The Da Vinci Code outrage: It is about sex again
The reason for the downgrading of sex to the level of immorality by the Christians has been always a mystery for me. It has been such a mystery that I blogged about it a couple of months ago in an attempt to find some answers. Today, we are witnessing the attempt to boycott the movie above mentioned by the Catholic Church.
The main issue arises about the claim that there might be a surviving bloodline among us coming directly for Jesus. The problem is that, in order to achieve a bloodline, you must have sex. Christianity has always equated sex with impureness. Jesus had to be pure, so he could not have had sex. But, what if we question the first premise? The conclusion becomes meaningless, so it should not matter if Jesus had sex or if he did not. He still would be a deity, a wise man, a flawless mythological character or whatever you choose to call him.
We always have had sex, at least since we are pluricellular beings. Even plants have sex in their own way. Sex is almost as common as eating, breathing, excreting wastes, being born or dying. It is part of life. There is no point in demonizing sex. Even the people who preach against it, end up having it, legally or illegaly.
I do not really mind if there is a bloodline for Jesus or not. I am not even completely sure if he existed. What worries me is that today, in the 21st century we still want to beleive things that are far from logical, we still want to name ourselves sinful and carriers of a "original sin" just because we were created from sex.
posted by Doctor Marco at 15:59
9 Comments:
Christians do not like add-ons. Like evolution, an ancient earth or a Family Guy Jesus.
What I talked about on my blog is the reasons why the Da Vinci Code was more upsetting to Christians than The God Who Wasn't There. Check it out.
It's an item still w/us from the bad ole days: it's called docetism.
"An opinion especially associated with the Gnostics that Jesus had no human body and only appeared to have died on the cross."
It's diluted in form, subtracting the 'only appeared'. Did JC have an erection? Did he do a #2? (Hey, they say he ate.)
That idea, that the human body is inherently burdened w/sin, creates a ridiculous paragon of purity that's unachievable.
BEAJ:
I agree. once something has been established, it has to remain, regardless of how illogical.
RA
It is so weird that JC had to be human and god, however he had to be only partially human, because he could not have sex but he could eat and drink wine.
Not again Marco. I thought some misconceptions HAD been cleared up in your previous posting of a few months ago.
OK, let's clear up a few of your "generalised" misunderstandings.
-"the downgrading of sex to the level of immorality by the Christians has been always a mystery for me."
Me too! I think you need to rephrase this to "some" or "the minority" instead of pulling a Richard Dawkins manouver and lumping ALL Christians into one box an assuming we all have this negative outlook on it. Many Christian denominations actually have seminars on sexuality. The focus being on the beauty and purpose of it in God's design.
Sex is like pizza Marco, when it's good it is really good and when it is bad...it is still pretty good! I have said it before(and I will say it again) if sex was meant soley for reproductive purposes only, then we would all have sex like cats. Our internal clocks would tell us it is time to procreate, we would get in a lather(heat) about it, and then endure a painful expeirence not to be repeated again until "that time of season" drives us to do it again.
I would have hard time understanding why God would make the act of sex so pleasurable only to tell us we cannot enjoy it. Seems like a big mean joke, does it not?
-" Today, we are witnessing the attempt to boycott the movie above mentioned by the Catholic Church."
Yes you are. But not the Christian church. You really need to start understanding the difference. The catholic church bases alot of their teachings on the catchecisms and not the scriptures. Books that were written outside of the Biblical teachings and often contradict what the scriptures teach. (Hmmmm sounds alot like the pharisee's of Christ's time).
I say this because you often tend to focus on the catholic church and paint all Christians into this box. You make the assumption that the catholic church is the sole representatin of the Christian church which in fact it is not. If you look into the history of the roman catholic church it was established by the Roman government in order to "control" the explosion of the Christian movement that was sweeping the empire.
Because the Romans could not kill off the Christians fast enough (as their numbers were exploding daily) they needed to "harness" them thru "institulionalised religion". At least this way they could gain some sort of control over them.
Most Christians will either read the book and/or go see the movie just out of curiousity. They will then make an informed decision about how they feel about it and can analyse the validity of the claims in it, in comparison to the accuracy of the Bible.
If the claims in this story do not line up with correct teaching they will simply dismiss it. The plus in all of this is that it has got people asking questions about God again and we have an opportunity to correct any misconceptions.
-"The main issue arises about the claim that there might be a surviving bloodline among us coming directly for Jesus. The problem is that, in order to achieve a bloodline, you must have sex"
Remember it is just a "claim" just like evolution LOL. (and I agree, you must have sex in order to accomplish this feat. *exception being the immaculate conception)
Actually it is a very tired and old claim. Secular society appears to be so bent on "nailing" Jesus for having sex that most Christians are not even paying attention to it any more. Either you want the truth or the delusion the world tries to push. Remember "The last temptation of Christ"? The world will once again in the future, after the hype of Da Vinci dies, try to come up with another fictional story and try and pass it off as some sort of historically accurate portrayal of the life of Christ.
-"Christianity has always equated sex with impureness."
No, Marco, it has NOT! It has equated sinful sexual lifestyles with impurity. I.E. Adultery, fornication, beastality, homosexuality, rape, pedophilia, etc.
Monogamus Hetrosexual sexual realtionships within the confines of the marriage unit were and always have been blessed by God and not just for the sole purpose of procreation but also for the fulfillment and enjoyment of one another as life long partners. You have been encouraged in the past to review the Biblical book "song of Solomon" for God's take on human sexuality. Stop listening to the catholic church's take on sex and investigate God 's version. Afterall, God created sex, not the catholic church. The catholic church distorted it and then made hypocrites of themselves. Kinda like Dan Brown! :)
-"it should not matter if Jesus had sex or if he did not. He still would be a deity,..."
If it were in the confines of a marital unit (not just casual wordly, meaningless sex) He would not have sinned and so this would be accurate. However, as "God in the flesh" (see John 1 1:-14)His focus was on the redemption of mankind. He walked the walk and completed His appointed purpose here on earth. This did not include marriage. Even the apostle Paul was able to achieve this. Walk a sexless life that is while other apostles were in fact married.
-"There is no point in demonizing sex."
Agreed...to a point. As I stated earlier, there are some sexual lifestyles that will be renounced but sex in and of itself within marital faithfulness is not to be downgraded or as you say demonised. It is to be a very pleasurable, fufilling, and enjoyable expeirence for both husband and wife. One that is to unite them closer and cement their bond even further. In the true Christian sexual expeirence your even allowed to orgasm!!!
In conclusion, Marco, and in fairness, I have not read the book or seen the movie but I know curiousity will get the better of me and I will rent the DVD and draw my own conclusions.
I have heard a number of church leaders who have read the book and state that it in fact is a real "page turner". They also stated that it's claims are more focused on catholicism and that there are many error's in it's storyline where "historical" fact/documentation has been distorted or twisted to fit into the storyline.
Our church leaders have not told us to take their word for it but to investigate it for ourselves. The only concern they have, and any church leader would have, is that people who read this book will accept it as a factual account.
This would be a gross misreprentation of the true Christian faith.
I am curious though, since the rest of the world seems to think that Christendom needs to chill while our faith is distorted thru fictional sex stories between Jesus and Mary Magdelene that never occured, is when will authors like Dan Brown get the balls to write one about Mohammed and Allah?
Not afraid of bad movie ratings I hope.
Now Marco, if you ever want to post about a negative outlook on sex by religion I think you need to re-direct your focus on Islam. Don't you ever wonder why their women look so miserable?
PS: Thanks for the e-mail
I'm clueless about Da Vinci's code. Didn't care. Didn't read it. Won't go see it. Bit...
Yeah, the Christian view of sex as sin has always been wierd to me, since Talmudic law considers the first commandment to have been "be fruitful and multiply" (e.g. have sex and make babies). So obviously, our Judaic heritage has a much different view on sex.
(and I agree, you must have sex in order to accomplish this feat. *exception being the immaculate conception)
I think you're getting your Christian doctrines in a twist there.
As I understand it...
The Immaculate Conception isn't Mary getting pregnant without having sex. Mary *is* The Immaculate Conception - that is she was conceived without sin, not without sex. She was free of Original Sin at the point of her conception. It's completely separate doctrine from the Virgin Birth.
Reason36
Thanks for posting a comment. Although I am an Atheist and continuously will criticize faith, I am glad that someone who knows doctrine comments in my blog. It might seem annoying, but, what can I do.
A question for you... What about Jesus' conception?
As I understand it, Jesus was conceived without sex, but not without sin. That is why he had John baptise him. He was man born of woman and therefore bore the same stain of "sin" as everyone else since Adam.
Mary was conceived with sex but without (original) sin, as she was chosen to carry God's son.
What I'm really getting at is that if you grasp that "without sin = immaculate" and "without sex = virgin" then it shows that the whole "SEX IS BAD" thing doesn't really stand up.
Sex is a perfectly healthy activity undertaken by Christians for 2000 years. Without it there wouldn't be any :)
The morality of when you should or shouldn't have sex and who with is a whole other issue, but to say "the church says sex is a sin" is not only reductionist but also mostly wrong.
(I'm enjoying your blog btw, sorry for jumping in without introducing myself).
Post a Comment
<< Home