Urges/desires of the "Flesh"?

[Auron]

I never understood why Christianity has always said to resist your "Urges of the flesh."

I thought human bodies were simply vessels of your soul, and that it and it alone powers it.

So if your soul is powering your body, wouldn't that mean that those "Urges of the flesh" are actually just the souls?

 

[acd]

Because Christianity basically wants everyone to deny themselves all their experiences, instincts, and rationality.
Also, according to that theology you were born with a terribly sinful soul--all without even having drawn a first breath--which means you can't trust any of your perceptions or feelings or reasoning... you just have to take your pastor/priest's/the bible's word for everything to live your life.

 

[This]

The practical reasons for doing so: In many cases delayed gratification gives a better pay-off than instant gratification. Eating healthy food sucks at first but you'll be a lot healthier in 10 years on that system than if you eat at McDonalds everyday and get that instant gratification of "wow this tastes good" In most cases this appears to be the case, if you blow all your money now you won't have any money later, usually delayed gratification holds more benefit than instant gratification.

The christian reason: The delayed gratification principles among the church (not necessarily the bible) tend to center around sexual desire. The main reason for this is that sexual drive is a basic human need, if we didn't have it we would cease to exist as a species. Many animals put their own lives in risk to perform their mating calls this shows that reproduction in some cases can be more important than survival. When sexual desire is repressed we become submissive and tend to follow orders like sheep, we are lost in a cloud of confusion and looking for any way out. At that point is when we start to cling to religion as our "saving grace" and "higher enlightenment."

 

[Kmal]

So if your soul is powering your body, wouldn't that mean that those "Urges of the flesh" are actually just the souls?

Yeah lol; but you use your flesh to bring them urges into fruition.

 

[Seraffa]

I would like to respond to this one, since my counselor of 14 years is also the best "damn" psychologist and all-around easy-gonig guy I have ever had the priviledge of speaking with.

There are a lot of early Christian writers (known as the Fathers of the Church) who, if you read them, readily affirm that bodily urges are NOT the body's fault. They're just urges. It's what we do with them in both a fallen state plus the manipulations of a fallen world that lead to so many phrases about "not acting on urges." What we do or don't do eventually reveals our weaknesses and strengths which society may support or totally mock, depending upon the environment you decide to place yourself in. Your "lifestyle", as we would say.

The Fathers of the Church also write about the "nous" (the mind) being seated in the soul (not the body), and a lot about the "nous" having to descend into the "heart" in order to overcome "passions" we wrestle with every day. So, the soul just doesn't automatically direct the body. It's the "nous" within the soul that determines what is acted upon or not acted upon.

 

[Nixie]

I always took this prohibition as a means to separate early Christianity from Paganism. Many Pagan ways were very open and didn't recognize sins of the flesh. Also, there became an increasing need to ensure that children belonged to their fathers among the landed which probably influenced the idea of keeping sex for marriage--no dna tests back in the middle ages. I tend to see many of the tenents of the bible as having socio-economic factors as rationales--as with most societial influences.

 

[Billy]

The christian reason: The delayed gratification principles among the church (not necessarily the bible) tend to center around sexual desire. The main reason for this is that sexual drive is a basic human need, if we didn't have it we would cease to exist as a species. Many animals put their own lives in risk to perform their mating calls this shows that reproduction in some cases can be more important than survival. When sexual desire is repressed we become submissive and tend to follow orders like sheep, we are lost in a cloud of confusion and looking for any way out. At that point is when we start to cling to religion as our "saving grace" and "higher enlightenment."

Umm. Not exactly Sali... thats not the Christian reason, supposedly the Christian reason is 2 fold.

A. excessive sex detracts from a understanding and worship of the divine and mires it with overindulgence on the flesh, the same reasons that the Christians (ironically) condemn other sins of excess such as gluttony, greed and pride etc. It removes God from the equation and supplants worship for it, for worship of a less divine nature.

and

B. Sexual contact traditionally for Christians should be confined to a marriage. Sex outside of marriage is considered adultery because you are cheating on your future spouse.

I think those reasons are absolute BS, but are much more accurate then yours. The lynchpin to those beliefs of course is faith, both in their authority and in god.

People dont subject themselves to religion simply to become more docile and easily lead... thats a view from the outside looking in, which is completely irrational.

 

[Billy]

I always took this prohibition as a means to separate early Christianity from Paganism. Many Pagan ways were very open and didn't recognize sins of the flesh. Also, there became an increasing need to ensure that children belonged to their fathers among the landed which probably influenced the idea of keeping sex for marriage--no dna tests back in the middle ages. I tend to see many of the tenents of the bible as having socio-economic factors as rationales--as with most societial influences.

I think those things are part of it, but nots completely. Monogamy predates Christianity, they just adopted it because it worked for them. There were as I believe monogamous pagans as well. Pagan of course I assume meaning non-christians.

 

[Nixie]

I am not saying that Pagans weren't monogamous @Billy I stated there weren't any sins of the flesh. If memory serves correctly Beltine festivals were a time when basically orgies happened--it was a time when vows could be broken and people were to copulate freely--this was a form of sympathetic magic--we are showing the earth how to be fruitful by being fruitful so to speak.

I believe Christianity adopted many things from Pagan religions as well as created prohibitions to separate themselves from Pagan religions.

Yes, the acceptable definition of Pagan in the modern age is non-Christian.

 

[Trifoilum]

I always took this prohibition as a means to separate early Christianity from Paganism. Many Pagan ways were very open and didn't recognize sins of the flesh. Also, there became an increasing need to ensure that children belonged to their fathers among the landed which probably influenced the idea of keeping sex for marriage--no dna tests back in the middle ages. I tend to see many of the tenents of the bible as having socio-economic factors as rationales--as with most societial influences.

Yay for historical sources.

I would agree, the rule is FIRST made for this. :| But later on, it grew on to take multitude layers of different meanings.

 

[Nixie]

Yes, I agree [MENTION=2172]Trifoilum[/MENTION] Historical roots are often lost among the dogma

 

[just me]

Difficult to understand things of the flesh and the Spirit with a closed mind. It would almost be like a person jumping up and down while drinking a drink and smoking a cigarette expecting to pass Yoga. The mind must be open to the words of the wise. Asking for an explanation reminds me of the story of the virgins and their oil. The others used all their oil up, but the smart ones saved their oil for their lamps for when the master came back. They asked the ones that had oil for some of theirs, but were denied it.

"
14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. "

There is therefore no condemnation........

Romans is worth a read. I will look up the description of "the fruits of the Spirit" versus "the flesh" as time permits.
"[SUP]14[/SUP]For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[SUP]15[/SUP]But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
[SUP]16[/SUP]This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
[SUP]17[/SUP]For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
[SUP]18[/SUP]But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
[SUP]19[/SUP]Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[SUP]20[/SUP]Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[SUP]21[/SUP]Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[SUP]22[/SUP]But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[SUP]23[/SUP]Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
[SUP]24[/SUP]And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
[SUP]25[/SUP]If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

 

[Nixie]

Difficult to understand things of the flesh and the Spirit with a closed mind.

Two way street it would seem.

 

[just me]

Difficult to understand things of the flesh and the Spirit with a closed mind.

Two way street it would seem.

.....AND....., not one or the other by itself.

: )

 

[randomsomeone]

There is also the aspect of "the flesh" that represents our efforts to move through life in a manner that is disconnected from God, unmindful of God, automomous, self-sufficient. Our needs, even our deepest needs, are met solely through our own devices. This ultimately would be a great illusion.

Christianity is all about connection to God...and in this case this is somewhat heightened because our ability for connection was restored at great cost. So to ignore this life, to act as if the life of connection and of Spirit were insignificant, is shortsighted and ill-informed. We are encouraged to live in a balance and in our highest, most complete selves. Again, it goes back to the meaning of living in our essential connection to God. The idea of "the flesh" in it's broader, more inclusive meaning, gets to a very core issue which we have to grapple with in the sense of a reorientation of personal perspective, goals, and modes of living.

 

[magister343]

First of all, the body is not merely a vessel for the soul. (I prefer to think of the soul as all the information defining our identity, and the body as the physical medium in which it is expressed. That information can be translated into another medium, but cannot exist without some medium of some sort. It is not like a prisoner in a cell, but rather like the meaning of words on a page.) Soul is practically synonymous with self. Traditionally the body is part of the soul, the form of the gestalt of our existence. The soul is generally considered to include both the body and the spirit, where the term spirit most literally means breath, life, or animating principle. The notion of a strict dualism between body and soul, where an incorporeal spirit is the true self that during life is trapped within a fleshly cage, is not a Christian notion. Such ideas are Greek in origin and were a major part of the gnostic heresies. While the Gnostics believe that salvation is the soul escaping the bonds of the physical world after death to be reunited with the pleroma of the godhead, true Christians must affirm the Bodily Resurrection. It is believed that our glorified bodies will "bodies, not flesh" ("corpus non caro" in Latin, soma non sarx in Greek) and so will not be given over to the desires of the flesh. It is pretty clear that the glorified body will not be subject to sexual lust nor hunger, nor capable of performing the acts to satisfy those no longer relevant urgings.

The dualism between body and spirit has often been use to demean the body, but even more often to excuse the acts of the flesh as irrelevant to spiritual matters. It encourages us both to neglect the body (often punishing it harshly or seeking death) and to live lives of license. The bible denies such dualism and affirms that acts like prostituting oneself have strong spiritual consequence. It does not teach doing anything to harm the body for the sake of punishing or purging the flesh, but rather to take care of it and discipline the self not to be beholden to natural urges when they distract from greater things.

Flesh is often used as a shorthand for the fallen nature of man, specifically the fallen nature of the individual himself. (Often you'll see the trifecta of The Flesh, the World, and the devil, representing the source of temptations coming from within, from peer pressure from a fallen society, and from spiritual forces.) That the flesh is depraved does not mean it is entirely evil. It is quite common in christian thought to assert that evil does not exist, but is simply the lack of good. The depravity of the flesh is its craving for things that can be good unto themselves in the proper context, but while out of that proper context. It is too much of a good thing when one focuses excessively on that thing in lieu of something better. Many of the church fathers taught that before the fall man could do everything he could do now but had complete conscious, rational control over the entire body. We were supposed to be able to know when desires were appropriate and choose to have urges for things only when they were best. (At least one claimed that without the fall men would not get erections without the intent to procreate with their wives.)

 

[Auron]

First of all, the body is not merely a vessel for the soul. (I prefer to think of the soul as all the information defining our identity, and the body as the physical medium in which it is expressed.

........And where would said body be getting this information from which to express from?
..The soul, perhaps? Which means that it would be "powered" by it, right? The soul gives information, and the body translates it into a physical state. Just sayin'.

The soul is generally considered to include both the body and the spirit, where the term spirit most literally means breath, life, or animating principle.

If that's the case, how do you explain when the soul leaves the body and, (supposedly,) goes to heaven?

Flesh is often used as a shorthand for the fallen nature of man, specifically the fallen nature of the individual himself. (Often you'll see the trifecta of The Flesh, the World, and the devil, representing the source of temptations coming from within, from peer pressure from a fallen society, and from spiritual forces.)

So you are saying my human urges are from a fallen society? From "Spiritual Forces?" I'm not insulting your logic, just trying to make sure I get things right.

 

[Seraffa]

Monogamy

I think those things are part of it, but nots completely. Monogamy predates Christianity, they just adopted it because it worked for them. There were as I believe monogamous pagans as well. Pagan of course I assume meaning non-christians.

The singular love of (one) man for (one) woman is how God intended it to be from the very beginning; and also the reflection of Christ's relationship to the Church as Spiritual Bridegroom. It wasn't because Christianity adopted it because "it worked for them." Look also in Jewish customs in the Old Testament.

 

[Seraffa]

Many of the church fathers taught that before the fall man could do everything he could do now but had complete conscious, rational control over the entire body. We were supposed to be able to know when desires were appropriate and choose to have urges for things only when they were best. (At least one claimed that without the fall men would not get erections without the intent to procreate with their wives.)[/QUOTE]

I don't know whether you're a Catholic (or not) or what judicatory you belong to -- but I challenge you to show me those Church Father's writings in particular, because they seem fabricated in that respect.

 

[Barnabas]

that's a gnostic view, not a christian one

Edit: Billy is incorrect also.