Forums

Purpose of organ and pleasure of the flesh

Page:   1 2
 
 

JYONG
 
Joined in 2009
August 7, 2009, 12:29

I notice there are many of questions raised regarding sexual activities. I invite others to discuss the purpose of organs (Specifically sexual organs) and the purposes of activities involve certain organ (watching pornography, masturbating, kissing, intercourse and others activities that can be classified as sexual activities).


I will use one example;

It is often said that ‘the use of rectum for sexual purposes goes against its God-given function; God designed it for evacuation, not sex’


My question is adapted from a book (Body and Context by Gareth Moore)

Why do we want to say that function is God given, that God designed a particular part of the body for particular purpose? Though we may want to say that God created us, why should we say that he created bits of us to fulfil a certain purpose? One reason we might want to say such a thing is that the rectum, like the heart, has an obvious part to play in the function of the whole, in sustaining the life and efficient running of the person; it contributes in an evident way to human good. Since as Christians we believe that our life comes from God, it makes some sense to say that any organ help sustain that life does so in fulfilment of a divine purpose. So then any use of it that prevents it from carrying out those functions is to be avoided. But if we agree to say that rectum has an important function as part of the digestive system, why should we not say that it also has a sexual function?


I suggest a further examination


And if our genital function is part of excretory system and reproduction system, is it not also part of sexual function? If sexual function is part of our body function, should it not be that our sexual function is part of pleasure of the flesh? And if pleasure of the flesh is part of our physiological function, can actions that lead to the pleasure of the flesh be classified as acts against nature? (I refer to none addictive and none abusive actions)



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
August 7, 2009, 16:01

Hmm…Innnnteresting topic 😆


Here are my thoughts.


Agreeing that a body part (such as the rectum) has a bio-physical function doesn’t negate the possibility that it can, also, have a sexual function as well. It’s not an either/or. This works the same with reproductive anatomy and bio-physical bowel funtions.


If sexual function is part of our body function, should it not be that our sexual function is part of pleasure of the flesh? And if pleasure of the flesh is part of our physiological function, can actions that lead to the pleasure of the flesh be classified as acts against nature? (I refer to none addictive and none abusive actions).


Just so I have it straight, your argument goes: God created humans, our bodies have a sexual function, therefore anything we, as humans, do that isn’t addicting or abusive sexually must be in-tune with our God-given nature. I’m going to use a different example and everyone reading this, forgive me in advance for the ick factor.


I’ll argue that bestitality isn’t abusive to the animal–since we kill them for meat and that isn’t classified as abuse, logically, sex can’t be. So bestiality isn’t abusive or addictive if you’re doing it with an animal who is killed for meat–puppies and kittens are another matter 😆 . For some, it taps into our God-given pleasure function. So, if you use this example in your argument it would go: God made us human, our bodies have a sexual funtion, sex with animals is okay because its not abusive or addictive… Is it just me that sees a problem here? 😆 😆


Just because God created us with the capacity to experience sexuality in various ways doesn’t mean He wants us too. Adultery and pre-martial fornication are neither addictive or abusive and yet God has placed a restriction on them. He has limited the expression of acceptable sexuality and sex acts. The question as to what is acceptable and why is another matter altogether but the fact remains, our God-given bodies are capable of a pleasure-function that is denied to us by God.



JYONG
 
Joined in 2009
August 7, 2009, 20:45

My intention is to explore the Christian problems of the pleasure of the flesh. I agree with you sandy that bestiality, adultery and pre-martial fornication are neither addictive nor abusive and yes they may well be classified as misused of the function of our faculty that is given by God (although I might want to say that adultery is a form of abuse to self and others). If God denied our body to be able to experience sexual pleasure then we should uphold the tradition that sex is only valid for procreation purpose. Then literal interpretation of some passages in the scripture, Augustine observation of sex, early church fathers and Christian traditions should be asserted. Therefore any others sexual actions/activities will be deem as immoral and act upon to defile God, and the pleasure of the flesh can be classified as sin.


Whether God denied our body to experience sexual pleasure is a good question. A legitime questions of Christian though, interpretation of passages in the scripture and it applications which directly questioning the legitimacy of homosexual sex (consenting and loving). If I engage in a mutual loving sexual activity with my partner and certainly it would not resulted in any chance of procreation. Then the pleasure that me and my partner derived from our sexual activities can be deem as immoral. My actions which are an application of my sexuality need to be review, so thus my sexuality itself.



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
August 7, 2009, 21:36

If God denied our body to be able to experience sexual pleasure then we should uphold the tradition that sex is only valid for procreation purpose.


We should? Why?


God says that some forms of sexual expression are wrong, He doesn’t say they all are. Just because God denies some expression doesn’t mean He doesn’t want us to have any pleasure in the sexual expressions that are acceptable to Him.



JYONG
 
Joined in 2009
August 7, 2009, 22:35

If God denied our body to be able to experience sexual pleasure then we should uphold the tradition that sex is only valid for procreation purpose.Then literal interpretation of some passages in the scripture, Augustine observation of sex, early church fathers and Christian traditions should be asserted.


Sandy can you please point to me where in the biblical does the text specifically accepted or prohibit certain kind of sexual expression? The text is very patriarchal oriented you certainly find comfort in because it does not say much about woman nor does it say anything about lesbian sexual act.



iplantolive
 
Joined in 2008
August 8, 2009, 13:38

In the interests of decorum and in harmony with the forum’s guidelines, please bear in mind that what is discussed between men and women in their own gender groups about sexuality may not always be appropriate in a mixed forum such as this …



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
August 8, 2009, 13:53

Sandy can you please point to me where in the biblical does the text specifically accepted or prohibit certain kind of sexual expression? The text is very patriarchal oriented you certainly find comfort in because it does not say much about woman nor does it say anything about lesbian sexual act


*shrugs* My appologies. Sorry if I offended. You can find the references for and arguments against fornication, bestiality and adultery in any Christian sexual morality text. I am sure an individual who is as well spoken and knowledgeable as you are knows what they are–even if you don’t agree with conservative interpretations and the patriarchial discourse on which they stand; a perogative I can certainly understand.


Forgive me if I insinuated that this was a gender issue. It’s not. In fact, most of the sexual references in the bible are heterosexual and therefore offer a kind of gender neutrality as they engage both sexes. I’ve always thought differentiating between male homosexuality and female homosexuality in terms of morality was stupid. It doesn’t make any sense. Like pre-marital sex is any less right or wrong if you happen to be a man or a woman. It’s just not logical. I hadn’t realised we had been talking about same-sex sex at all actually. I conciously avoided the topic so as not to cause argument.


In the interests of decorum and in harmony with the forum’s guidelines, please bear in mind that what is discussed between men and women in their own gender groups about sexuality may not always be appropriate in a mixed forum such as this …


Good advice, I think I’ll heed it. Good luck with your queries jyong.



JYONG
 
Joined in 2009
August 8, 2009, 14:49

As I have written above, my intention to see what reaction do people have to the status quo of the ‘pleasure of the flesh’? It is invitation to discuss the status quo.


I don’t think this subject is gender specific… the example of ‘rectum’ is to demonstrate that our organ is not created for one specific function. The text is patriarchal oriented and the example of sexual conducts in the text primarily refers to men but this by no means exclude woman, because the issue of pleasure of the flesh is inclusive. To me this issue is a focal point of rejection of homosexual as individual.


Mobileguy if you think my enquiry is gender specific you are welcome to remove this discussion. Perhaps it is inappropriate issue to rustle with in this group.



Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
August 8, 2009, 15:10

hey JYONG


as you probably see from other posts here on the site these kind of topics rarely come up…if ever. they are important though….even if they make us feel uncomfortable/akward.


I guess many of us really know each other and have shared our stories in the telling our stories section…….then we feel a bit safer when we have some background and know where people are coming from.


maybe you might like to do that.



JYONG
 
Joined in 2009
August 8, 2009, 15:41

Thanks Antony… I might consider your suggestion and I can understand the suspicion.


Page:   1 2
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.083 seconds.