If God doesn't want us to have sex, why does it feel so good?

Comments please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, and don't think that God does or doesn't want anything.

However, to answer it from a trained ex Catholic's point of view...
Who says God doesn't want us to have sex?
God wants us to procreate.
That requires sex (in the traditional sense).
He just doesn't just wants us to have some self control and be descriminating.
He wants us to have children in wedlock because he wants a child to be raised in a stable family environment.
He wants us to understand the virtues of self control.

And, even as a non-Christian, (although I think that a single parent home is necessarily unhealthy) I don't see what is so wrong about believing that an ideal situation for a child would be to be raised by two loving parents.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did the whole 'pre-marital sex is bad' thing come about before the invention of contraception?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

was Adam created with apenis?

Which leads to the question: Was Adam created with a penis in the beggining? In the Genesis it says that God made Adam and after he saw that Adam was lonely, he decided to make Eve. Was Adam modified after God saw that he was lonely? Dint God know that Adam was going to be lonely or for that matter did he foresee that he was going to create Eve?

Just wondering.

 

I think the bigger question here is whether Adam got an erection after seeing Eve for the first time, and what did Eve do about it?

 

Sex is not forbidden, just sex outside of marriage (ie premarital and extramarital) One reason for it is too keep our bodies pure.

 

New Life,

What does that mean?

 

He has no idea. It's just his conditioned response.

Though I will say that sex outside of marriage isn't healthy, and saving yourself for marriage is the best way to prevent a child from growing up in a single-parent household, and STDs.

Most of the morals in the bible are great, and read objectively, it can really help guide you. Forget all the worshiping god stuff, just read the stuff about living a good life.

JD

 

I'm not following the part about how saving yourself for marriage is going to preven a child from growing up in a sngle parent house. THere's always divorce. Also, why not just live by a rule that says you have to get married if the girl gets pregnant? That would be equally preventative.

I'll grant you the STD argument though, as long as both people follow the rule.

 

He said it is the best way, not fail-proof.
Outside of complete abstainence, can you think of a better way?

How would that help to ensure that a child will be raised in a healthy, happy environment with two loving parents?
If anything, it would make the situation worse.

 

The alternate rule I gave should work just as well, hence neither has a claim to be "best".

It wouldn't do anything to ensure that. But then neither does saving yourself til marriage. Arguments can be made that saving yourself til marriage actually decreases the chance. But of course in order to really get to the bottom of this, we'd have to define "healthy happy environment with two loving parents" in a way that was empirically testable and didn't beg the question. I suspec the chances of doing that are woefully slim.

 

It may, or may not be a conditioned response. Do you know if they are even christian? What if this is some sort of personal belief system? I'm of the same opinion, it keeps someone pure. Pure how? They have no expectations on how you perform. They have noone to compare you to. They don't have a mental link to some other man still, or woman for that case. Most women remember their first better then any after. Would you like to marry a woman who still has a "special place in her heart" for the first guy that penetrated her vagina? I think it's considered less violating to be the pricker, rather then the pricked, so they don't have the same memories, but theres still something. I don't think someone can get the same experience out of premarital sex, before marraige, that they get from the knowledge that they are the only lover for the woman the marry, and vice versa.

 

Well before people have sex they're fairly innocent, and after wards they arent innocent anymore. (at least the poeple I know are like that) and by not having sex till marriage you're remaining "pure" and innocent.

Besides that (from my viewpoint as a female) your body is kinda like a gift that you can only really give once for the first time, and after that its just 're-gifting' so one might want to save it for the person they're planning on spending the rest of their life with!

 

What do you mean by innocent?

And of course you can only have sex the first time once. You can also only dance with someone the first time once. Should we then save all dancing until marriage?

I think the problem here is that you've taken the metaphor of gifting too seriously. Having sex does not mean you are giving your body away, whatever mediaeval texts say.

 

Just for the record I don't believe in god but I'll talk as if I do.

Adam & Eve wouldn't be married in fact I doubt they'd philosophise how they were created thus they wouldn't celebrate their existence or togetherness in religious ways. i.e marriage.

Anyone got any counter POV's for this?

There is, I'm wondering, how does marriage justify commitment when there is divorce as an escape route.

Has Marriage just become a commercial gimmick rather than something that's supposed to be for life?

 

Thats the difference between state marraige, an church marraige. Marriage in the face of God, or marriage for tax reasons.

 

Interesting. *Every* church marriage I have attended has been much more of a commercial event thatn *any* state marriage I have attended. Of course that's just anecdotal evidence, and I wouldn't extrapolate it to all marriages, but there certainly does seem to be a bit of a trend.

Marriage is no longer for life. At least not in this culture. And that has noting to do with whether the marriage is seen as a civil or religious event. Churches grant divorce too. THere are pros and cons to the shortening of marriage. On the one hand, there is less stability in the home. ON the other people aren't trapped by decisions made as adolescents. We also are no longer a culture of arranged marriages. That too has it's ups and downs. A good friend of mine is on his second marriage. He chose to have an arranged marriage the second time. He says he much prefers it. It's a far better match than he would have picked out himself, and the emotional issues are easier to deal with. (His description, not mine.)

So you can morn the change of culture and get all misty eyed about how perfect things used to be and lament the sad state we're in now, but in the end it's all just pretend. Marriages were ugly and nasty even when they were religious events. Marriages can be wonderful even when done for tax purposes. Healthiness and happiness for raising children has nothing to do with the reasons for tying the knot.

 

Churches give anullments. And even then you only get one.

 

Churches also grant divorce. And as for only one anullment, historically it's got more to do with how much money you have than any specific limit.

But even if you were right. So? Are you suggesting that children of annulled marriages are in a better place than children of divorced marriages? I don't mind arguing about semantics, but this borders on an argument about syntax.

 

Neither are better off. The point was, church marriages are under the eyes of God, so the believers may be more likly to honor their wedding under God, then a couple who was wed by a judge. Does anyone know any statistics for this?