|
Religious Sexual Abuse
Article dU
In years past some religious teachers, who are considered early Church Fathers, were very opposed to all forms of sexuality. These counted all sexuality as a shameful thing, and largely disallowed sex even in marriage. If they in their time would have had the technology like we do today, they likely would have started special web sites and programs to help people overcome their sexual desires as are spoken of later. These very emphatically advocated sex and orgasms were only permissible for reproductive purposes, which deprivation and emphasis obviously was very unfair to husbands and wives who greatly appreciated one another and God's special creation of sexuality. How abusive this was to humanity. According to their teachings sexuality in marriage would have been permanently disallowed after menopause, and scarcely and rarely allowed before. Yet Apostle Paul writing about marriage and sexuality taught that it is better to marry than to burn, while if he had believed as them and disallowed sex as they, he instead of saying it is better to marry than to burn should have said it is better to stay away from marriage than to burn, since the marriage environment would merely create many opportunities for desires that could not be satisfied. Although the manners of these teachers might seem unthinkable to us now, this anti sex emphasis was very real.
One of these early Church Fathers speaking very negatively about sex said he believed the real reason elderly Sarah, who was passed her time of child bearing, laughed when she was told she would have a child was not because of it being hard to believe the angel, but because of contemplating about how shameful and bizarre that sexual relation is, which is necessary for childbearing. He further spoke of even dumb animals shaming and reproving us humans, if us humans do not confine sex strictly to reproductive efforts as do even irrational animals. Another of these Church Fathers in his special writing about the ten virgins spoke of men throughout history slowly improving regarding their sexual manners, firstly from man's worst ancient state of having sisters for wives as did Abraham, then secondly from the state of having more than one wife as many Godly men did in old times, and then lastly improving even from the state of having one wife to having no wife at all, and thus reaching perfection which he called virginity. He further advocated that the reason that the ancient prophets, patriarchs, and righteous men did not praise and promote virginity was because it was most fitting that Jesus Christ, the first and chief of priests, and of prophets, and of angels, should also be saluted or honored as the first and chief of virgins [Being the unmarried Priest who brought about perfection]. Another of these Church Fathers said the only reason Jesus Christ was born of a virgin was to destroy the begetting by lawless desire. Some of their writings opposing sexuality and beauty can be read at this link; "www.TeachMeGod.com/home169.htm". Yes, the tradition that Priest's dare not marry has it's roots somewhere! Yet Apostle Paul classified forbidding marriage with the doctrines of devils (1 Tim 4:1-3).
Concerning these ancient anti sex Christians, if they back then had the technology like we now have they might have started websites called accountability sites, where husbands could find accountability partners to help them in their difficult battle against having sex with their wives. They might have designed special equipment that would automatically sense when their bed vibrated and further had it all wondrously set up so this system would automatically email an accountability partner, to let them know they were yielding to their shameful desire and their supposed addiction to sex. In this manner their accountability partner could nicely support them and help them overcome their addiction and problem. These teachers might have advocated that if couples start having sex outside of reproductive purposes and even wives started enjoying it, they were running the risk of a dreadful sexual addiction, which needed to be stopped in the early stages and before it took root.
Even in our time some wives because of being taught negatively about sexual things, for many years after being married were unable to reach the special release and gratification God intended for them in sex, while some might never learn to attain such. Concerning those wives who never learned to reach the fulfillment in sex that God intended for women, they could have readily believed that sex is an undesirable and bizarre thing only appropriate and permissible for reproduction, as these teachers taught. Wives as this, and taught by teachers who believed all sexuality was base and shameful, might readily have believed that those husbands who desired and demanded sex outside of reproductive efforts, were base and vulgar men almost like adulterers. In a society where their teachings against sexuality were strongly established, these teachers likely could have found husbands who would verify their teachings against sex by publically telling others how their supposed evil desire for sex outside of reproductive efforts had sadly torn apart their marriage and family. These husbands in speaking of their error might have said, that although they felt sort of guilty about having sex outside of reproductive efforts, they for some reason still tried to get their wife to consent to this thing which was quite disagreeable to her and which thing ended up in a growing conflict and argument between them, which in time sadly destroyed their marriage tearing them apart as well as the children. Other husbands might have publically confessed that although their particular wife consented with them to have sex outside of reproductive efforts, they both ended up feeling sort of guilty because of this thing, and further when they could not seem to quit having sex, they because of discouragement with religion and trying to smother their feelings of guilt ended up even turning to sexual excesses and errors of various kinds and finally ended up in adultery and prostitution. These might have very sadly warned others to not start pursuing sex outside of reproductive efforts as they did, to avoid getting into all the guilt and trouble they got into. These might have then been honored for telling others how faulty sex had ruined their marriages and lives, and honored for now abstaining from sex except for it's intended use of childbearing.
Although all this might almost sound like a joke, it is far from it as our world is still full of sad errors regarding sexuality, and similar manners of defending those errors. Our world is full of religious leaders that dare not marry. It is full of women who must even veil their faces, and full of people confused and abused regarding sexual issues. These anti sex teachers to be a little more acceptable in their society might have said they are not going to demand all couples to suddenly quit having sex, but do want to help out those good and pure ones who are trying to do so. These anti sex teachers might have gotten many donations and much support from ascetic religious people like themselves, who had fought against and largely abstained from sex all their lives, and felt quite special because of it, and did not want to think it was all in vain. Yet how sad and abusive to humanity.
Regarding these anti marriage and sex early Church Fathers, they not only were opposed to sex outside of reproductive purposes, but also were greatly opposed to the beauty of women, even though the Bible often honors such. It is note worthy that most Scriptures which use the word bride, happen to be speaking of her adorning herself or of special joys because of her. Yet one of these early Church Fathers speaking against women adorning themselves advocated that if God intended women to wear beautiful and colorful clothing He would have created purple and scarlet sheep to provide the wool, and said God somehow missed creating such sheep! Numerous of these teachers in their anti feminine beauty emphasis advocated women should do nothing to be attractive and even advocated women should veil their faces. If these early church fathers had the technology back then like we do now, they likely also would have created special web sites, software, and programs to help people battle against their desires for feminine beauty, although being in sad error. Likely most Christians in our time will admit that disallowing sex in marriage is very abusive to normal affectionate married partners. Yet were not these teachers' negative teachings about feminine beauty, and emphatic rejection of special and carefully prepared feminine beauty also abusive? How much is our world today still affected or abused by these teachers' rejection and prohibiting of feminine beauty?
Although most Christians would admit that demanding women's faces to be veiled is abusive, many Christians still have a certain opposition to appreciation and desire for extraordinary and immaculate feminine beauty, which opposition might be significantly rooted in these ancient anti sex teachers. Regarding the extraordinary beauty of certain women, and of women at the flower of their age, and regarding mans natural appreciation of such, our God was amazingly liberal regarding such in old times in Israel, as many Scriptures and issues given below reveal. Yet the religious emphasis of some in our day, might cause or allow Christian wives to disdain and possibly even divorce their husbands, if they dare to admire extraordinary feminine beauty other than solely them and theirs. Yet is our God actually pleased with such, possibly self absorbed expectations and demands of women? Concerning our God who allowed the ancient Israelite, who seen a beautiful woman among the enemy captives, to take her as an additional wife, would He now turn about and say that wives should disdain and possibly even divorce her husband simply because he might at times admire feminine beauty other than solely her, even if he had no intent of alluring another woman or committing adultery, and rather was only admiring feminine beauty at its best and as the Song of Solomon honorably and graphically displays with words (Deu 21:10-13, Song 6:13-7:9)?
Considering whether God would be pleased with wives disdaining and divorcing their husbands for reasons as considered above, the following Biblical issues although possibly sort of shocking to some, should be honestly considered. How do such restrictions of wives about their husbands and beauty, align with how famous Queen Esther replaced another queen that was rejected because she refused to come forth to show her beauty to the King's many guests (note some histories say without any veiling at all (Esther 1:10-19)? How do such restrictions or boundaries align with the numerous Scriptures that reveal extraordinary feminine beauty was quite honored in old times, causing King David after Saul's death to tell the women to weep over Saul who clothed them with ornaments, purple, and other delights (2 Sam 1:24)? How do such boundaries about husbands and beauty, align with those Greek Scriptures that strongly indicate some dances in ancient Israel were very revealing (2 Sam 6:20-22, Song 6:13-7:9), while it simply must be admitted that numerous Scriptures show that public exposure and even nudity was not thought vile or incredible in ancient Israel as it is by many in our present society (Isaiah 20:2-4, 1 Samuel 19:24, Micah 1:8, 2 Sam 6:16-22, Isaiah 32:11, John 21:7). Such restrictive boundaries of wives about their husbands and beauty are strikingly different when compared with how the Israelites sought throughout the whole land of Israel to find the most beautiful maid in the land to help revive King David when sick and about to die, and who likely would have simply been considered another of his wives or concubines (1 King 1:1-4). Regarding these issues, likely some Christians are unawares that famous Abraham the chief of faith had various concubines, and possibly unawares that no Scripture distinctly and without exception disallows polygamy even in the Christian era, although some ascetic Christians may count such as almost the worst thing possible (Gen 25:5-6). Beautiful Jewish Judith, in an effort to save the Jews put on her many adornments and garments of gladness, after which their enemies looking on said, "Who would despise this people, that have among them such women? There is not such a woman from one end of the earth to the other, both for beauty of face, and wisdom of words." (Judith 10:3-4&19, 11:21). Sirach 36:22 speaking about these things reads, "The beauty of a woman cheereth the countenance, and a man loveth nothing better".
Do religious teachers that encourage or allow wives to disdain and possibly even divorce their husband because he at times might admire beauty other than solely her, possibly not understand there is a great difference between wickedly coveting and lusting after something and subtly trying to get it, as compared to simply admiring how beautiful various aspects of God's creation can be at their best? Further it appears that seeing the beauty of a rose at it's very best can cause one to more highly esteem roses in general, and even a rose that is past it's best state, as it is still a rose. Do these teachers not realize that they sadly and needlessly turn wives against their husbands and destroy families, because of something that if not abused has the potential of making the husband more affectionate to his wife? Although God created both sexuality and splendid feminine beauty to bless marriages with passion and delight, yet these anti sex and beauty teachers turned things around insomuch that these blessings instead were turned into an evil temptation and curse and a cause of much discord and difficulty in marriages. How unbelievable and sad. It is very sad that many religious people in our world today are taught to reject beauty and love, while instead largely being encouraged to fight and hate. An article titled, "Are You A Disciple Of Christ, Or A Blind Religious Animal", found at "www.TeachMeGod.com/a_disciple_or_animal.htm", speaks of how abused religious people can also be very abusive. Christians might say that Moslems are the guilty ones, yet even regarding Christians, why is it that many of them seem more ready to accept videos with violence and hate than those with beauty and love?
Regarding the subject of veiling women's heads or faces as many religious people do, the writer and his wife have two very unusual tears that look like bites mysteriously taken out of their old Bibles at very special Scriptures pertaining to such veiling. The one bite is taken out right at the very Scripture where many people think Apostle Paul advocated women need to veil their heads, and the other being right where Tamar was thought to be a harlot because she veiled her face. It is amazing that these two unusual bites or tears (unlike any others in our Bibles) happen to be at these special places, and further in Bibles pertaining to one to whom the subject of veiling is so vital. It brought tears to the writer's eyes when he discovered the bite or tear in his wife's Bible so much like the one in his Bible, and also at a Scripture speaking about veiling. These unusual bites or tears can be seen at "www.TeachMeGod.com/veiling_questionnaire.htm", which web page asks various questions about the veiling of women. It appears the cruel teeth of erring religion have bitten into and largely reversed the message of these Scriptures. Although many religious people believe Apostle Paul advocated women should in some manner veil their heads, Apostle Paul especially according to the Greek actually said, woman's longer hair is an important attribute and glorious covering to woman, and given her for (or instead of) a veil, and said woman who is the glory of man should have power (liberty) on her head because of (or with) the Angels, and said Christ took away the veil and we all should come before God with an unveiled face (1 Cor 11:7-10 & 15, 2 Cor 3:13-18). Numerous articles accessible at the bottom of the web page "www.BiblicalSexuality.com/home18.htm", extensively consider the subject of veiling.
How many Christians thinking they are battling for God's sexual laws, yet instead might have been significantly defending the manners of ancient erring teachers? Yet regardless of the fact that erroneous religion has had very abusive laws, that does not mean God has no sexual laws. Yet regarding God's sexual laws they are good laws and are intended to protect and preserve rather than to deprive and pain. Concerning God's good sexual laws, if God had no marriage laws, and it rather was customary for men and women to daily take for themselves any mate they might be able to allure that day, what an insecure and frustrating world both children and adults would live in. Christians together with the Bible should oppose casual sex, such being sex without authorization or commitment or marriage. Christians should oppose all photography that displays or encourages fornication (evil and bizarre sexual manners). Christians should oppose homosexuality as it not only is against God's law but against that which is healthy and good. Christians should oppose husbands neglecting their wives because of replacing them with videos and masturbation. They should oppose excesses or anything unjust and inconsiderate. They should be apposed to any feminine shows or social manners that encourage personal attractions between men and women who should not be personally attracted to one another. Although Christians should be conservative as such, they still should not forbid marriage and sexuality as some do, nor oppose feminine beauty as many do. Further Christians quite obviously should not classify feminine photos solely displaying what the Bible honorably and graphically describes with words, the same as photos displaying and encouraging evil sexual conduct, as some Christians seem to do. May Christians quit fighting faulty sexuality with a wide and obscure club that does not properly define what it is hitting, and rather seek and advocate precise truth regarding these issues. Although erring religious people over the centuries have come up with all kinds of religious demands, may we remember that Jesus said that all His Father's laws simply focus on a proper love for God and man, and said the truth will make us free, as His laws are only to protect us rather than to inflict us (Matt 22:37-40, John 8:31-32). Note, "www.BiblicalSexuality.com" very extensively considers the issues spoken of above. In conclusion may God teach and have mercy on us all in our sexually confused and abused world.
3111
|
|