was falling back into Jewish customs again. So Mr Sewell's allegation against St Paul is completely false, and such inaccuracies don't bode well for the rest of his "article".


    "What we have witnessed in the past few weeks in the affair of Jeffrey John, the would-have-been Bishop of Reading, is, 2,000 years later, what we see in the New Testament - a tussle between the generosity of Christ, whose response to sin was a benign "Be off with you and sin no more", and Paul and his followers, who were prepared to condemn, blind and dispatch to perdition anyone whose actions and arguments offended them. "

    I'm begining to think by this time that Sewell's knoweldge of Christianity is based on some things he overheard one Sunday in Church mixed in with some (un)healthy fantasies of his own creation.
    His attempt to portray Jesus's attitude to sin as giving a slap on the wrist and then forgetting about it isn't based in any reality.
    You only have to go through the Bible to see that Jesus's speeches against the Jewish leaders (whom he found most guilty of all) were so inflammatory that they plotted to kill him. He went berserk in the temple and threw out those indulging in the Jewish pastime of money making within the temple grounds.
    He said if part of your body causes you to sin, it would be better to cut it off.
    I would think this particular teaching would cause some consternation in Mr Sewell , so hardly suprising he convinces himself that Jesus isn't too bothered about sin.

    "To the agnostic, it seems extraordinary that half the members of the C of E, while proclaiming the divinity of Christ, should prefer the hellfire teaching of St Paul, a mere man, and an unpleasant man at that, who was never in the physical presence of Christ, who could claim only to have seen a vision of him on the road to Damascus, yet who usurped his authority as a teacher, diluting the humanity of the Sermon on the Mount and the example of Christ's compassionate response to sinners. "

    If the author doesn't believe St Paul's claim to be genuine then that's entirely upto him. What I will correct are again his inaccuracies. He speaks of Jesus's "humanity" on the mount and his compassion to sinners.
    What Sewell glaringly misses out is that compassion is shown to repentant sinners. St Paul also teaches that. Neither of them teach compassion to unrepentant sinners. Again, more wishful thinking from dear old Brian.

    "Jeffrey John is homosexual and has been hounded for it, yet not one of his enemies - and enemies they are indeed - can point to any words of Christ that condemn the acts and emotions of the man who physically loves another man."

    I don't know every word of the New Testament, so I am unsure of the veracity of the claim. However, some common sense should be employed here.
    First although many of the practises and laws of the Old Testament were superceded by the New Law, that doesn't mean all of the Old Testament teachings are invalid. God certainly did incinerate the "sexually immoral" inahbitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, who were engaging in "unnatural relations" with each other. I'm not sure God would change his mind over something he felt so strongly about.
    Second, Jesus's time was limited and He knew that. He taught that which was necessary. To anyone in Jesus's time and place, it would have been so obvious that homosexuality was wrong that it would seem patronising to even mention it.
    It 's a bit like telling everyone that eating poison might kill you. Duh!
    Nevertheless, Jesus gave his Apostles authority to teach in His name after he was gone and they certainly did condemn such behaviour on countless occasions. Of course Jesus may well have condemned it Himself and we simply don't have a note of it. The NT itself tells us that not everything Jesus said or done was recorded. The unrecorded teaching were passed on to the Apostles who passed it onto the Church where it survives today as Sacred Tradition.
    The fact that homosexuality has always been condemned in Sacred Tradition may very well point to it as being an unrecorded teaching of Christ.


    "Consider the daughters of Lot after their flight from Sodom - girls who got their father drunk and themselves pregnant with his semen; surely such incest is further up the scale of sin than sodomy?"

    Both seem utterly deplorable to me. I wonder if Mr Sewell has a vested interest in trying to make one appear a "lesser evil".

    "I can understand a certain squeamishness at Holy Communion if, at the utterance of the words "Take and eat this, drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee...," a parishioner has the thought of his priest in sexual conjugation with another man only hours earlier - but is that so much more heinous than sexual conjugation with a woman? "

    I would have the same reservations which is a decent argument for the celibacy of priests. Mr Sewell's skewed logic dictates the opposite however, that sexual relations with either sex should therefore be okay before putting the Eucharist in people's mouths. How revolting!

    "No preaching of procreation and the sanctity of marriage should blind men to the fact that for years before they were snared in that sanctimonious bondage, and after, they masturbated, after conjuring all sorts of images to enhance the solitary pleasure. "

    Mr Sewell again drawing from his own character and experience to project onto others. A most unpleasant insight it is too.

    "Perhaps all clerks in Holy Orders should be celibate; I think not, for though some saintly few may manage abstinence, for most, in sexual frustration, forms of madness lie. Perhaps they should be castrated, as was Peter Abelard, great theologian, after seducing his pupil, Eloise; I think not, for desire remains, even when the testicles are gone. "

    Those who do not believe they can live a celibate life should think twice before entering the priesthood. However it is not beyond the bounds of possibilty that some are able to manage. Some people naturally have a very low sex drive anyway. Mr Sewell falling into the trap of believing that asking people to exercise any restraint or will-power is asking the impossible. Difficult? Certainly. Impossible? Hardly.


    "Perhaps we should revert 2,000 years or so, to the mores of ancient Greece and Rome, most of whose male deities loved boys and girls alike and whose Diana was a vengeful lesbian. Both these societies had rules for homosexual relationships, but both took samesex relationships in their stride - and that is the solution now. "

    Of course! Gay gods and bulldyke goddess's, followed by easy acceptance of gay "relationships". It's so easy! Why didn't I figure that out as the solution! Silly me!


    In all, I think Brian Sewell is of a certain persuasion that would like to twist the Bible by spouting half-truths and inaccuracies in order to validate his own perverted nature. His constant refferences to masturbation, gay sex, castration, defacaetion, etc all point to a twisted and warped mind.
    This article says nothing insightful about religion. What it does give an insight to is the mind of a sodomite, a pervert, and his desperate attempts to rationalise and justify his own corruption within the morality of a relgion he claims not even to believe in!. A sad, pathetic individual who has unwarily exposed himself ( ) publicly more than perhaps he realised or intended.
    Last edited by Milesian; Friday, October 10th, 2003 at 11:47 PM.

  5. #5
    Sideways to the Sun
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,745
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by dinarid love
    What was the point of this thread?
    Don't worry, Loki isn't a Gay Rights campaigner
    He just posted this knowing I would have a strong opinion to it

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, September 4th, 2010, 10:39 PM
  2. Virtual Sex: Threat to Real Intimacy?
    By Nachtengel in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 04:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •