Time Magazine Interviews Michael Coogan About Sex
Biblical scholar Michael Coogan's new book God and Sex
is one I heartily recommend (see my review at Amazon). Time magazine interviewed him recently about it.
is one I heartily recommend (see my review at Amazon). Time magazine interviewed him recently about it.
12 comments:
I am so very tired of talk of "God and Sex". Sex is a way to procreate, period. It is a natural expression of desire.
And this is where the Church forbids certain expressions of desire, because it is called "sin". What one really needs to know is what is of value and importance to society, not what some religious tradition determines is of value because "God says so"....
Such are all questions in regards to society and man and his environment. We need to know what is important to value and why with our feet on the ground, and not our heads in the air....
The term “sin” is never defined in the Bible and remained fluid and relative throughout Judeo-Christian history. All too often “sin” is defined in terms of the Jewish legal system or in terms of Hebrew religious cult.
In Christianity, the account of eating the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve in Eden is labeled Original Sin, but neither by the Jews nor by Jesus, but only in the New Testament by Paul.
One of my Greek professors was asked to give a Biblical definition of sin. His response was totally relative. He said it was “anything that negatively affects your personal relationship with God”.
In fact, in all my years of both undergraduate and graduate religious Biblical education, that was the only definition of sin I ever heard!
In the final analysis, religious people have their own definition of what their God likes and does not like. The latter is labeled “sin”.
Harry,
Personal relationship with "God" only happen in one's imagination. Some would probably think that such people were borderline psychotic. Others would not be so strict in their judgments.
I have understood that "sin" was "missing the mark", which is defined by whatever happens to be "the mark".
Liberals would define "the mark" as Jesus as moral model, while conservatives would have "Christian values" as identified by the "Paul tradition".
Science has other ways of assessing what is appropriate or justified for societial health.
And the issue of sex is a "hot issue" among conservatives especially. There should be proper relational boundaries. And this is where one has to assess whether monogamy is strictly the "best" solution to a given society. Or whether premarital sex is forbidden before a ceremony, when other cultures don't have these standards.
Our culture defines boundaries more strictly than others, because of our Puritanical "roots" and Victorian influences. But, does this necessarily mean that this is the best way for society to function? I don't know.
Most fundys I know would define sin as missing the mark, like the bulls eye on a target. Of course the mark is 100% perfection that only Jesus could have fulfilled.
The last fundy I talked to about it told me that is why non believers go to hell for eternity. Why? Because God had no choice, he had to make the punishment eternal, because he is eternal. If you don't get that, you dont' get sin.
That was the answer he gave, and it is the answer that I have kicked to the curb because it is B.S.
exreformed,
Bullying comes about by such attitudes and certainty about things one can only know by investigation, and not by osmosis of "brain in neutral".
Look recently at how many homosexual teens have taken their lives due to such judgments. And what about the untold damage to the adults who were not allowed to "be"? Why would it be prohibitive for society to affirm homosexuality within the proper boundaries of commitment/marriage?
It just seems to be a little ingenous to judge natural desire with murder, stealing, coveting, exploitation, etc. Such "sins" have many more consequences to society. And if homosexulaity was confined by boundaries, then wouldn't it elimnate certain aspects that make it offensive to societal health?
I believe that humans are made for representations of "ideals". Ideals are what drive any agenda that is to be "sold". In selling the agenda, mythologizing becomes necessary.
"Self" identifies with such mythologizing and "idealizing" and transferes allegience from "self" to "the other identified".
While this is a necessary stage of moral development, via, Carol Gilligan, it is also necessary to bring about an "ego" or "self-identified" subject, which is an "autonomous self", via Kant and Thomas Kohlburg.
Tranference is a psychological term that defines what happens whenever there is need for a "proper representative" of an "ideal" (Father, mentor, or model). The real is not the ideal, but a representative of the ideal. Therefore, character is an important value to those that mentor children, and especially teens.
Parent shouls "ideally" be the chid/teens representative. And representatives are those that defend, support and value the child/teen's development.
Sex is one subject which should be taught by parents, but, unfortunately with our society's family dysfunction, many are left for public institutions to train or teach these values. It is not inappropriate, it is just a symptom of a much larger and more systemic problem.
@angie
You know I used to have a big problem with homosexuality, because it was beat into my head that they were trying to brainwash children. I left fundamentalism for entirely different reasons. So, as of now, even though I am not homosexual, I don't have a problem if they want to get married. I also think that they should have equal rights, and if a teen committed suicide because of a church I think that church should get the crap sued out of them. How tragic.
Anyway, it's amazing how your views change once you put fundamentalist dogma b.s. behind you.
Humanity can live without God / religion. But without sex, humanity would go extinct in one life time.
(Sin is totally a human enterprise of denial founded on a world of Biblical make believe where only the "god" enjoys the good life served by humans who only breed with the blessing of the religious world they themselves have created.)
@ Ex
I hear that same argument all the time. That God CANNOT allow sin to exist. Why? Isn't that an implicit acknowledgement that Yaweh fails the Greatest Conceivable Being test? Because a being capable of forgiveness is greater than one who is not - it says so all over in that book we're not supposed to go quote mining in.
It seems that some believe that homosexuals in a committed relationship is the same of beastiality, and necro...I don't think they are, but such people believe in a literal reading of the text.
Society does need boundaries, to maintain civility and order and define criminal behavior. And because these boundaries are necessary for society, wouldn't we want to base our understanding of societal "challenges" on scientific results?
Science is a friend, not an enemy to society, because it is useful to help humans understand and defend a certain position.
On the other hand, what our religous ethos has been based on; the Ten Commandments, is an important value as well. One must affirm boundaries around individuals as well as society. Otherewise, one dissolves the person into the "system'. And systems don't allow for diversity, creativity or difference. The only way to handle the system is to resist, or dissent.
Hi Angie Van De Merwe:
I follow your logic only to a point and that point ends with the Bible.
Your stated:
“On the other hand, what our religous ethos has been based on; the Ten Commandments, is an important value as well. One must affirm boundaries around individuals as well as society.”
From a simplistic and Fundamentalist chronological reading of the Bible, one account has the Ten Commandments given to Moses in Exodus 20.
Yet in Numbers and Joshua we find the Israelites raping, murdering, stealing, coveting, having sex with married Canaanite women and more, not only the blessing, but the demand of their god Yahweh.
A theocracy (Such as found in the Hebrew Bible, and especially in the Hexateuch) has no concept of International Law, thus little to no value for human life!
Use of the Bible MUST be filtered by human logic to make any sense of our modern concept of justice.
I have no disagreement to your caution! However, our nation was founded upon Protestant values, which were scriptural influences, such as the Puritans. Some have argued that Jefferson's "natural right", as granted by the "creator" was inalienable because it was not granted by government. This is what I suppose you mean by "international law", as to rights. And the right you argue for are "human rights". But, there are no human rights without government, not really. Humans need political liberty if a government is to be humane.
The human being must be protected by rationality, and not by tribal mentalities. But, just because social units exist, does not have to mean that there are no human rights. The biggest mistake of rational socialists is to try to make sense of collective rights. Because when we create laws that give preference to one "tribe", then we discriminate against another.
The "Human Being" is not identified by his tribe alone, but his very existence. Tribes, or collectives can hinder the dintinction of value or uniqueness of the individual, but it doesn't have to. Our nation values individual liberties and yet, we are Americans.
Post a Comment