tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post5939489888016525748..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Daniel Radosh: Rapture Ready! Adventures in the parallel universe of Christian pop cultureBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-33711581111746466932008-05-16T09:18:00.000-04:002008-05-16T09:18:00.000-04:00Ben thank you for the post. I was initially alarme...Ben thank you for the post. I was initially alarmed that the comment thread had degenerated into a spat on sexual ethics, but on reflection I suppose it's <EM>a propos</EM>. <BR/><BR/>Kim: a compliment, and then a criticism. <BR/><BR/>Loved your initial fools-rush-in response on premarital sex: exactly to the point. Your mate <EM>shane</EM> characterises it as a dodge, but I see no problem in challenging the question if you think the question unhelpfully posed. This is surely one topic on which the don't-wait-for-the-translation-answer-me-now approach must be resisted. <BR/><BR/>However your most recent reply flirts with the <EM>reductio ad Hitlerum</EM>. <BR/><BR/>Look, I don't like a shibboleths-at-twenty-paces argument on the-church-and-sex any more than you do. But is seeing it with a "about which Jesus says virtually nothing" slogan, and then raising it with a pacifist rallying cry, likely to improve the quality of discussion?<BR/><BR/>Disclaimer: I do not presume to advise you on tactics or strategy; since we disagree on the pacifism at least, it would be presumptuous of me to do so. My point is that the topics, and the "sides" that people take, are not intrinsically linked. For example, cultural fault-lines are different where I come from, and different again in other places.Bruce Yabsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091471695711534450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-51711543523773702632008-05-16T03:30:00.000-04:002008-05-16T03:30:00.000-04:00I think the Hitchcocks are right about the essenti...I think the Hitchcocks are right about the essentially communal nature of Christianity. I also think Shane is right about the exercise of church discipline. The question, however, as St. Egregious pinpoints, is the actual practice of ecclesiastical policing, as well as the statutes that are policed.<BR/><BR/>Extreme cases make for bad law. We know how easily, for example, the condemnation of paedophilia slips irresponsibly into a discussion of same-sex relationships, about which surely there is sufficient moral ambiguity that one would be wise not to pontificate, and on which, I believe, we should defer to the church's traditional teaching about the absolute duty to obey one's conscience. Of course the church has a duty to educate conscience, but it also has a duty to acknowledge that it can err and teach badly.<BR/><BR/>The Hitchcocks also helpfully broaden the discussion beyond the chuch's obsession with sexual morality. Personally, I am more concerned about what we do with our money, about which Jesus says a lot, than how we deploy our genetalia, about which Jesus says virtually nothing. And I'll tell you something for nothing: if I had a member of my congregation overseeing the practices of waterboarding - i.e. torture - Matthew 18:15-17 for sure. And guns - you'd think Article II of the Bill of Rights (which the NRA reads as fundies read the Bible - uncontextually) was in the Sermon on the Mount - so another freebie: why isn't the bearing of arms a matter of church discipline?<BR/><BR/>Enough. But to end with a warning from church history: a church that erects security cameras within and patrols its borders without pretty quickly ceases to be the church of Jesus Christ, and becomes the panopticon of the Grand Inquisitor instead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-48318856377253368302008-05-16T00:18:00.000-04:002008-05-16T00:18:00.000-04:00No problem, Egregious! The tangential discussion h...No problem, Egregious! The tangential discussion hasn't annoyed me at all. (But you'd just better hope it hasn't annoyed Jesus: otherwise, he might "superheat your blood, causing it to burst through your veins and skin, etc". Man, I hate it when he does that.)Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-53147267697219246992008-05-16T00:02:00.000-04:002008-05-16T00:02:00.000-04:00To Ben: I promise this is my last word on this thr...To Ben: I promise this is my last word on this thread: I realize I am potentially de-railing a thread that had nothing do to with this topic per se. I apologize to you and to others who might feel, quite rightly I suppose, that enough is enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-75761408061776152932008-05-15T23:51:00.000-04:002008-05-15T23:51:00.000-04:00Sleeping together does not necessitate having sex!...Sleeping together does not necessitate having sex! So I suppose the pastor will just have to bite the bullet and ask the question directly--what are you two doing in bed? (Unless you think 'fairly reliable indicators' like rumour, innuendo and prurient speculation are sufficient to excommunicate members.) If not, and you think pastors have the right to ask such questions-- which, I hate to say it, might have to take on rather pointed specificity to catch me and mine in the condemnable act so to speak: Is kissing cause for excommunication? Snuggling? You can see where this will end up! -now you've crossed the Rubicon. Pastors and the 'church' with free reign to start interrogating parishioners about their sex lives. Maybe this is a church you want to live in. Not me.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I am a priest and have had just such a situation present itself to me. You can guess how I chose to handle it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-54727316492046298442008-05-15T23:23:00.000-04:002008-05-15T23:23:00.000-04:00Although, if I went to the apartment of a straight...Although, if I went to the apartment of a straight man and a straight woman and saw that they shared a single bed, I think I'd have a justified belief they were sleeping together. (Sharing a bed is a fairly reliable indicator.)Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14594090275917087869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-35483610929772145832008-05-15T23:21:00.000-04:002008-05-15T23:21:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, I was unclear on your previous post. I ...I'm sorry, I was unclear on your previous post. I thought you were saying that you were having sex with this woman and it was none of anybody else's damn business. Instead you seem to be just saying that it is none of anybody's damn business.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless I think my point still stands that it might be somebody's damn business, namely your pastor's, whether you are sleeping with her or not. <BR/><BR/>But you're right that I don't know or particularly care whether you are sleeping with anybody.Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14594090275917087869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-75377069582880071252008-05-15T22:14:00.000-04:002008-05-15T22:14:00.000-04:00Shane writes: "And in the situation you have descr...Shane writes: "And in the situation you have described, I think the church is entirely within its prerogatives to deny you communion until you repent."<BR/><BR/>Precisely in the situation I have described, repent of what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-84522856125214095282008-05-15T21:46:00.000-04:002008-05-15T21:46:00.000-04:00@St. E,I think the question you're posing here is ...@St. E,<BR/><BR/>I think the question you're posing here is still a bit too vague.<BR/><BR/>Every reasonable person agrees there are some questions about one's bedroom behavior the general public (to say nothing of the church) has a right to know about. Marital rape happens in the bedroom. <BR/><BR/>There's a parallel case too. I have a civic right to medical privacy, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to shoot up heroin, even if I do it in my own home and don't hurt anybody.<BR/><BR/>In both of those cases the laws of the state supercede the right to privacy of the individual. <BR/><BR/>I think a similar situation obtains in the church. By becoming a member of the church you voluntarily accept its laws and teachings. If the church teaches that homosexuality is sinful and that you must repent of your sins before you can receive communion, then I think the church's laws supercede your personal right to privacy. And in the situation you have described, I think the church is entirely within its prerogatives to deny you communion until you repent. <BR/><BR/>I don't think we want a church-appointed holiness gestapo spying on the private lives of christians to make sure they are fit to receive communion. But, the church must be oriented towards holiness and that means that the church must be serious about church discipline. And THAT means that the church must care about who's sexing whom and how. <BR/><BR/>And of course, any reasonable person will agree that there's nothing special about sexual behavior that exempts it from the moral scrutiny of others. Suppose you were a priest and you knew one of the men in your congregation was having a string of affairs. Suppose you knew the choir director had a problem about exposing himself in the park after hours. Suppose you knew that the sunday school teacher had a predilection for altar boys. Suppose you know one of the men in your congregation beats his wife and rapes her and doesn't see anything wrong with that. What do you do? You warn them, then you discipline them.<BR/><BR/>Now, if you want to argue that there are no moral or theological grounds upon which to say that homosexual sex is wrong, that's a different argument, which we've already had. But I don't see any way to claim that its just none of anybody's business in principle whom you decide to have sex with.Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14594090275917087869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-50405890198623731542008-05-15T20:03:00.000-04:002008-05-15T20:03:00.000-04:00But my question still stands. Does the church have...But my question still stands. Does the church have a right to know (or even to ask) what happens in my bedroom? Let's say I'm a woman who lives with another woman. We are both active members in our church and are even elders who participate in serving communion on Sundays. And let's say we're seen out quite a bit. There's a rumour we've even been seen once holding hands in public.<BR/>Perhaps a fellow member of the church we attend has been over to visit and while we were in making tea for him, he sneaked a glance into the bedroom (he noted that there was only one!) and saw only one bed. Has he (representing the 'community/church') the right to ask us what happens in that bed? Shall he take it to the church pastor? Should there be a formal inquiry?<BR/>Are we duty bound to answer if we are asked whether our relationship is sexual? What if we say we are not? Are others in the parish also to be put under such scrutiny? <BR/>What do you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-23725674366088214202008-05-15T15:10:00.000-04:002008-05-15T15:10:00.000-04:00I'm not talking about specific sexual positions or...I'm not talking about specific sexual positions or anything like that -- this goes back to the abstinence question that was raised. How we live out our lives sexually affects the community. For example, the Christian community has long agreed that premarital sex of any kind is not appropriate, and that within marriage we must be faithful to our spouse. Adherence to this rather strict view of sexuality (at least from the world's perspective) affects life in the community. As the discussion of a week or so ago demonstrated, celibacy is not an easy thing (either for single heterosexuals or for homosexuals), but a commitment to that lifestyle trains us in the virtues that are central to the mission and life of the Church -- faithfulness, self-control, self-sacrifice, obedience, etc. The same is true of faithfulness within marriage.<BR/><BR/>However, the attitude that it's between me and my partner, or, maybe, me, my partner and God, trains us in an entirely different set of characteristics. This privatized attitude is a training ground for self-centeredness and individualism. These traits do not serve the Church or its mission very well. How we live sexually trains us for how we live within the community as a whole.<BR/><BR/>This is not simply true for our sexuality, it's true for every part of our lives, which is why I'm making the claim that the Christian life is essentially a public and political life -- a life lived in accountability to others within a community that exists for a specific purpose. How I spend my money also trains me to become a certain person -- either one who is self-gratifying, uncontrolled, covetous and envious, or one who is self-controlled, self-sacrificing, able to consider others first, etc. Obviously, I'm naming the extremes here, but only to make the point. What we do in the various instances of our life trains our character and either helps us become someone who furthers the purpose of the community or someone who hinders the purpose of the community. Therefore, the community has a say in how the individual behaves.<BR/><BR/>We also see this privatization of the Christian faith sneaking into the worship life of the Church. I've too often seen the sacraments (baptism and eucharist) treated in just this way -- "It's me and Jesus time." The sacraments are by their very nature communal, but if everything else in our Christian life is privatized (including our sexuality), then why is anyone surprised when we begin to privatize the sacraments as well?<BR/><BR/>It seems that Ben's original post and the comments in response to it indicate that we know that what one person does in the community affects the community as a whole. For example, how many of us can honestly say that the Left Behind series hasn't had any significant impact one way or the other on the Church's ability to live out its mission? My feeling from the discussion is that most of us feel that this particular series of books (as well as other aspects of Christian pop culture) makes the mission of the church more difficult for all of us. Otherwise, why are there so many comments calling for the end of Christian pop culture? If everything is just between the individual and God, what does it matter to the rest of us that Tim LaHaye wrote a book about his personal understanding of Revelation? Yet we feel free to say that these things have an affect on the community and its mission. I'm just saying the same thing about our sexuality. How we approach our sexuality trains us to be a certain kind of Christian. The character and life of the Christians within the Christian community inevitably affects the ability of said community to live out its mission. If we approach it as a private matter between me, my partner and God, then that's training us and others to approach the entire Christian life in that way. However, if we recognize that both God and the community he has created and placed us in have something to say about our sexuality and how it is lived out, that trains us to think and act "publically" and "politically" in other ways as well.<BR/><BR/>So what it comes down to is this: Is Christianity at it's core essentially communal, or is it essentially private?The Hitchcockshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14633134950125423474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-88327161782469847212008-05-15T13:27:00.000-04:002008-05-15T13:27:00.000-04:00the hitchcocks: can you share how what I do with m...the hitchcocks: can you share <EM>how</EM> what I do with my lover in my bedroom affects the community/church? Especially if they do not know what I do and I am modest enough not to share it with any and all? Are you suggesting that the community has a right to know what goes on between the sheets?<BR/>If not, then I'm genuinely puzzled by what you mean when you say that 'what I do sexually' 'has an impact on the Christian community'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-74822861170873954842008-05-15T10:37:00.000-04:002008-05-15T10:37:00.000-04:00Biblically speaking, the community is the Church, ...Biblically speaking, the community is the Church, not two individuals who enter into a sexual relationship. The goal and mission of the Church take precedence over the individual. That's not to say the individual is not important, but simply that as Christians, we have entered into a story and community that is larger than ourselves. Privatized living is not how things should be done any longer. So how we have sex (or don't have sex) as Christians is not just between me and some other consenting adult, it's between me, the other person, and the community as a whole, because what I do sexually (just as what I do with my money, or my spare time, or my job) has an impact on the Christian community, both inwardly and outwardly. That's why Christian sexuality is public, not private. That's why Christians get married publically, rather than just making private vows to each other. How we live sexually is of public importance in the Christian community. God has made this community one, and therefore what the hand does affects the foot.<BR/><BR/>By the "political nature" of the church, I simply refer to the fact that the church is a polis -- a community which has a common goal, mission and purpose. As such, the actions of each individual within the polis are of concern to the community as a whole. Do those actions aid in the polis' mission and purpose, detract from it, or remain neutral? Sexuality does not fall within the neutral range, therefore how Christians behave sexually either is in keeping with the mission of the church or detracts from it.The Hitchcockshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14633134950125423474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-28496033266943588222008-05-15T08:51:00.000-04:002008-05-15T08:51:00.000-04:00The hitchcocks: Teresita asks if sex should be pub...The hitchcocks: <B>Teresita asks if sex should be public. Yes! Not in the sense that the act itself takes place in a public forum, but in the sense that the sexuality of Christians belongs to the community at large rather than simply to the individual.</B><BR/><BR/>That community consists of yourself, your partner, and God. Sexuality was created by God to bind people together, spiritually as well as physically. And this bond is a sacrament of the fidelity between God and us.<BR/><BR/><B>It is not something private and must not be treated as such because to do so denies the political nature of the church.</B><BR/><BR/>Politics is about power. We must follow the example of Christ, who laid down infinite power to become the Suffering Servant for the redemption of the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-25813283060030536082008-05-15T05:09:00.000-04:002008-05-15T05:09:00.000-04:00Teresita asks if sex should be public. Yes! Not ...Teresita asks if sex should be public. Yes! Not in the sense that the act itself takes place in a public forum, but in the sense that the sexuality of Christians belongs to the community at large rather than simply to the individual. It is not something private and must not be treated as such because to do so denies the political nature of the church. For a great essay on this, read Stanley Hauerwas' "Sex in Public: How Adventurous Christians are Doing It." It's in his reader.The Hitchcockshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14633134950125423474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-66606071615311085702008-05-14T21:45:00.000-04:002008-05-14T21:45:00.000-04:00Shane: The answer is Yes, premarital sex is bad.In...Shane: <B>The answer is Yes, premarital sex is bad.</B><BR/><BR/>In the bible there is no punishment indicated for the act of premarital sex, there is only a law commanding monetary compensation to the father for his daughter's change in status from virgin to non-virgin.Teresitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05528002521904908827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-60897168954685849732008-05-14T21:13:00.000-04:002008-05-14T21:13:00.000-04:00I think I like this Shane fellow.I think I like this Shane fellow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-56571807444380576952008-05-14T19:37:00.000-04:002008-05-14T19:37:00.000-04:00Thanks for the review. This has just gone to the t...Thanks for the review. This has just gone to the top of my must-read list.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-63818924237633877662008-05-14T19:23:00.001-04:002008-05-14T19:23:00.001-04:00Is premarital sex necessarily bad?Kim tried the Ca...Is premarital sex necessarily bad?<BR/><BR/>Kim tried the Canterbury Dodge,* but I think he missed the plié. <BR/><BR/>Sure, the consent of love is sufficent for matrimony--but, what's that tell us about pre-marital sex? It tells us that marriage, love and sex and all mutually intwined things. Good marriages, healthy love and good sex all require the same thing: respect for your partner, care for his or her well-being and a promise of fidelity to him or her.(Further, the code of canon law makes clear that consent is properly speaking a gift of grace, not merely a human decision.)<BR/><BR/>Now, for each and every sexual act (whether within or without marriage) one either has this consent or one does not. If one has the consent to marry as a supernatural gift, then presumably this act is not an act of <I>pre</I>marital sex at all--it's the act consummating the marriage, in point of fact, provided the other party is also consenting. But what if I do not have engage in this particular sexual act with the consent to marry? Then presumably the thought process goes something like this:<BR/><BR/>"Ooh baby, I love you so much. I want to spend the rest of the next two to three weeks of my life seeing you occasionally and fucking like rabbits. Then, I'll decide that I can't really handle a relationship right now and refuse to take your calls. Later, when my friends ask what happened, I'll just say you were 'crazy' and kept calling me all the time."<BR/><BR/>What's the bottom line? When you have sex with someone, the act either has the character of a promise of love and fidelity and permanence or it does not. No sexual act is an island--it occurs within a framework of a relationship (or the lack of that framework). In my view it is the framework that gives the grace to the act. If that framework is lacking, the act is wrong. If the framework is there--what the hell are you waiting for? Go ahead and get married!<BR/><BR/>So, if a young person asks me, "Mr. Shane, ought I have sex with my girlfriend." My answer to him is: "Not until you are married, because only then will you be having sex in the right way at the right time and for the right reasons." There are a couple exceptions to this general rule, but that does not mean this isn't still pretty good advice that will work for pretty much everybody.<BR/><BR/>So, there really is a good short answer to Patrick's question. The answer is Yes, premarital sex is bad.<BR/><BR/><BR/>*What's the Canterbury Dodge? "Well. . . uh. . . hmm . . . it's terribly hard to say after all . ."Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14594090275917087869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-2720249064884804752008-05-14T19:23:00.000-04:002008-05-14T19:23:00.000-04:00Hi Doug: yes, I think I see where you're coming fr...Hi Doug: yes, I think I see where you're coming from. Personally, I have very little animosity towards "pop culture" in general (assuming that there is such a thing) – my own life would be infinitely poorer without The Simpsons and Seinfeld and cinemas and CDs.<BR/><BR/>But to my mind, the problem here is the existence of a "<I>Christian</I> pop culture" – the creation of a Christian subculture (i.e. of Christian identity) through the production and consumption of niche merchandise.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-55528343950574707122008-05-14T19:01:00.000-04:002008-05-14T19:01:00.000-04:00Ben, you've made my day with this:Gloria in excels...Ben, you've made my day with this:<BR/><BR/>Gloria in excelsis Deo, motherfucker<BR/><BR/>And you've also made me want to read the book. However, on a more serious note, I'm unpersuaded that "pop culture' really exists, except a a subset of traits of a more mixed contemporary culture. I;m also unconvinced it's inherently worse than any other culture within which the gospel has been expressed, and which it has to some extent transformed. It seems to me that the biggest issue the church faces is that Christianity has been embedded in, and often indistinguishable from, the culture that has been / is being variously rejected or superseded, and this makes it much harder to discern what an appropriate Christian inculturation today should look like.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10326403777027937887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-18613297170500615342008-05-14T19:00:00.000-04:002008-05-14T19:00:00.000-04:00Many thanks to Kim for this wonderful comment in r...Many thanks to Kim for this wonderful comment in response to Patrick's query regarding premarital sex. Kim has summed up this whole problematic much better than I could. But in case it's helpful, Patrick, I'll just add one specific example: <BR/><BR/>There are <I>de facto</I> couples who have a true marriage, even though they've never had a wedding ceremony; and there are <I>wedded</I> couples who nevertheless have no true marriage. According to Christian teaching, sexual intercourse ought to be celebrated in the former, but prohibited in the latter.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-26605332737351164812008-05-14T16:25:00.000-04:002008-05-14T16:25:00.000-04:00I can't help but feel that Teresita is misundersta...I can't help but feel that Teresita is misunderstanding on purpose.<BR/><BR/>I think that the commenter was suggesting that such "gnostic" views were misguided or insufficient, not the <I>exact opposite</I> of the orthodox view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-62284786104882424082008-05-14T14:37:00.000-04:002008-05-14T14:37:00.000-04:00Hi Patrick,You ask: "Is it OK for a Christian to h...Hi Patrick,<BR/><BR/>You ask: "Is it OK for a Christian to have premarital sex." Only an idiot would rise to his bait. So here goes ...<BR/><BR/>At the risk of sounding pedantic, it really does depend on what you mean not only by marriage but also by sex.<BR/><BR/>On the latter - sex - I am not so much referring to the position (!) one takes on a scale ranging from French kissing to the Kama Sutra as, for example, to the significance of pronouncements from moral theologians from Jerome to John Paul II that sex even <I>within</I> marriage is sinful if too adently pursued. You may disagree, but their presumption is an important one: that sex is more (if not less!) than mechanics. Here I would refer readers to Rowan Williams' <I>The Body's Grace</I> (1989) on the theme of sex (an essay that is too often read solely as a tract on gender sexuality).<BR/><BR/>On the former - marriage - two points. First, no one should speak or advise on this subject who has not done some homework on the history and sociology of marriage. Church leaders who pontificate on what Jesus or Paul said about marriage - i.e. marriage in first century Judaism and Rome - as if the Bible speaks directly to marriage in 21st century America, Britain, Australia, or wherever are being theologically and pastorally irresponsible.<BR/><BR/>Second, even when this homework has been done, one must observe a fundamental distinction more honoured in the breach than the observance, viz. that between a wedding and a marriage. "A wedding," Barth wrote, "is only the regulative confirmation and legitimation of a marriage before and by society. It does not constitute marriage." What people usually mean by premarital sex is pre-ceremonial sex, but the two are not identical. One should remember, for example, though it is often unrecognised, that the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church remains that consent alone is sufficient to constitute the marital bond (hence the granting of annulments based on the demonstration of defective consent).<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, Patrick, if you were looking for a one-word answer about premarital sex. To that I "Just Say No!" Personally, having been married for twenty-five years, I am more interested in the question of postmarital sex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-45956688396055352092008-05-14T14:33:00.000-04:002008-05-14T14:33:00.000-04:00Anonymous: ...and popular gnostic views of sex whi...Anonymous: <B>...and popular gnostic views of sex which pervade pop culture (sex is private, have sex when you feel it is ok, etc.)?</B><BR/><BR/>If those are gnostic views, are we to take it, then, that in the orthodox view sex should be public, and we should have sex when we feel it is not okay?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com