No, there's little point in quoting chapter and verse at you. You or someone else will simply retort with the idea that it's a mistranslation, or just mis-written, or just plain wrong. In fact Jesus had little to say on the matter, but it's a good rule of thumb that where he didn't speak, then previous words from the old testament still stood. This is how his disciples and followers intepreted things and this is how we should too.
As I should have made clear before but didn't, this faith isn't meant to be so obsessed with sex. The obsession people have with sex is because of the extreme sexualisation of the world today, so it's only natural that people will start to polarise their views about it.
Mediaeval attitudes to sex can largely be traced back to the roman emperor constantine, who had funny ideas. Most western attitudes to it - and a lot of other attitudes - can be traced to the romans and greeks. It's a funny thing though... in the middle ages, very often a bride would be walking up the aisle pregnant. Some peopl ehave pointed out that this means the prohibition on sex before marriage is silly. It's actually because the wedding was just a formalisation of the marriage that had already taken place... but that's by the by.
Ultimately, this is my faith, and apparently not yours. Why should I try to lecture you on the articles of my faith when you are, whether you know it or not, setting up to try and tear them down?
|
