Comments please.

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.

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

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,

One reason for it is too keep our bodies pure.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

Originally posted by JDawg
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.


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.

Originally posted by drnihili
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.

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

Originally posted by drnihili
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.


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.

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

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



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.

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.

Originally posted by JDawg
He has no idea. It's just his conditioned response.

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.

Originally posted by Cris
New Life,

What does that mean?

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!

Originally posted by New Life
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's always divorce.

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?

Originally posted by Mitch1984
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.

Originally posted by Fafnir665
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.

Originally posted by drnihili
Churches grant divorce too.

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

Originally posted by Fafnir665
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?

Originally posted by Fafnir665
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?

Well first you'd have to define "honor their wedding". I assume you have in mind something like divorce rates. But then you'd also have to separate out marriages for tax purposes that were done by a minister. I was married by a minister because it was cheaper than getting married by a judge. Which side of the statistics do I go on? And you'll also need to factor in all the people who just never bother getting married despite living together for a long time.

Even if you could find statisitcs, I don't think you could infer anything useful about this debate from them. Still, if someone has em, feel free to share.

Sex gives the sensation of pleasure because it motivates an organism to procreate and thus pass on its DNA.

"God" doesnt have anything to do with it, sexually repressed religious folks are the ones with the hangup and the misunderstanding of sexuality.

Originally posted by DefSkeptic
"God" doesnt have anything to do with it, sexually repressed religious folks are the ones with the hangup and the misunderstanding of sexuality.


You fail to see both sides of the issue. While you personally don't believe in a god, there are others that beleive in one. You can't just flat out dismiss their viewpoint, and tell them it's all biological. To them, God created us for a reason, and each of our bodily functions as well. A debate on the issue of why and entity such as he would make it pleasurable is what is occuring here. Not wether or not a god created humnity, or whether one exists. But we can not as humans pretend to begin to understand why a God would do what they have done. Maybe sexual pleasure was meant as a gift, to give us a reason to live. Isn't most of our worlds economy based on men seeking power to provide stability to a woman?

You fail to see both sides of the issue. While you personally don't believe in a god, there are others that beleive in one. You can't just flat out dismiss their viewpoint, and tell them it's all biological. To them, God created us for a reason, and each of our bodily functions as well.

You fail to see that there AREN'T two sides to this issue.

Becuase people believe in God doesn't make them right. Evidence: The tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus.

However, there is evidence that the way our bodies work is completely biological. How about the fact that the function, the main one, of life on any level of the food chain, is survival and the passing on of the DNA line? The most basic life forms still have a purpose to life, and that is to reproduce. In some species, the male spider gives up his own life as a food offering to the female, and the only thing the male gets in return is to procreate with the her. That's it. He fucks, and dies.

This binding clue pops up in every living organism alive on earth. From sexual to asexual, the purpose of life is surviving long enough to pass on your seed. (The only variation in this is that the lifespan of an individual in a species might not allow the parent to ensure personally that the child would survive, while others do) From the insect (Can't recall what it's called) species that bears the lifespan of a whole 3 hours, to Man, the common bond is sex, and the survival of one's line.

JD

Don't underestimate the value of ideals. An ideal marriage is one that works till the end. The ideal situation is one partner. Anything else is less than perfect, prone to failure. Since the Bible teaches "holiness", i.e. being perfect before God - it also teaches ideals.

Some ideals are not viable anymore, because of our cultural differences. Take for instance homosexality. From the point that JDawg makes, homosexuality is hardly ideal for procreation purposes. Since the Bible is based on the idea that procreation as the persistance of life (ruled by love, I should add) is a command from God and a natural result of His coupling a male and a female, homosexuality is contrary to God's purpose. (Wait, don't flame me yet...) But our society has changed, and love has (supposedly) become more important than sexual orientation. Which is quite Biblical IMOP. Unfortuanely, continued love is a higher ideal than continued procreation, and harder to exercise. So marriages fall apart, children are born with AIDS and ideals in general go out the window.

I'm reminded of the poem by WB Yeats (aptly named 'the Second Coming'):
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

The Bible tries hard to hold on to the centre. Sometimes this means overemphasizing politically incorrect idea(l)s, because letting go of them is the beginning of of a 'widening gyre'...

Originally posted by DefSkeptic
Sex gives the sensation of pleasure because it motivates an organism to procreate and thus pass on its DNA.

"God" doesnt have anything to do with it, sexually repressed religious folks are the ones with the hangup and the misunderstanding of sexuality.

That's what I think too. But I'm interested in others views on this.

Originally posted by JDawg
However, there is evidence that the way our bodies work is completely biological. How about the fact that the function, the main one, of life on any level of the food chain, is survival and the passing on of the DNA line? The most basic life forms still have a purpose to life, and that is to reproduce. In some species, the male spider gives up his own life as a food offering to the female, and the only thing the male gets in return is to procreate with the her. That's it. He fucks, and dies.

JD

Yeah my beliefs are science based and on things like the evolution of the species and the MRS NERG seven life processes.

Originally posted by JDawg
You fail to see that there AREN'T two sides to this issue.

Becuase people believe in God doesn't make them right. Evidence: The tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus


How is this evidence? Your "evidence" is nothing more then childhood characters, meant to amuse children, not deeply held spirtual beliefs. Your "evidence" is just trivializing peoples deepest held beliefs, comparing them to what is universaly known as fiction, at a certain age. That doesn't prove anything. The fact of the matter is, people believe in God. Even you honor one by capatolizing his name.

What is really confusing, is how other animals have any thing to do with man's procreation. Are other animals sentient? Are other animals as favored as we are in the eyes of God? We alone were given the tools to worship him, so why can't sex be something special for us? What evidence do you have that sex is pleasurable to species other then our own, and not just the instinct]/i] and [i]purpose that you use as justification? It seems to me that no other species spends nearly as much of their time looking for recreational sex, as does ours. I think thats proof enough that it's something more. Maybe it's just that once a species is intelligent enough, it needs some extra incentive to allow procreation to take place, or maybe it's because we were blessed by God.

Originally posted by Fafnir665
How is this evidence? Your "evidence" is nothing more then childhood characters, meant to amuse children, not deeply held spirtual beliefs. Your "evidence" is just trivializing peoples deepest held beliefs, comparing them to what is universaly known as fiction, at a certain age. That doesn't prove anything. The fact of the matter is, people believe in God. Even you honor one by capatolizing his name.

What is really confusing, is how other animals have any thing to do with man's procreation. Are other animals sentient? Are other animals as favored as we are in the eyes of God? We alone were given the tools to worship him, so why can't sex be something special for us? What evidence do you have that sex is pleasurable to species other then our own, and not just the instinct]/i] and [i]purpose that you use as justification? It seems to me that no other species spends nearly as much of their time looking for recreational sex, as does ours. I think thats proof enough that it's something more. Maybe it's just that once a species is intelligent enough, it needs some extra incentive to allow procreation to take place, or maybe it's because we were blessed by God.

While you are right that JDawg was trivializing belief in God, his point still stands. There are a wide number of false beliefs that are widely and deeply held. Thus the mere existence of belief does not count as significant evidence for its truth.

Your second paragraph is wildly misguided. First it begs the question. Most of the evidence you offer for a difference between humans and other animals presupposes that there is a God and that God had decreed there is a difference. This is no argument. The other evidence you provide is simply wrong. There are other species that spend more of their time in recreational sex than we do, and we have nearly as much evidence that it is pleasurable for them as we do that it is pleasurable for humans. Take a look around for information on the sex lives of bonobo chimps. If a drive for recreational sex is evidence of special status with God, then bonobos outrank humans by a long ways.

Originally posted by drnihili
There are a wide number of false beliefs that are widely and deeply held. Thus the mere existence of belief does not count as significant evidence for its truth.


Such as? I havn't seen one example that isn't a childhood belief, that most shed once they learn the truth. Maybe God is a species childhood belief, and we're just waiting to see the real truth, though the real truth must not be "there isn't a god", otherwise, more peoples eyes would have been opened, isn't the truth in more cases self evident? Yes, the mere exitense is not evidence, but who determines what is truth? The person whose belief it is does. Thats why theological debates are so pointless, every believes in a different truth, and argues it until the end, while nobodies ideas bend or change.

To your second paragraph, I stand corrected on the recretional sex point.

Originally posted by Mitch1984
Comments please.

This title sucks. First off, god never said that he doesn't want us to have sex. You can have 24 hour 7 days a week sex under the right umbrella and have fun and not hurt anyone. Second, sex doesn't feel good. Achievement feels good, accomplishments feel good, security feels good, peace of mind feels good, love feels good. Sex is a temporary satisfaction of the sexual urge, it has no long term good feeling associated with it neither does it provide happiness, security, ect..

There's another reason that I hold to for it that I didnt put up before....I think I'll add it now

Assume you believe in the christian God and the Bible (i know its a strech, just do it)

In the old testament people offered sacrifices to atone for their sins in the temple. When moses was leading the Israelites around the desert they constructed the Tabernacle and God literally dwelt in part of the Tabernacle (described as a cloud by day and fire by night (Exodus 40:38)) and when the people were supposed to move the Cloud lifted and they moved. When they were'nt to move the Cloud didnt lift (Exodus 40:36-37). After the Israelites were out of the desert, the presence of God moved to the temple that King Solomon built (at God's command). During the final serige of the Babylonians against Jerusalem in 586BC, the Cloud of God's presence left Solomon's temple, never to return (Ezekiel 10-11) and the temple was destroyed.

Then Jesus comes along in the New Testament and lives His life and is about to be crusified. At the last supper He tells the disciples that He's going back to His Father to prepare a place for them, but He wouldn't leave them alone. After He got to Heaven, He would send the Holy Spirit. In John 14:23 Jesus says "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him." So, God (the Holy Spirit aspect) would come to live within each believer. He therefore is dwelling in each believer just like He dwelt in the Temple..........this makes us the living Temple of God.

SO... this means (among other things) that when we sin we are defacing the Temple of God, especially when we have sex when we're not supposed to because thats like physically "vandalizing" the Temple that God now dwells in.

Originally posted by New Life
There's another reason that I hold to for it that I didnt put up before....I think I'll add it now

Assume you believe in the christian God and the Bible (i know its a strech, just do it)

[...]

SO... this means (among other things) that when we sin we are defacing the Temple of God, especially when we have sex when we're not supposed to because thats like physically "vandalizing" the Temple that God now dwells in.

Your reasoning is circular. At best you've explained why extramarital sex is a serious sin based on the assumption that it is some kind of sin. But even then you're on shaky ground. You say that all sin defaces the temple, but offer no explanation of why sex counts as physically vandalizing the temple when, say, shoplifting a candy bar does not. Without such an explanation there's no reason to think extramarital sex is anything more than a pecadillo.

But all of this rests on the assumption that extramarital sex is a sin in the first place, and that's precisely what's at issue here. You can't explain why sex is a sin by showing why it would be a serious sin if it were a sin at all. You still need to say why it's a sin in the first place.

"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body." So you are effectivly becoming one with your spouse. If you do not have commitment in the relationship then it will be a sin.

Originally posted by okinrus
"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body." So you are effectivly becoming one with your spouse. If you do not have commitment in the relationship then it will be a sin.

Ok. So extramarital sex is wrong because it's becoming one with someone to whom you don't have a lifetime commitment. So far so good. The piece I'm missing is why it's wrong to become one with someone to whom you don't have a lifetime commitment. Can you fill that in for me?

Originally posted by New Life
There's another reason that I hold to for it that I didnt put up before....I think I'll add it now

Assume you believe in the christian God and the Bible (i know its a strech, just do it)


I was about to read your entire post, but I was turned off by your first statement.....The Christian GOD.....So is this Christian god not the god and creator of all people, is he only a christian god. I guess you and me must be created by a different entity, one is a Muslim god, and the other is the christian god, and in judgement day, they'll stand us up in lines based on the god to judge us....How utterly absurd.

Originally posted by Flores
I was about to read your entire post, but I was turned off by your first statement.....The Christian GOD.....So is this Christian god not the god and creator of all people, is he only a christian god. I guess you and me must be created by a different entity, one is a Muslim god, and the other is the christian god, and in judgement day, they'll stand us up in lines based on the god to judge us....How utterly absurd.

Does that mean all of us atheists get to judge ourselves? How cool is that?!? Now I'm for sure getting an A.

:D

Does that mean all of us atheists get to judge ourselves? How cool is that?!? Now I'm for sure getting an A.

Yeah, I think all the atheists will get to judge themselves, but then that beckons the question, to whom? Would an atheist proclaim to all the other atheist, I am my own god and I am the judge of me, and I am getting into .... Oh wait atheists wouldn't have a place to go... I guess even the dirt in the ground could be considered a haven. So yes they would judge themselves and climb into the dirt to rot way. I know, I know, Your comment was in jest.

I for one think it feels good because my wife is soooo hot. God is jealous and this spites him.

On a side note, why does food taste good? Doesn't god want us to fast or something like that?

Ok. So extramarital sex is wrong because it's becoming one with someone to whom you don't have a lifetime commitment. So far so good. The piece I'm missing is why it's wrong to become one with someone to whom you don't have a lifetime commitment. Can you fill that in for me?

It would be like seperating your own flesh if you broke the commitment. Also at a certain point all moral law could be questioned and you would find no absolute answer without God.

Originally posted by okinrus
It would be like seperating your own flesh if you broke the commitment. Also at a certain point all moral law could be questioned and you would find no absolute answer without God.

Actually non-theistic moral codes tend to have a much firmer footing than theistic ones. Kant at least has an answer to the why questions. So does utilitarianism, to cite a very differenct code. Theistic codes always come back to "God said so", otherwise the wouldn't be theistic. But the basic problem with such an aproach was demonstrated by Plato a couple millenia ago. This is one reason why ethicists seldom appeal to God, even if they are theists. THe exception is in certain forms of applied ethics, where appeal to god is common. But typically such fields are more concerned with causistry than expounded moral law.

Fafnir665-

You fail to see both sides of the issue. While you personally don't believe in a god, there are others that beleive in one. You can't just flat out dismiss their viewpoint, and tell them it's all biological.

I see both sides, but I decided to settle on the one I felt was right. Yes others believe in a God and I dismiss their viewpoint because honestly I think they are wrong. I stick with what works and dismiss the unsubstantiated maybes.

Originally posted by Flores
I was about to read your entire post, but I was turned off by your first statement.....The Christian GOD.....So is this Christian god not the god and creator of all people, is he only a christian god. I guess you and me must be created by a different entity, one is a Muslim god, and the other is the christian god, and in judgement day, they'll stand us up in lines based on the god to judge us....How utterly absurd.

I simply said that because other people have been extremely difficult about which God one is refering to. I simply said the christian God because imediately people know whcih version of God i am refering to. I believe we are all created by the same God, I was just trying to clarify

how utterly ubsurd for you to waste a post on such a stupid point

Originally posted by New Life
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!

That is sooooooo Puritanical! Having sex has absolutely NOTHING to do with losing innocense. Sex is something that should be shared with someone you care about who also cares about you. It should be joyful and healing.

I'm not promoting promiscuity. Having sex with the wrong person or for the wrong reason can be hurtful to the soul. On the other hand, sex can heal the soul. Just use good sense, but never marry someone with whom you haven't slept. You may regret it later.

I figure most of the marriage crud and all these taboos were made by men, not god.

If anyone can have sex with anybody then way Cant I kill anyone I want?

Originally posted by PacingYourName
If anyone can have sex with anybody then way Cant I kill anyone I want?

What kind of absurd statement is that?

No one said that you should be able to RAPE anyone you want.

THAT would be a more similar statement.

Originally posted by one_raven
What kind of absurd statement is that?

No one said that you should be able to RAPE anyone you want.

THAT would be a more similar statement.

Why cant we rape?
fuck the law. Point is maybe some other people need more then just a government too obey and keep morals in line. Thats were God comes in ....no?

Point is maybe some other people need more then just a government too obey and keep morals in line. Thats were God comes in ....no?

Ahh, finally. Someone who makes an intelligent point concerning religion. Ok, let me field this one...

I personally don't think that is why the Bible was written. I don't think the lawlessness was the cause of such a collection of works, simply because there were already laws in place, and the world was doing just fine for the thousands of years before the Bible was written.

In the case of Sex vs. God, I see the Bible's treatment of it as a way of trying to impress a moral code into the psyche of it's readers. The idea of gods have been around since our earliest ancestors, and what better was to hook the masses on an idea than to put in the mouth of a god? I will say one thing, and that casual sex can be dangerous, and the authors of the Bible must have realized this.

I'm not saying for one second that sex before marriage is wrong, amoral or that I don't partake in it, but just think of how the people who wrote this must have seen it; they were either cheated on by thier wives, or knocked their girlfriends up, and decided to caution the public, not to let the rest of the world suffer what they went through. And hey, it's not a bad idea to wait until you're married. There's nothing wrong with that. Marriage, or at least the idea of it, is to get yourself a man/woman, keep him/her, and stay with him/her for the rest of your life. Hence, marriage being (In theory) the best way to prevent all the baggaige that can come along with casual sex.

JD

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

Originally posted by (Q)
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?

She thought it was a snake and bashed it with a stick.

originally posted by Medicine*Woman
I'm not promoting promiscuity ... but never marry someone with whom you haven't slept.
I'm not sure what you are promoting. How is 'sleeping with everybody you ever loved', not promiscuous. If you say it's in the intention, then why can't the Bible propose codes of conduct that regulates these intentions according to God's will?

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
I'm not promoting promiscuity. Having sex with the wrong person or for the wrong reason can be hurtful to the soul. On the other hand, sex can heal the soul. Just use good sense, but never marry someone with whom you haven't slept. You may regret it later.

Medicine Woman, you seem to reflect the western traditions and liberal cultures. I live in the USA, but it disgust me to see family values flushed down the toilet. We are living in a society where selfishness and the desire to try everything for oneself have completely degraded the familiy structure, a structure of respect for the mother and obtaining guidance from the father. But why would westerners respect their mothers, is she worthy of respect, afterall, she had her share of mistakes because she didn't listen to her mother and father, left the house at 18, had sex with whom she pleased and married the guy that finally accepted her, and she's paying for her mistakes now being isolated from her family and disrespected by her kids, and a westerner father, does he dare tell anyone what to do, no because we are in the business of diminishing all morals and fathers on the account that we know all shit and noone should dare use their experience to teach us.

Having sex is not about love or soul healing or none of that, it's about freedom and choice, something that is noble but is a bit abused in the west in the sense that it is not allocated to real areas that could benefit from such previledges.

Originally posted by Jenyar
I'm not sure what you are promoting. How is 'sleeping with everybody you ever loved', not promiscuous. If you say it's in the intention, then why can't the Bible propose codes of conduct that regulates these intentions according to God's will?

Never would I promote illicit sex or promiscuity. However, the Bible condoned "premarital sex" calling it "being betrothed" before an actual "marriage ceremony" took place (i.e. Mary and Joseph). In most third world countries today, there is no rite of marriage. People choose whom they want and it is accepted by their community as a marriage. Marriage licenses/ceremonies were invented by men so they would have a public record of their "possessions"--their wife and any children who came forth after this event. Women were the first slaves, and we're still enslaved today.

Also, young teenagers having sexual relations risk not only STDs but can have severe emotional damage resulting from premarital sex. As I've said before, when a relationship doesn't work out, you're either with the WRONG PERSON or you're with a person for the WRONG REASON. If one would take the time to figure this out, sex wouldn't necessarily be a problem of promiscuity. Who would want to have sex with everyone they met? There is no way a human being could be that attracted to everyone they meet.

Instinctively, men have been given the genetic desire to procreate as often as possible. This was to ensure evolution. Women, on the other hand, can only procreate once every nine months. So women have a different genetic objective in procreation. While cavewomen were gestating, cavemen were out procreating all over the place. Well, we survived, didn't we?

I don't consider myself to be liberated--maybe just enlightened. As a young girl, I was afraid of the stigma of having sex, afraid I would be shamed at school, and worst of all, afraid of disappointing my parents (who would have killed me anyway). As a mother, I understood the perils of sex that my daughters, and son, would face as teenagers, and certainly tried to counsel them wisely. As a woman alone, I too faced sexual challenges and consequences. And as a grandmother, I face the same fears I had with my daughters--that they would make healthy and safe decisions regarding their bodies. Now the stigma of premarital sex has faded. In my day, my parents would have disowned me. I my daughters' day, I would have been more understanding. Now in the day of my grandchildren, I am more accepting. I guess it all comes with maturity.

In any event, sexual relations will go on until such time as the human being no longer requires procreation. Sex is a God-given need. When it is done in love and compassion for oneself and the other person (whatever their genders may be), then it is good and healthy, and it builds the spirit of God in one's temple.

By the way, have you ever read the Songs of Solomon? Some of that poetry was sexually stimulating. I'm sure even in Biblical days, those folks partook of sexual delights and weren't struck down for it! If it's God-given, it can't be bad. So lighten up all you prudes out there--learn to love yourselves and share your bodies with your loving partner!

Women were the first slaves, and we're still enslaved today.

Only in the religious world, honey. Women get more rights than the men in some cases, actually, in todays Western society. Save the few pig-minded scumbags, women are hired based on the same criteria as men, and get the same amount of job oppertunities. (They sure do at UPS, anyway! :D ) In religion, women are treated like shit, bottom line. No wonder they are the stars of the pre-marital sex stories. You're all whores and slaves according to this "Loving God".


By the way, have you ever read the Songs of Solomon? Some of that poetry was sexually stimulating.

Of course she hasn't. And even if she had, she has no clue that it's in that context. I'll go out on a limb and say that 90% of religious people today have no f'n clue what they're talking about; few of them study their religion beyond what is read to them at church, and even fewer take the time to understand what the hell those things mean.

If it's God-given, it can't be bad. So lighten up all you prudes out there--learn to love yourselves and share your bodies with your loving partner!

Exactly! I don't think this ideal in Christianity was (initially) meant to be taken as such a harsh law, so much as it was inteded to be a helpful tip on how to lead the safest life. (Not that it was 100% correct, but it was what they thought) But the way it's taken now, people feel guilty for falling asleep on their significant other's shoulder. I mean, COME ON!

JD

Originally posted by JDawg
Only in the religious world, honey. Women get more rights than the men in some cases, actually, in todays Western society. Save the few pig-minded scumbags, women are hired based on the same criteria as men, and get the same amount of job oppertunities. (They sure do at UPS, anyway! :D ) In religion, women are treated like shit, bottom line. No wonder they are the stars of the pre-marital sex stories. You're all whores and slaves according to this "Loving God".




Of course she hasn't. And even if she had, she has no clue that it's in that context. I'll go out on a limb and say that 90% of religious people today have no f'n clue what they're talking about; few of them study their religion beyond what is read to them at church, and even fewer take the time to understand what the hell those things mean.



Exactly! I don't think this ideal in Christianity was (initially) meant to be taken as such a harsh law, so much as it was inteded to be a helpful tip on how to lead the safest life. (Not that it was 100% correct, but it was what they thought) But the way it's taken now, people feel guilty for falling asleep on their significant other's shoulder. I mean, COME ON!

JD

I just had a revelation! The reason that Lilith was 'written-out' of Genesis was probably because she liked sex and didn't have any hang-ups about it. She probably even invented sex! So, Moses had to rewrite the screenplay to put the blame on Eve for seducing innocent old Adam with an apple.

It seems that the role of Lilith as Adam’s original partner who refused to submit to Adam wasn’t added until quite a bit later (800-1000 CE). Prior to that she showed up in various roles . Still, the addition and the ‘lesson’ behind the story is a striking example of mysogeny.

"…He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while am to be in the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.' At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angles to bring her back. "Said the Holy One to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, fine. If not she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' The angels left God and pursued Lilith, whom they overtook in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians were destined to drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.'”
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/alphabet.html

Personally, I think that perhaps men should have tried to learn something about how not to treat women rather than twist it into the demonization of women. But then, Yahweh doesn’t seem to care much for equality.

More references:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ehumm/Topics/Lilith/
http://www.webwinds.com/thalassa/adameve.htm#Lilith

~Raithere

originally posted by JDawg
Of course she hasn't. And even if she had, she has no clue that it's in that context. I'll go out on a limb and say that 90% of religious people today have no f'n clue what they're talking about; few of them study their religion beyond what is read to them at church, and even fewer take the time to understand what the hell those things mean.
It's a long, thin limb you are venturing on to. I have read Song of Solomon a few times, and it has a very special place in the Bible. It has survived canonization where other debatably less controversial books haven't. It is a praise of God's creation, love between a man and a woman, and also a parallel to God and the church.

If you read it, M*W, you will see that it is between one man and one woman. There is nothing wrong with sex. It sounds like the most recent knowledge you have about Christianity comes out of the Middle Ages. What is wrong is indiscriminate sex, infidelity, violence, and immorailty without regard to circumstances or consequences.

Originally posted by Raithere
Personally, I think that perhaps men should have tried to learn something about how not to treat women rather than twist it into the demonization of women. But then, Yahweh doesn’t seem to care much for equality.


Amen Raithere,

Women are created from a crooked bone and are not meant to be straightened to be like a man, only understood the way they were made.

Originally posted by Jenyar
I'm not sure what you are promoting. How is 'sleeping with everybody you ever loved', not promiscuous. If you say it's in the intention, then why can't the Bible propose codes of conduct that regulates these intentions according to God's will?

"Everybody you ever loved" is a very broad range of people in that we, technically, should love one another. Sleeping with "significant others" would limit that range (or it should). Certainly, one doesn't fall in love with each and everyone he/she dates! If they do, then I would say they probably have some sort of emotional insecurity and fail to make sound judgments where relationships are concerned. If a relationship is heading toward permanence, it is only natural to want to experience sexual compatibility. In a relatively young relationship, sexual relations for the heck of it can destroy the relationship as the relationship would then be based on sex only.

There is a wide stretch between fatuation and love. Fatuation screams "NOW, NOW, NOW, ME, ME, ME, I, I, I!!! Love speaks gently, "us, we, our, together, mutual, forever." Fatuation is the immediate adrenalin rush. Love is an igniting flame. Fatuation starts and ends abruptly. Love grows.

With these things in mind, one should take a good look at potential "lovers" before having a sexual relationship with them. Unfortunately, today its a "live for now" mentality. Sex doesn't have the same stigma that it did when I was a girl. Contraceptives are so readily available. With STDs rampant, people are more concerned about diseases than meaningless sexual relationships.

Ultimately, one should consider their own relationship with themselves rather than a potential relationship with anyone else. Our needs and desires are products of our self-esteem. The more we care for ourselves, the more capable we are to love another person. This should not be taken lightly.

All in all, sex should not be stigmatized. We were born to be sexual beings. Sex is natural and fulfilling if it is treated with respect--if one treats themself with respect. Sex is God-given. The bible was written by men to control women and other mens' lives. It was man who created the bible and the stigma of sex. Its time for us to rewrite the bible according to women and nature.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Women were the first slaves, and we're still enslaved today.


Originally posted by JDawg
Only in the religious world, honey. Women get more rights than the men in some cases, actually, in todays Western society. Save the few pig-minded scumbags, women are hired based on the same criteria as men, and get the same amount of job oppertunities. (They sure do at UPS, anyway! ) In religion, women are treated like shit, bottom line. No wonder they are the stars of the pre-marital sex stories. You're all whores and slaves according to this "Loving God".


Actually women in the religious world (in the west) have many rights as well, we can do/be anything we wish, with the excepetion of being senior pastor in some churches because of some of the older members in the congregations. However, aside from that women can and do do most most other things both within the church and within society as a whole.

I dont know where Medicine*Woman is from, but its certainly not the North America, cause women aren't slave here anymore!

Originally posted by New Life
Actually women in the religious world (in the west) have many rights as well, we can do/be anything we wish, with the excepetion of being senior pastor in some churches because of some of the older members in the congregations. However, aside from that women can and do do most most other things both within the church and within society as a whole.

I dont know where Medicine*Woman is from, but its certainly not the North America, cause women aren't slave here anymore!

So, you're saying in those churches you mention that women are still thought of as being inferior to men. How patriarchal! The USA has made some improvements in the way we are treated, but that old patriarchal domination still looms. For a while they got our of our collective uterus, but now they're back! The lawmakers (predominantly men) still legislate against abortion even though it is not their uterus! Even though educated, women still don't make equal wage to men! In some states, Louisiana for instance, women cannot own property much less get an abortion. They can't even buy a car in their name!

I would suspect you're from Canada, but I don't know what their laws are governing equal rights. We've made progress here, after all, we can now vote, but if our daughters get raped and impregnated, too bad.

One good thing, more than 52% of medical students now are women. Statistics show they make grades and become more compassionate physicians than men. I have not lost hope, though, because I do believe in the power of womanhood to survive. We certainly have come a long way, baby!

Actually women in the religious world (in the west) have many rights as well, we can do/be anything we wish

Yeah, exactly, in the west. That's becuase the religious sect in the west, while seperated from the state, is not immune to the west's political correctness in some cases, and at least one of them is how women are treated. They can do just as much as any man today in America, UK, Europe.

But when you go east, the oppposite is true. In places where the dogmas of a religion have a grip on the structure of the state, then women are shit out of luck.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
In some states, Louisiana for instance, women cannot own property much less get an abortion. They can't even buy a car in their name!Come on now. While I agree with your sentiment, lies do not further your position or that of any women.
Stop making this kind of shit up or start checking your resources.

Here is the Law in Louisiana:

PART II. MARRIED WOMEN SUBPART A. EMANCIPATION AND POWERS §101. Emancipation from all disabilities and incapacities; obligations All married women, including non-residents so far as they are affected by the laws of this state, are fully emancipated from all the disabilities and relieved from all the incapacities to which, as such, they were formerly subject. They may make contracts of all kinds, and assume or stipulate for obligations of all kinds, in any form or manner now permitted, or which may hereafter be permitted, by law for any person, married or unmarried, of either sex, and in no case shall any act, contract, or obligation of a married woman require, for the validity or effectiveness thereof, the authority of her husband or of the judge.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/tsrs/tsrs.asp?lawbody=RS&title=9&section=101

~Raithere

(edited to remove some of the sarcasim, sorry)

Good question! I had considered this, but from a different angle. Orgasm is just one big involuntary (at the point, the motives are voluntary) muscular spasm. I would also say the brain becomes 'detatched' for an amount of time, so maybe this feeling of freedom and euphoria is what is responsible.

God does want us to have sex. He was the One who thought it up, I suppose. I'm an evolutionist, so I have no comment on the Adam and Eve questions.

Let me make my first sentence clearer. He wants humans to have sex within the special bond of marriage. It does sound wierd, but sex is a very "spiritual" thing.

I'm waiting until marriage. That, however, is irrelevant to the debate. :D

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman

I would suspect you're from Canada, but I don't know what their laws are governing equal rights. We've made progress here, after all, we can now vote, but if our daughters get raped and impregnated, too bad.


yes I'm from Canada...abortions are legal here and we have equal rights. The last stats I heard for equal pay was that women were only a tiny bit behind men and catching up very quickely. Women also have equal opportunities in education and the work place. Since these changes are relatviely recent in history, traditional male occupations still have a majority or males, as do traditional femal occupations, but again, this is changing quickely. Its too bad things are not going quite as well in the USA :(

Originally posted by Mitch1984
Comments please.

In Genesis God said be fruitful and multiply. So, sex should be good to encourage continued generations of species. Also, somewhere in the bible is a story of a daughter that raped her drunk father to bear children because they might have been the only people on Earth. God approved of it.

So, have sex, be promiscuous, sleep with a relative: in a bedroom you never know the existence of everyone else. Such sinister scenarios are approved by God.

GodLied

If God doesn't want us to have sex, why does it feel so good?-Mitch1984



Wasent that statement originally from the MTV made movie "JailBait"..........just wondering?

Wasent that statement originally from the MTV made movie "JailBait"..........just wondering? -Guyute

Not as far as I know. I haven't seen jailbait.

God DOES want us to have SEX!

He does not want us to sin,
to have sex with people we are not
committed to in the sacred bonds
of marriage.

yes I'm from Canada...abortions are legal here and we have equal rights. USA :(

Abortion (murder) cannot secure you any rights.
We believers dont rely on external acts or powers to secure
our human dignity. We already have the assurance
of God that we are like unto him, even made in God's image.

Abortion: This is one of the four GREAT SINS which cries out
for vengence (wrath in this life) from God.