Hey Bro-

I think we have to agree (given the example of Enoch [probably] and Elijah) that physical death just isn’t the ‘absolute’ doorway through which we all ‘must’ pass to get to glory. Though our bodies must be transformed, there's no post-Fall metaphysical law that says 'death' is the only way to effect that transformation. Otherwise God would not have been able to transport Elijah the way he did. So that opens the way for some interesting conversation I think on just WHY death, then, is so universal (except for two exceptions that we know of in the history of humankind). Don’t even have time to start down THAT road. Suffice it to say though that even if such transformation were a real possibility for any one of us (provided we met the conditions, whatever those are), being informed about such a possibility or having to believe that such is possible for one's self doesn't seem to be one of the conditions (as neither qualifies Enoch or Elijah). If somebody qualifies for such transformation, the last thing they'll be doing is talking about it--and I don't mean to disparage D's bringing it up at all.

Of course, if Elijah’s transportation to heaven is the same sort of rhetorical decoration that, say, the stories of the Flood or the miraculous Exodus are (he he), then you don’t have a historical event anyhow. But somethin’ tells me you ain’t going with the rhetorical/literary device interpretation THIS time. ;o)

D: Elijah's very flesh, like Jesus of Nazareth's, experienced "glorifying" synergy with God AS A LIVING (meaning NON-RESURRECTED) HUMAN BEING. I honestly don't see any more possible interpersonal intimacy between the Trinity and a human being than what we see indicated here: the Triune God in indivisible, yet distinct unity (bi-polar assymetrical relational unity, actually) with human persons.

T: I’d agree that the fullest interpersonal intimacy between us and God necessitates a body that is “fit” for the encounter, so I’d agree that glorification is PART of the fullest interpersonal sort of relationship we can have with God. But I wouldn’t equate the requisite bodily “fit” with the interpersonal exchange itself. In other words, I wouldn’t reduce (and I don’t think you would) ‘interpersonal intimacy’ to a certain ‘bodily state’. Interpersonal intimacy is traffic between “persons,” and as you know from my many rants…

…until we’ve said just what those persons are doing (i.e., what actual choices they’re making) and how (i.e., with what manner of freedom) they’re doing it, we haven’t posited an ‘interpersonal’ anything.

You can always count on me,

Johnny One-Note

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/2/2008 12:17:59 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/3/2008 12:03:52 AM (GMT-5)

T: Vaginal penetration isn't intimacy. I know you agree.

D: I believe that a woman may feel differently about that answer.

T: A woman being raped is going to say she’s enjoying ‘interpersonal intimacy’, that she’s being ‘loved’ and is ‘loving’ in return? Have you lost your mind dude?

------------------------------

D: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!  Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

T: Surely we cannot interpret Paul here as saying vaginal penetration itself constitutes or otherwise entails a genuine interpersonal exchange of love. Looks like he specifies the KIND of oneness he means, one “body.” He doesn’t say they’re interpersonally united in love. Come on dude.

----------------------------

T: …an incorruptible body isn't ITSELF personal intimacy. That's all I meant to say.

D: I may be wrong on this. As I see the general Judeo-Christian worldview, the hope for/eventuality of possessing an incorruptible body is evidence of one having personal intimacy with God. No personal intimacy with God…No incorruptibility in human existence.

Isn't this right?

T: I already agreed this is true. I said above, “I didn't mean to dispute whether persons who stand on the other side of having their bodies gloriously transformed by God are interpersonally intimate with God. No doubt they are.” Right.

And I followed with something you agreed to: “…interpersonal intimacy is affected by personal choices not bodily states per se, and that until we're talking about the choices, perceptions, freedom, and creativity that constitute interpersonal events we're not really describing that intimacy at all.”

So we’re in agreement! Yay!

T

T: Vaginal penetration isn't intimacy. I know you agree.

D: I believe that a woman may feel differently about that answer.

T: A woman being raped is going to say she’s enjoying ‘interpersonal intimacy’, that she’s being ‘loved’ and is ‘loving’ in return? Have you lost your mind dude?

D: My point, Tom, is that not about rape, per se. (There are other forms of sexual union that are NOT rape-related that DON'T deal with a "genuine interpersonal exchange of love") My point was about saying that a MALE saying that vaginal penetration isn't “intimacy” without being informed by the FEMALE perspective on the matter doesn't make…

T: Why would you assume (and you are) that my comments are uninformed by the female perspective (or by female perspectives)?

How many women would you say it takes to establish “the” female perspective? You and I are both male and WE have contrary perspectives on this. So why think there even is such a thing as “the” female perspective?

But anyhow…

I think you’re taking this far out left of field, Bro. All it takes is ONE instance of vaginal penetration which is not also a loving act of self-giving and interpersonal intimacy occurring anywhere on the globe at any time to substantiate my claim that “vaginal penetration isn’t itself interpersonal intimacy.” Nothing sexist about that. If sex can occur apart from love and intimacy (and it obvious can and does happen every day) then sex isn’t equivalent to such intimacy and is no guarantee of such intimacy. I believe I can find a woman or two (or ten or fifty) to agree with me, yeah.

We’ll have to find a way to understand Paul that makes room for this. That’s easy.

-------------------------------

D: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

T: Surely we cannot interpret Paul here as saying vaginal penetration itself constitutes or otherwise entails a genuine interpersonal exchange of love. Looks like he specifies the KIND of oneness he means, one “body.” He doesn’t say they’re interpersonally united in love. Come on dude.

D: In my mind, the “oneness” in body doesn't support your idea that physical sexual union itself has no sense of intimacy of its own, apart from reciprocated loving intentions and feelings.

T: And what sort of “intimacy” would that be if it’s void of loving and interpersonal address and response? A physical act void of life, love, the sharing and celebration of identity, the affirmation of value, etc. I think too much of the word “intimacy” to use it to describe such lovelessness.

Apart from reciprocated loving intentions, D, there is no such thing as ‘interpersonal intimacy’. So of course sexual union itself has no “intimacy of its own.” The very notion is—given the relational character of intimacy between persons—nonsensical. Physical acts can occasion interpersonal events of intimacy IF the persons inter-relate intimately on a personal level, that is, if they perceive, value, and choose in love to affirm the other. But such intimacy isn’t intrinsic to physical acts. The person must bring him/herself TO the physical act in this way, choosing to perceive and define that act AS interpersonal.

So I categorically reject the notion that interpersonal intimacy (which just is the loving exchange of identity between two persons) may ever be intrinsic to physical acts as such. Am I coming on strong? ;o)

----------------------------------

D: The Scripture plainly says that if a “member of Christ” unites themselves with a PROSTITUTE (not talking about love here)...they are still ONE with that prostitute, because the two have become ONE flesh through the sexual act. This is still intimacy though you don't want to call it such. I would just like this acknowledged.

T: It’s not interpersonal intimacy. It’s just a ‘physical union’—a powerful one to be sure. The sexual drive is extremely powerful and has great potential to entrap and deceive persons IN SEARCH of intimacy into believing that they come to possess it by having good sex. That’s a lie of course. Paul doesn’t substantiate it. The physical act of sex is not itself interpersonal union nor is it any guarantee that such union is present. If you want to divorce ‘intimacy’ from love and interpersonal recognition and valuation, fine. But I’ll not acknowledge it.

Tom

But, hey.  Do you.

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/3/2008 1:23:04 PM (GMT-5)

D: You don't want to allow the word “intimacy” to relate to any other relationship other than consciously-chosen loving self-giving. I don't think you can truncate the meaning that much.

T: Interpersonal intimacy is an act of personal address and response. People can and do have sex without ever engaging in THAT. I THINK you agree with me on that much.

Sure, people will qualify the word “intimate” with “physical” (“Where you two physically intimate?”) as a circumlocution for “sex.” But nothing of an interpersonal nature is in view there. The question is just whether or not vaginal penetration took place. It’s “physical” intimacy because the “bodies” of two persons are as close as two bodies can be. That’s SUPPOSED to mirror a similar embrace on an interpersonal level. And sure, the word “intimate” gets used to describe “intimate apparel” and “intimate conversations.” But these are hardly of theological interest, to us or Paul.

D: I DON'T DISAGREE that sexual union doesn't equate to loving, self-giving interpersonal intimacy. But I also don't truncate the sense of "intimacy" to solely that concept. You do. That you do, is your preference.

T: It’s not a blind preference though. I’m defining my terms and trying to offer concrete reasons for preferring this to that, etc. But I’m not seeing the same from you.

OK then. I “truncate the sense of intimacy solely to loving, interpersonal self-giving.” I admit it. When it comes to describing our relationship with God, I can’t conceive of any other sense of intimacy I’d be interested in or which appears anywhere in Scripture (and of course I DO believe our bodies shall participate in the effects of this interpersonal fulfillment). And when it comes to a theology of interpersonal relations in general, including other people, I also wouldn’t admit as genuine “intimacy” anything less than the same loving, interpersonal self-giving.

But I’m open dude. So tell me what “sense of intimacy” you have in mind which is NOT loving, which occurs “necessarily” wherever any man buys sex from a prostitute (it has to be ‘necessary’ otherwise Paul’s offering it as a reason not to go to prostitutes would fail), and which is of theological interest. Define and describe it for me.

D: Which is why you seem to minimize the “close union” (DICTIONARY)…and experience of "innermostness" of the sexual act between a “member of Christ” and a prostitute.

T: Describe for me how you imagine this “close union,” “intimacy,” and “innermostness” occuring between a man and a prostitute. Unpack it for me. Wherein does it lie? What choices does it involve? What values does it entail? What perceptions does it generate? A “close union” implies “two” coming together as one. Exactly what is it in the buyer and the seller of sex that comes together to form an “intimate union” (other than their bodies)? Innermostness? What’s that? Is it shared? What makes it intimacy? How is it that all this occurs necessarily, without fail, every time a guy sleeps with a prostitute?

I’m all ears.

D: I'd like you to acknowledge that sexual union IN AND OF ITSELF is a form of “intimacy” that MAY or MAY NOT involve mutual, reciprocal, self-giving love.

T: First define "intimacy" as you're using it here.

D: It's "just a physical union" indeed...heh...

T: Ah-a-a. I said more than just that. I said: “It’s just a ‘physical union’ — a powerful one to be sure. The sexual drive is extremely powerful and has great potential to entrap and deceive persons IN SEARCH of intimacy into believing that they come to possess it by having good sex.

The reason (well, one main reason) Paul doesn’t want believers going to prostitutes is that he understands what a storehouse of power the human body is. Its appetites and drives form bonds (you know about epinephrine dude, come on) and attachments to sources of pleasure. And those bonds exert tremendous influence over our identity development and the choices we make. We can bond to legitimate or illegitimate sources of pleasure. That’s Paul’s point.

In saying “one flesh” Paul just means to refer to the cementing influence which the pleasure of sex exercises over us (and over the subsequent choices we make and relations we have) and the tendency it has to create bonds and attachments. That’s all. There’s nothing deeply metaphysical or sacramental about his language. Such a powerful force as the sex drive ought always to be in the service of our ‘person’, of ‘who we are in Christ’ and in bringing our relationships to fulfillment in Christ. So to seek the pleasure of a prostitute’s embrace (apart from the interpersonal intimacy which ought to characterize sex) is to deny our very identity and vocation in Christ.

Paul knows that what I’ve many times said here is true (hehe): Everything we do is either an 'attempt at' or an 'expression of' genuine personhood. We ought not to become “one flesh” with a prostitute means we ought not to be deceived by the deep pleasure it naturally affords into either seeking our identity in that pleasure (a FALSE sense of intimacy bought from somebody who’ll pretend you’re wonderful) or into having the secret attachments that sexual bonds inevitably form work to undermine our identity and vocation in Christ, ruin our marriages, and fail to make the sexual union the mirror of the God-world relationship it’s supposed to be. Buying sex is a false intimacy, a failed attempt at intimacy and personhood, which betrays everything the believer says he/she is committed to. But I’m interested to hear nevertheless what form of “intimacy” you see in it.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/3/2008 4:49:32 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/4/2008 5:59:41 AM (GMT-5)

OUR BODIES ARE MEMBERS OF CHRIST

The second important truth is found in verses 15-17. Our spirituality and our sexuality are mysteriously intertwined.

...Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, "The two will become one flesh." But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

There are three important things in these two verses. First, for us as Christians, our bodies are members of Christ himself. These three verses describe the mystery of our union with Christ. Jesus described it in John 15:4: "Abide in Me, and I in you." Paul described it in Colossians 1:27, as "Christ in you, the hope of glory." When we become Christians, we're joined in spirit with Jesus Christ. He comes to live in us, and whatever we do with our body implicates our resident Lord Jesus.

Second, in verse 16, it tells us that sexual intercourse unites two human beings physically and spiritually. That's the point of the Old Testament quotation from Genesis chapter 2, "The two will become one flesh." When the Lord brought Adam and Eve together, they entered into a sexual relationship that involved them as both physical beings and spiritual beings. And you can't tear those two things apart. D. S. Bailey describes sexual intercourse as "an act which by reason of its very nature engages and expresses the whole personality in such a way as to constitute a unique mode of self-disclosure and self-commitment." (1) There is no such thing as casual sex or inconsequential sex or recreational sex. In The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis says, "The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured." (2 )

The third important point, in the second half of verse 15, is that for Christians, sexual intercourse outside the bond of marriage unites the members of Christ himself with that sex partner. And Paul's horror at the thought almost overwhelms him. "May it never be!" To use a part of Christ's own body in an act of sexual immorality, again whether it's solitary sex, fornication, or adultery, is dragging Jesus into our sexual indulgence. Now it's not as if Christ is personally tainted with our sin, as somebody has said, any more than a ray of sunshine is polluted by shining on a garbage dump. But his reputation is dirtied by our involvement in sexual sin.

OUR BODIES ARE THE TEMPLES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

The last three verses bring tremendous encouragement about the resources God has given us to live a life of sexual purity. It starts with two warnings in verse 18:

Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Paul's counsel regarding sexual sin is the same that Solomon gives his son in Proverbs 5: Run for your life! Flee from sexual sin. Don't try to dialogue with it or manage it. Like Joseph, when he was confronted with Potiphar's wife's advances (Genesis 39), just take off and run. Paul has already made the point that the stakes are way too high to dabble in it or to think that we can somehow control it.

How is it that we sin against our own body in sexual immorality, as Paul asserts in verse 18? I don't believe that sexual sin is the worst possible sin, but it is the most unique in its character. It comes from inside the body, it's bent on personal gratification, and it drives us like no other impulse. And when it's fulfilled, it does have a way of internally destroying a person that no other sin has. Because sexual intimacy is the deepest uniting of two persons, its misuse corrupts on the deepest human level.

Listen to this profound insight from a Catholic theologian, Brendan Byrne, commenting on verse 18: "The immoral person perverts precisely that faculty within himself that is meant to be the instrument of the most intimate bodily communication between persons. He sins against his unique power of bodily communication and in this sense sins in a particular way 'against his own body.' All other sins in this respect by comparison are 'outside' the body--with 'body' having in this verse the strong sexual overtones that appear to cling to it throughout the passage as a whole. No other sin engages one's power of bodily personal communication in precisely so intimate a way." (3)  (Shekinah's Note: even the communication of FLUIDS in such act!)

But then Paul closes in verse 19, with this wonderfully positive, encouraging news about how we ought to view our bodies and express ourselves sexually. There are three important points in those last two verses. First, we are filled up with the Holy Spirit of God. He is resident within us. We are his temple, but literally it's not the whole temple, but the holy of holies, the sanctuary, the place in the temple where God dwelt. Each one of us, if we have a relationship with Christ, is the sanctuary of God. Paul calls us to sexual purity because we are the dwelling place of the eternal God of the universe. So how can we defile the place where God lives with sexual immorality?

----------------------------------------

I'm definitely not the only person who thinks the way I do about this. 

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/4/2008 6:41:10 AM (GMT-5)

D: Intimacy can be defined in terms of close personal union between things deemed "private" or "personally private". Intimacy could be the sharing (or revealing) of something of the "inmost depths" of a being that is seen as "personally private"...not to be generally experienced.

From the way I see things, when two people have vaginal intercourse (I'm going to assume phallus/vagina union here), I don't see how it can't be said that a "union/sharing of usually private areas of being" cannot be said to occur then. Even to the point of sharing bodily fluids from those private areas of being that just don't NORMALLY just get "shared" between persons in normal social interaction. And for this "union" to occur, this doesn't require any REAL sense of freely chosen, self-giving, mutually-reciprocal love.

My talking about STDs (or genital parasites, as well! ) show the POWER of the "unification" of which I speak. People who sin sexually really DO "sin against their own bodies" by opening themselves up to death and idolatry through an "intimate" act. And this openness to potential life-denying situations (with, unfortunately, even a new human being possibly being conceived from the same act) NECESSARILY OCCURS with sex, "even when there's no love involved."

I was talking to Aki and she could see exactly what I was talking about. Exactly. She can even understand what you meant...but thought it was slightly truncated in scope like I did. I really don't see how you can't see what I'm saying.

Tom: I must need a break from the board, because this is basically saying what I’ve explicitly been saying. I have nothing to disagree with here.

You claimed an “intimacy” to the act of sex which is (a) not related to loving self-giving, and (b) not equivalent to intercourse itself. That’s the problem. Now it’s obvious that the ‘intimacy’ you’ve meant JUST IS the act of sex itself, the sharing of bodily fluids, etc. There’s no ‘intimacy’ beyond the physical union. That’s what you’re saying here and I totally agree.

But D, this just means that you’re agreeing with me that (a) physical acts cannot be intrinsically intimate in an interpersonal and loving way (I know you’ve already agreed on this), and more importantly (b) the physical act of vaginal penetration is, as I said, “just a physical union.” YOU DISAGREED with this! Remember? You said no, the physical act is itself more than just a physical union; it’s necessarily an occasion of “intimacy” (but not necessarily a loving interpersonal intimacy). But you wouldn’t say just WHAT this intimacy sex necessarily is (in addition to the physical union but excluding interpersonal love). Now you’re explicitly agreeing with me that vaginal intercourse is “just a physical union.” The necessary intimacy of the act which you want to be there is nothing more or over and against the physical union itself, the sharing of bodily fluids, etc.

Dang, that was hard.

Tom