JCC Is the Catholic Church wrong?

Is that really true? I'm not sure. Yes, it's somewhat detailed to specify acceptable partners and practices. But it's also pretty detailed to say that it is alright to eat a hamburger followed by a second plate with cheese, but it is unacceptable to eat a cheeseburger. Overall, I think the more accurate comment is that religions are "way into" everything, because their whole point is to prescribe a positive way of life for their adherents. People and religious authorities both get hung up on the sexual laws as opposed to dietary and dress codes or even financial obligations because that area of life is a lot more personal, emotional, and contentious.

 

Your last sentence makes no sense. Personal, by definition, wouldn't involve religious authorities, yet the reason they choose to get overly involved in how people have sex is because it's personal? Also how is it contentious?

And you haven't really addressed how it's not creepy..

 

How are you understanding me to use the term? The word "personal" is meant to denote areas of life where there is a general expectation of family privacy. So, most people are do not consider what they eat to be a personal issue. They eat in public, and have no problem discussing or debating food preferences as a topic of casual conversation. By contrast, sexual activity is personal. Almost no one makes extended public discussion of their preferred sexual maneuvers, and even fewer people would have sex in public. One is a private act, and therefore personal. The other is not.

I think it would be creepy if someone displayed an inordinate interest in sexual activity. However, if what they actually display is an equal level of interest in all spheres of life, I don't find anything particularly creepy there. For instance, your healthcare providers also take quite detailed looks into your life, and act about your sexual practices. But I don't find that "creepy" either, because in both cases, I know their roles encompasses commentary on all parts of my life. One can find it intrusive, and one may decline it, but it is not "creepy" or suggestive some sort of bad intent. It's not even weird.

 

Well, what Watts kind of intimated is that religion is invested in everything that relates to anchoring the soul to physical reality. He specifically mentioned the dietary restrictions in many religions. Food as a sensual experience and all that. But if sex is the most intense anchoring of the soul to the physical body, then there's, of necessity, going to be a lot more restrictions on that. It's an issue of degrees. Again, that's his argument. I don't say it's true across the board; I certainly believe it's true in a lot of cases. I mean, Christianity doesn't have any dietary restrictions and to the degree that it has some ideas about restrictions in dress, I think that generally relates to sex, really. It's not a fear of the human body in specific; it's a fear of sex as it relates to the human body. Look at the rules about head scarves and burkas and such; those are superficially rules about dress, but really they're rules about sex. Wardrobe restrictions aren't a separate entity from sexual restrictions; in most cases, I feel like they flow out sexual restrictions. But, whatever; I mean, if you disagree, that's fine. It's just a statement Watts made and, as I say, it "rang true," which is different from saying that it is true.

 

Well, I don't mean to put you in the position of personally defending or refuting the idea. I just found it interesting and thought-provoking, so I decided to share the thoughts that it stimulated.

I guess I would disagree with your characterization of dress code laws, though. There's nothing sexual about mixing or not mixing types of fabric in a garment in Judaism. Everyone wearing tassles on their garments is also pretty neutral. The standardized uniform of the Hajj is pretty explicitly non-sexual, but about equality and humility instead. To the extent Christianity has any dress restrictions at all, I'd say the focus on humility is a bit broader than simply sexual attractiveness, though I wouldn't deny that's an obvious dimension. For instance, elements like wealth inequality are just as important.

 

Insurance companies typically are not prescriptive about sex. Religions are.

Hence, creepy.

 

Insurance companies typically aren't prescriptive about anything. Religions are prescriptive about most everything. Is it your position that it's creepy any time someone makes a commentary about sex at all?

 

Crom laughs at your four winds.

 

Pretty sure Kratos would rip Crom's head off with his pinky.

 

Crom laughs at your sex mini games.

 

Hermes almost sounds like herpes.

 

When a group of people whose motto is "Don't have sex until you're married, and then only to procreate" whilst setting a preferred position... yes, it's creepy. It's creepy when virginal priests lecture me on relationships too. Repressed people talking about sex is creepy, whether it's Christians or the forum regulars we all know and love locking our doors at night for.

 

Wocky I think you misunderstood my comment. I can't even figure how this is a response to my post.

 

This is the sentence that confused me, particularly it's first half. "Personal" in my original usage, has nothing to do with implying who is or is not involved. Let alone it being that way "by definition." It was a designation of how people feel about the acts in question, not some of demarcation that says who might and might not be sought out for advice about it.

Secondly, the whole post you were referring to rejected the notion that they were especially or overly involved in sex. I said clearly that they get involved with the details of people's sexual relations because they get involved in the small details of every aspect of people's lives, and that this should be expected in a religion. I then went on to compare it to the work of medical doctors or the work of an insurance company, both of which can also be highly intrusive about all sorts of areas in a person's life. The rationale I was citing privacy to explain was why people are more likely to argue about the intrusion of the religion into that sphere.

That is to say, religions comment on everything. Only some things make people upset. It is more likely that comments on things that are viewed as personal or important will upset people than commentary on things that are not personal and unimportant. I assumed that all your misreadings of my post originated in your (apparent) misunderstanding of what I meant when I said "personal" so I dedicated my response to that. If I it was something else, or I misunderstood you, you'll have to post again and explain how.

 

Next you'll be telling me that the Romans did anything for us.

 

Yes, but...

What's more effective; telling kids if they do drugs their brain will resemble an egg; or showing them Requiem for a Dream and saying... So. Heroin eh? Crazy stuff?

THe latter. Why? It's the air of authority experience gives.

In short, a bunch of people whose sexual experiences are limited to shagging children, whipping themselves after jerking off or elbowy missionary sex with one partner their whole lives shouldn't be telling others how to, bluntly, ****.

 

That's all very true. The issue of pride is definitely a strong element in the area of dress codes.

 

If any kid were to be forced to watch Requiem for a Dream, they wouldn't want to watch a movie ever again.

 

It's just not religions that get involved in peoples sexual lives, politicians do too by way of religion. And it varies from country to country. Recently there was a "sex scandal" involving a former premier of NSW and a voter. Hear about it? That's because no one cared. Kevin Rudd once went up in the polls after he visited a strip club.

When all us said and done, the Catholic Church can comment on sex as much as it likes but people don't have to listen. This is why they've been losing people. People want religion that's relevant to them today and provides answers and guidance about today, not from two thousand years ago.

And as far as I know, all Jesus said about sex was "don't play around". It wasn't until Augustine and Ambrose (Augustine had real issues with women and his own desire) that they got into body and women hating.

 

Yeah, increasingly people just aren't listening. There was a this moment a few years back when they ruled that it was okay to use condoms in homosexual activity. Because in homosexual activity, there's no chance of conception anyway, so the only thing the condom will do is help stop the spread of STDs. Which is to say that homosexuality is wrong, but if you do it with a guy, go ahead and use a condom. That's not a sin. Heterosexuality, on the other hand, is right and proper, but only if you don't use a condom.

It was at that point that I realized they had their head so far up their doctrinal ass that they had lost all relevancy to the way people actually live.

 

Every time we have sex, we have to have a baby!