while we’re on the topic, a friend pointed out this site.

perhaps controversial in the other, post-marital direction. I didn’t read too much yet.

http://christiannymphos.org/

FWIW, adultery is a sin for a lot more reasons than property theft. Marriage is symbolic of the bond between God and man, and monogamous marriage is a reflection of monotheism. Throughout the Old Testament, idolatry is equated with adultery and prostitution, while faithfulness to God is equated with marriage.

And I speak as chief among sinners, so my comments are not in the least bit self-serving, either.

I do think sex education to sustain morality is a tricky balance. On one hand, I can see the guys point of oversaturation but on the other hand you want to counterbalance society’s obsession with it, that young people (heck all people) are confronted with on a regular basis. Just say no doesn’t work and whetting appetites through continual reminders of legitimate fun doesn’t seem to work too well either. I dunno, seems like the best thing might be to keep lines of communication open and when challenges present themselves or someone just wants to talk, there is an easily accessible channel. Rather than bombard people with contant messages. Just a thought

Regarding the aggrandizement of sexual sin compared to others, I do see Vance’s point about religious pride. However, I do have reasons for believing that sexual sins have a consequence like no others. For starters, I Corinthians 6:18 indicates sexual sins go against our own body. I’d me interested to know what others make of that. Also, in Acts 15, when Paul and Co were confronted with the judiazers, they had to come up with absolute no-nos for the Gentiles. The very short-list included sexual immorality-they must flee fornication. Maybe because it has something to do with the joining of two people and illegitimacy proves quite destructive for all involved, like no other sin. I’m not exactly sure this is right, but it sure seems that way.

1) He uses pragmatism (or lack thereof) to defend his case, seemingly throughout the entire article

2) More importantly, he blatantly shows that his personal viewpoint on sex is extremely shallow and void of any emotional depth – and that seems to be where his entire argument originates. His view diminishes both the positive side of sex in marriage (comparing it to having an ice cream cone? c’mon…) as well as the negative consequences, both emotionally and physically, of sex outside of marriage.

His logic is completely counter-intuitive. “What if we begin to treat sex as the relatively mundane biological function that it is?” That would work for about a day… why? Because it’s not.

Yes, some areas of Christianity focus too much on sex; and some do so by ignoring it whatsoever. But I just can’t get around Paul’s rhetoric concerning “one flesh” being an indication of the divine mystery, or of sex being the sin you commit inside your body.

I’m not saying that a certain level of practicality isn’t healthy and necessary; Lewis wrote of the physical inconsistency of sex (specifically the tendency for one’s “sexual appetite” to fluctuate just like one’s culinary appetite) as a sort of divine joke against our tendency to place sex above God. But to put sex in the same category as going to a movie or eating ice cream is absolute balderdash. Many people have truly healthy marriages without ice cream or films, but I would gently question any marriage in which sex wasn’t involved. It simply isn’t in the same category.

And, yet, our Church culture seems to have this reversed.

1) He uses pragmatism (or lack thereof) to defend his case, seemingly throughout the entire article

2) More importantly, he blatantly shows that his personal viewpoint on sex is extremely shallow and void of any emotional depth – and that seems to be where his entire argument originates. His view diminishes both the positive side of sex in marriage (comparing it to having an ice cream cone? c’mon…) as well as the negative consequences, both emotionally and physically, of sex outside of marriage.

His logic is completely counter-intuitive. “What if we begin to treat sex as the relatively mundane biological function that it is?” That would work for about a day… why? Because it’s not.

Any sin does condemn us. But that doesn’t imply that all sins receive the same punishment; the Bible does talk about greater punishments. (Matthew 11:23-24, Matthew 23:13-14, James 3:1)