Date: 13 Jan 2003
Time: 13:17:56

Comment

Seems pretty straight-forward to me!

Just that in my congregation of 70-year-olds, it doesn't seem too pertinent (or so I guess). Yet, it's so interesting how often I'm asked by older folks to preach on it.

I wonder about other sins against the body. smoking, drinking, overeating, lack of exercise... alongside STD's have grown obesity and Type II diabetes.

Sally


Date: 13 Jan 2003
Time: 18:40:52

Comment

We are talking about more than sex here! Fornication....anything that harms God's temple...Sex, is one if unsafe, and adulterous, or premarital, but Partaking in any overindulgence also... food, alcohol, ciggies, too much MTV, South Park, you get the picture prepare our bodies to meet with God...Pastor Mary in ohio


Date: 13 Jan 2003
Time: 19:24:20

Comment

The Old Testament text gives us God telling Samuel about Eli's judgment because of the sins of Eli's family. The sins of Eli's sons were intentional sins against God. We can read the story and judge them so easily.

Here in this epistle, the sins against the body (which is Christ's) are also intentional sins against God. Do we, like Eli, look away?

Is this too much of a stretch?

kat inPA


Date: 14 Jan 2003
Time: 06:24:20

Comment

I am hoping to get away from the sex issue and look at vows. I am not quite sure how I am going to work this since the pericope is pretty focused on sex. v. 17 seems to be the point where I can take the tangent on being united. I am thinking about the marital vow, the vow as a church officer, the vow we make to God as Christians.

I would really appreciate some input on this line of thinking. Too much isegesis?

shalom, pastor d in wv


Date: 14 Jan 2003
Time: 09:16:51

Comment

In Corinth, prostitutes were part of some of the "pagan" temples, so there may be more going on here than an admonition to keep your nose clean.

The main meaning of this passage is Paul's statement "that all things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial." Remember, he's writing to a church in Corinth where they had made an art of immorality, and that had seeped into the church.Paul is trying to answer the question "if we are save by grace, why does what we do matter?" Others who have had had to deal with that are just about every significant religious leader-Augustine, Calvin, Knox, Wesley. My favorite example is the Scottish Presbyterian clergy group who decided that it was Ok to practice witchcraft since God was going to save them anyway! (See, We Presbyterians aren't as boring as some might think!)

Paul also wants us to know that he will not be ruled by anything except the God who comes in Christ Jesus.Only God has dominion over us.

revgilmer in Texarkana


Date: 14 Jan 2003
Time: 11:09:54

Comment

In reading the NIB I came across some interesting insights into this passage that, I agree, is definately about more than sexual practices. "Paul's issue is not whether one has a lord or not; one simply will have some lord. At stake is what lord will one have?" The lorship of Christ grants perfect freedom whereas the lordship of sex, alcohal, food, grants temporary if not false freedom.

What so y'all think? On track or way off?

J in NY


Date: 15 Jan 2003
Time: 09:14:51

Comment

Ah, such an interesting passage to go with the Samuel Reading and the Gospel.

The sins here are nothing more than Samuel's children gone wild which prevents them and us from fully living into our call to discipleship.

tom in ga


Date: 15 Jan 2003
Time: 09:16:02

Comment

Oooops! I meant to say "Eli's children" not Samuels.

tom in ga


Date: 16 Jan 2003
Time: 12:32:02

Comment

Some people in Corinth worshiped Dionysis and actual sexual intercourse was part of that ritual. I think it was the priestesses who had sex the, uh, usual way and, uh, less common ways (couldn't get pregnant). I seem to remember, also, that regular worshipers engaged in sexual intercourse with women whose service to Dionysis (Paul's prostitutes) involved providing THAT service.

loosely remembered from "Uppity Women of Ancient Times."

My hunch, therefore, is that the decadent Corinthians seized the "grace" aspect a little too enthusiastically. While other sins against the body can certainly be included in the term "fornication," I suspect Paul was most offended by the sexual ethics of the time (the Levitical spilling the seed).

I look around me and I see us spilling the seed in all sorts of ways. Subdevelopments are popping up left and right - and the easiest, cheapest way to do it is to bulldoze the entire acreage. Three different times I've seen a fox along my road near where a new subdivision is going in. They're getting run out of their habitat. Just how many Home Depots do we need? I watch mom-n-pop hardware stores decay and decline. I watch fairly new buildings decay because business and traffic moved over a block or two and the businesses had to build whole new buildings while they abandon the old ones (it's cheaper).

The OT posts referred to the good old days sometimes being OVER. However, some of those values ought to hold: Our church has a newspaper recycling bin - the v-a-s-t majority of recyclers are older people who know the value of use and reuse, who grew up with not-so-disposable resources.

Sally


Date: 16 Jan 2003
Time: 21:16:36

Comment

Preachers, 70 year old singles are having sex. Keep it real. Gen


Date: 17 Jan 2003
Time: 07:34:40

Comment

St. Augustine used similar statement - Love God and do as you please

6:13 "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food," is something to work with - it's not about food, but about utilitarian and hedonistic ethics There's a lot to unpack there.

The freedom of Romans 8:1-2 from which Paul is backpedalling was Nero, Ceasar, Herod's way of thinking in regard to their own laws, now you have the average person thinking the same way.

Just some thoughts Craig Miami


Date: 17 Jan 2003
Time: 13:18:05

Comment

Hopefully, it's not just 70 year old singles having sex, but marrieds, also! LKinHC