I'm sure noone who knows me will be surprised by my reaction to this article.

I find it to be little more than vague assertions backed up by narrow anecdotal evidence.

The fact is that huge numbers of people engage in all kinds of proscribed sexual activities without destroying their lives. Except in very rare cases, people who have premarital sex don't die of syphilis. Queer people don't automatically go on to pedophilia. Sado-masochists don't automatically go on to snuff porn. The “slippery slope” argument is not backed up by facts.

Let me refute a few points directly:

“His commands provide for us relationships where true commitment, trust, and agape (sacrificial, giving) love–the greatest love–can flourish.”

And what is that? The definition of what sort of relationship the Bible commands has changed over the last two thousand years. Are you talking about the polygynous clan of 2nd century Palestine? The patriarchal “nuclear family” of 20th century America? Something else? You can't say 'This way of living is best' without defining your terms.

“Isn’t that every woman’s dream–to be compared to a car. How much more degrading can you get?”

It's not the woman that's being compared to the car, it's the lifestyle. It's the environment that's created when adding a new person to your life. Anyone who sets out to make a change in his life should understand what that change will entail before making a life-long commitment.

But perhaps the analogy is too distant. Let me present one that may be closer to the truth:

Take, for example, the process of becoming a monk or nun in the Catholic church. Before one takes the final vows, one is expected to live in the environment for a time, and if after that time the vows no longer hold the same attraction, the novice either turns away voluntarily, or is turned away by wiser heads within the order.

Why then, is it unwise to have a similar period of time, before engaging the bonds of marriage, where one may see whether the lifestyle that is being contemplated actually fits the people involved?

“What’s more, in most cases, the biggest grief was not from any physical ailments the men (and I) contracted but from the hurt we caused loved ones in our pursuit of self-fulfillment.”

The problem here was not the self-fulfillment but the hurt you caused. The problem is not the acts you committed but the fact that you treated them with religion-inspired shame and did not share them with those you had made sexual commitments with. The sin was the fact that you kept secrets, not in what those secrets were.

“You cannot live the life of *Friends* and *Sex in the City* and not pay dues.”

Likewise, you cannot live the life of a saint without paying dues. Life is about tradeoffs, about considering what you value and why, and living your life in a way that conforms to those values. If your values are different than mine, then my life choices will be different from yours.

In some relationships, the fact that I write erotica would be a violation of monogamy. In discussion with my wife, however, we have worked out that as long as my activies do not move from thought and word to deed, she does not feel that our relationship has been compromised. If she feels this way, and I feel this way, who is anyone else to tell me that it is? And if in the future she changes her mind, then

This is a really great post. For those of you that scoff at sexuality as prescribed in the Bible – I can assure you that there is freedom, fun, and experimentation in the Christian marriage bed as well. (Hope I didn't embarrass you honey.)

And what is that? The definition of what sort of relationship the Bible commands has changed over the last two thousand years. Are you talking about the polygynous clan of 2nd century Palestine? The patriarchal “nuclear family” of 20th century America? Something else? You can't say 'This way of living is best' without defining your terms.

For the Christian, agape love “represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love,” as defined by wikipedia. It doesn't have anything to do with family structure.

I'm curious to know what dues you believe a saint has to pay.

What you said about about values and choices is very true.

Good post and thought-provoking topic Scott.

I think TV shows like Seinfeld, Friends, Sex and the City and others all proffer a somewhat hedonistic lifestyle with virtually no consequences except an infrequent and brief period of mourning over the loss of a “lover”. Sadly Hollywood is caught up in the shacking up ideology that was once taboo in society. I think that losing “lovers” will eventually deaden a person to real love. Love without commitment is not really love at all but lust packaged in hedonism.

Is a Christian not instructed, at least as an ideal, to treat all humanity with agape love? Is agape incompatible with eros? From your response to this issue, it would appear that you're saying that the Bible/God/Jesus/Whatever does not have any instructions as to what sort of family structure we should have.

A saint often is tormented, even more than less dedicated people of faith, by doubts about his faith. Many saints wrote about how unsatisfying the life was, about how thankless it was, about how hopeless their lives had become.

Depending on the saint you look at, being a saint means giving up family, health, even life itself. It ain't fun being a saint.

Hear! Hear! I couldn't agree more.

… in the modern Christian marriage bed, as interpreted by those Protestant churches that have embraced that version of the philosophy.

This is not universally true.

Contraception, for example, remains forbidden in many Christian churches. This is a significant restriction on the freedom of some couples.

Of course hopefully most people don't take their life cues form any television shows. or podcasts, or blogs.

Gonna step in here for a second and bring up the point that in the view of the modern Protestant churches (seemingly in line with the Bible) believers are all saints. So you may both be operating under a different definition. Maybe not.

Heresy!! The next thing you will tell me is that Kirk and Spock aren't real!!

Duh, it takes place in the future, so of course they aren't real… yet.

Right! And I suppose that Cosmo Kramer is a fiction of my imagination! If it is on TV it is real!

At the risk of being my usual bull-in-the-theology shop self, I have to point out that the Bible contains no consistent teaching on sexuality, nor has the Christian church ever maintained a consistent doctrine on the topic. Protestations to the contrary are rooted in ignorance both of Christian history and of the Bible itself.

Apologies for the bluntness of the wording, but in the interests of honesty it had to be said.

At least you were to the point. (uncharacteristically)

I can't wait to hear what you say about my post.

Perhaps “saint” is a poor word to use, then. I was using it in the Catholic sense.

To rephrase:

Likewise, you cannot live the life of a faithful suburban monogamist without paying dues. Life is about tradeoffs, about considering what you value and why, and living your life in a way that conforms to those values. If your values are different than mine, then my life choices will be different from yours.

First, I have to say that I'm pretty sure that Sid was not saying that the Bible's view of sexuality is against humanity, but rather, I think he was suggesting that the Bible is against [human sexuality](as opposed to, say, animal sexuality) outside of a very narrowly prescribed range (namely marriage). He did, after all, only have 140 characters to work with in the original post I saw….

Other than that, I'm not sure I have much valuable insight to contribute, but I'll likely ramble a minute or two for the fun of it…

I do think its interesting and a bit confusing at times how the Bible does seem to change positions on the marriage relationship- starting with one man and one woman in the garden, but somehow evolving to one man and 1000 women with Solomon, who was supposedly the wisest man ever! (not too smart if you ask me) There are instructions to have and keep one wife, but then there are provisions for divorce. Anyway, it seems to settle on one man/one woman.

I had an interesting conversation with a friend recently, who suggested that human sexuality is an extension of “survival of the fittest”. he commented that anytime we fall from faith, we resort to this philosophy of fighting for our individual livelihood above all else, which from a sexuality standpoint would include preservation of our seed. For men that often translates into spreading your seed everywhere you can, while women tend to spend more time choosing the most suitable mate. I found that interesting, as I can certainly see it in my own life- when I look away from my God who continually sustains and preserves me, I inevitably fall back into a self-preservation mode.

I would have to say that I do believe that the apparent consensus of the Bible as a whole is for one man to stick with one woman and have these relations with that one woman. Furthermore, I do agree that the reasoning is all for our benefit. I certainly believe that there are scars left from sharing sexuality so freely, even if they are not readily apparent. Personally, mine are undeniable.

I think Nobilis summed this up nicely with, “I find it to be little more than vague assertions backed up by narrow anecdotal evidence.” Since he did a nice job of refuting the major points, I only have a couple of things to add.

The section where Mr. Bordner speaks of his personal struggles boils down to “It doesn't work for me therefore it must not work for anyone else.” That's the issue with religion's approach to human sexuality. It's a one-size-fits-all prescription for people with different personalities, psychologies, experiences, beliefs, needs, desires, goals, etc.

My experiences with regards to sexuality are the mirror opposites of Mr. Bordner. I, too have lived “on both sides of the equation.” I experienced pain on account of Christian sexual standards and hurt loved ones in pursuit of those standards. That's not the end of the story though. Rebuilding a worldview based on reason and evidence has freed me from thinking that sexual relationships had to fit a template. Thanks to that, there's a lot my wife and I don't have to deal with in our marriage. The freedom this gives us is unimaginable to those who have not – or cannot – experience it.

So what do I conclude from these two polar opposite personal experiences? Unlike Mr. Bordner I do not conclude that the Christian sexual lifestyle must be bad for every single person in every single situation. It makes me realize that there is not a single template that fits all the complexities of human relationships.

You are correct, jasonfaylen. I wasn't saying that Bible's view is anti-human but anti-[human sexuality]. I can understand the misinterpretation well enough though.

I think Nobilis summed this up nicely with, “I find it to be little more than vague assertions backed up by narrow anecdotal evidence.” Since he did a nice job of refuting the major points, I only have a couple of things to add.

The section where Mr. Bordner speaks of his personal struggles boils down to “It doesn't work for me therefore it must not work for anyone else.” That's the issue with religion's approach to human sexuality. It's a one-size-fits-all prescription for people with different personalities, psychologies, experiences, beliefs, needs, desires, goals, etc.

My experiences with regards to sexuality are the mirror opposites of Mr. Bordner. I, too have lived “on both sides of the equation.” I experienced pain on account of Christian sexual standards and hurt loved ones in pursuit of those standards. That's not the end of the story though. Rebuilding a worldview based on reason and evidence has freed me from thinking that sexual relationships had to fit a template. Thanks to that, there's a lot my wife and I don't have to deal with in our marriage. The freedom this gives us is unimaginable to those who have not – or cannot – experience it.

So what do I conclude from these two polar opposite personal experiences? Unlike Mr. Bordner I do not conclude that the differing sexual lifestyle must be bad for every single person in every single situation. It makes me realize that there is not a single template that fits all the complexities of human relationships.

You are correct, jasonfaylen. I wasn't saying that Bible's view is anti-human but anti-[human sexuality]. I can understand the misinterpretation well enough though.