NationStates Jolt Archive

Pre-note:I understand that these veiws do not apply to ALL christians, but I also understand that they do apply to many, and do apply to a large portion of society;

I have read recentally a supposed Christian claiming that sexual thoughts and acts were concidered "sinful", "lewd", "impure", "wrong" (especially when directed from a male to a female).

Ok, here is a problem I have with (namely christian) religion; there is nothing 'impure' or 'sinful' about sex! if there is I totally do NOT understand it.
It is NATURAL! since when did humans start believing that they were elite in comparison with their surroundings? These type of ideals are leading to the downfall of humanity as a species!

I have had this theory that shame is only functionable in our human created society. When it comes to means of survival shame is useless and can only cause a negative situation for it's user.
(quick/specific/extreme example that needs little comenting on: Two people are trapped in a crashed plane that has fallen in snow, signs of being rescued are minimum. One person dies, the other person eats the one that has died. So it is the 'suffering' of 'shame' vs. certain death. In order to survive, death is not chosen, ok, fin. :rolleyes: )

So sex is 'primative'? Sex is 'immoral'? Sex is 'bad'? Sex is 'shameful'?

The only reasons I can conjure up for this are all figments of society, and thus hold little water in my rational.

That is all I will say for now. If someone could please inform me it would be much appriciated.
(Side notes: if you use references from the Bible or your own opinion, please include additional sources and/or a thurough explanation so that I can completely comprehend the logic.
No sarcasm necessary or intended.
It shouldn't matter, but I am female.
This isn't ment to insult anyone, if it does I appologize.
I understand that these veiws do not apply to ALL christians, but I also understand that they do apply to many, and do apply to a large portion of society.)

I will say, the christianity that I was brought up in, which was pretty fundamentalist, never taught that sex was bad. Premarital sex was a big no-no but my father, who is very religious, told me that sex was meant for pleasure as well as procreation, as long as it was done between a man and a woman.

But, on the other hand, I also know a guy whose mom noticed he had a boner when he was 13 and told him that anything that would give him a boner was a sin. So there are some wackjobs out there. I think they are in the minority but I can't say for sure.

It is part of human nature to believe that humans are elite compared to their surroundings. Perhaps restraint in sexuality is part of it, but it required a stigma? Sometimes I think people just spend entirely too much time trying to find ways to ostracize each other.

It is part of human nature to believe that humans are elite compared to their surroundings.
I don't think that is human nature, I think it is implicated on a human by society... I just highly doubt that without social influence a human would think it was elite... infact the whole concept of elitism would be a mystery.
But if you care to further sway me, I am always open to more explanation.

I’m a fundamentalist Christian. While the Bible makes it very clear the pre-marital sex is bad, sex between husband and wife is somewhat of a gift from God. Paul told married couples that they should make love often, to avoid temptation.

Sex: Good,
religious people against it:Bad

I don't think that is human nature, I think it is implicated on a human by society... I just highly doubt that without social influence a human would think it was elite... infact the whole concept of elitism would be a mystery.
But if you care to further sway me, I am always open to more explanation.

I believe it is a belief arising from culture based in the ability that people have to vastly change and destroy their surroundings. They are capable of thoughts that other animals don't demonstrate to the casual observer. Every religion I am familiar with venerates humans as above the animals, being either a higher state in reincarnation or having dominion over the animal kingdom. I'm not saying the attitude is justified, just that it's always been there.

Pre-note:I understand that these veiws do not apply to ALL christians, but I also understand that they do apply to many, and do apply to a large portion of society;

I have read recentally a supposed Christian claiming that sexual thoughts and acts were concidered "sinful", "lewd", "impure", "wrong" (especially when directed from a male to a female).

Ok, here is a problem I have with (namely christian) religion; there is nothing 'impure' or 'sinful' about sex! if there is I totally do NOT understand it.
It is NATURAL! since when did humans start believing that they were elite in comparison with their surroundings? These type of ideals are leading to the downfall of humanity as a species!

I have had this theory that shame is only functionable in our human created society. When it comes to means of survival shame is useless and can only cause a negative situation for it's user.
(quick/specific/extreme example that needs little comenting on: Two people are trapped in a crashed plane that has fallen in snow, signs of being rescued are minimum. One person dies, the other person eats the one that has died. So it is the 'suffering' of 'shame' vs. certain death. In order to survive, death is not chosen, ok, fin. :rolleyes: )

So sex is 'primative'? Sex is 'immoral'? Sex is 'bad'? Sex is 'shameful'?

The only reasons I can conjure up for this are all figments of society, and thus hold little water in my rational.

That is all I will say for now. If someone could please inform me it would be much appriciated.
(Side notes: if you use references from the Bible or your own opinion, please include additional sources and/or a thurough explanation so that I can completely comprehend the logic.
No sarcasm necessary or intended.
It shouldn't matter, but I am female.
This isn't ment to insult anyone, if it does I appologize.
I understand that these veiws do not apply to ALL christians, but I also understand that they do apply to many, and do apply to a large portion of society.)
One reason that so many religions, including most branches of Chrisitanity, attempt to control sex is that it is the single most powerful urge known to mankind and ( they believe ) must be sublimated if people are to acheive greatness/worship God properly/etc. For such religions and the societies they tend to dominate, sex ( particularly the sensuality of the female of the species ) is subversive.

Sex while single is the no-no. I guess sex is supposed to be between husband and wife. It might be safety as much as religious. Afterall, if a man goes and humps alot of women, sooner or later, he's going to get std's and spread it. If he just has sex with his wife, the risk of std's is significantly lower and almost impossible to spread. Plus, sex's main purpose is reproduction.

I can't really speak for ALL of Christianity because each denomination is soo varied on their opinions of just about everything. I can only speak to mine but not everyone in my denomination agrees either since some were raised in other denominations.
I belong to one of the most conservative protestant denominations, one that most would consider fundamentalist. That's okay. I do too.

I was brought up witht the understanding that sex was good, really good. It was a gift from God. It is meant for married couples only though. Sex outside of marriage all to often causes hurts and problems. I know there are people who will say that sex outside of marriage doesn't cause them any problems, but I assure you if you think about it on a whole you will see that most of the time it does. I don't know everything so I try not to speak in absolutes.

My post is not meant to be anything but semi-informative and I would feel very bad if anyone felt attacked or hurt by anything I said.

Sex isn't "bad" per se. We need to refrain from letting ourselves being taken by our primal instincts, however. Sex can lead to many bad things if one is not careful, and frankly, most aren't. The last things this world needs are more STDs and more unexpected children.

These type of ideals are leading to the downfall of humanity as a species!

No, the "do whatever the hell I feel like" ideals will lead to humanity's downfall. We have higher reasoning in addition to our animal instincts, and we should be aware that sometimes, whatever FEELS good can hurt you...and that what FEELS good, therefore, is not truly good all of the time.

Though honestly, how can love between two people be bad? People who might listen to me in these forums know I'm pretty religous. However, how can marriage in today's society be the evaluation point?? There is so much divorce nowadays, the same love between spouses cannot be the same as what the Bible referred to. Honestly, I'm not married yet, but my fiance and I have sex. I cannot grasp how it can be wrong as compared to two married people who can't stand each other.

Sex is natural, sex is fun. Sex is best when it's one on one...

Actually, I've always disagreed with that last bit! :p

To quote Heinlein, the worst thing about sex is humans have figured out how to use it as a weapon.

Since when do humans not believe they are elite in comparison with their surroundings? Even from a non-religious point-of-view...just look around you. See any animals (or plants...ha!) that you would say are our equals?

I personally see nothing wrong with human sexuality. To be perfectly honest, I find it rather arrogant that we should try to repress our natural feelings.

Reckless sex can be dangerous, but "sinful"?

As far as sex goes by MY morals; as long as you're willing, you do as you wish. Consent is what it's all about.

No, the "do whatever the hell I feel like" ideals will lead to humanity's downfall.

I must disagree, it will lead to the downfall of *society*(in the way that we have created it) not *humanity*
Sure, at the moment due to the social structure humanity is thriving. Also due to the social structure humans as a species are becoming weak in the bodies and useless in the mind, from lack of necessity in these areas.

it isn't "the do whatever the hell I feel like" ideal, it is the "do-what-we-are-ment-for-because-it-is-natural-and-will-not-help-in-the-distruction-of-our-species/the enviroment/the ecosystem/etc." ideals

it isn't "the do whatever the hell I feel like" ideal, it is the "do-what-we-are-ment-for-because-it-is-natural-and-will-not-help-in-the-distruction-of-our-species/the enviroment/the ecosystem/etc." ideals

Because we allll know how many more people are needed in the world. Yes, lots and lots of kids are good. You know what's even better? Actually being able to feed them.

More people = less resources

less resources = strained environment

strained environment = sad animals

Not harmful for the ecosystem huh? HAHAHA

I have noticed many posts that are rather irrelevant to what I was originally asking. Not to be mean, I'm sure it's great you love sex or are a certain religion and believe one thing or another; but that really isn't explaining what I am asking for.

-snip-
Thanks for the attempt, keep up the good posting, welcome to the forum ^_^

Though honestly, how can love between two people be bad? People who might listen to me in these forums know I'm pretty religous. However, how can marriage in today's society be the evaluation point?? There is so much divorce nowadays, the same love between spouses cannot be the same as what the Bible referred to. Honestly, I'm not married yet, but my fiance and I have sex. I cannot grasp how it can be wrong as compared to two married people who can't stand each other.

Ok, when you say 'love' I am not sure what you are referring to. I try to keep a distinct separation between love, mirrage, and sex... in actuality they seem to have little to do with eachother, though I think I understand what you are saying. Though it really doesn't help me understand.


Since when do humans not believe they are elite in comparison with their surroundings? Even from a non-religious point-of-view...just look around you. See any animals (or plants...ha!) that you would say are our equals?
Are we not made up of the same carbon? they have all survived to be in the same moment of time as we have. they are in every (important) way our equals. I asked for no sarcasm, you really aren't helping much.

I think the whole anti-sex thing is stupid, really. There are far worse things to worry about than sex, even from a Christian's standpoint. In particular, the US has ridiculous attitudes toward sex. The way they demonize it is rather silly when you look at many other nations' attitudes, where it isn't considered so bad.

Are we not made up of the same carbon? they have all survived to be in the same moment of time as we have. they are in every (important) way our equals. I asked for no sarcasm, you really aren't helping much.

It was relevant to part of your post. Having the same composition doesn't make things equal. Would living the life of a blade of grass appeal to you as being equal to your life as a human? That's a serious question.

Ok, when you say 'love' I am not sure what you are referring to. I try to keep a distinct separation between love, mirrage, and sex... in actuality they seem to have little to do with eachother, though I think I understand what you are saying. Though it really doesn't help me understand.



It's simple, the only reason the Bible reserves sex for marriage is due to the 'love' which exists eternally between man and wife. I argue that marriage nowadays holds only a small fraction of what it used to, so we much redefine the cases where sex is good based on the reasoning. The Love between two people.

I have read recentally a supposed Christian claiming that sexual thoughts and acts were concidered "sinful", "lewd", "impure", "wrong" (especially when directed from a male to a female).


Said Christians obviously managed to skip The Song Of Solomon in their Bible:

Here's chapter one for any what might have missed it:

1 The song of songs, which is Solomon's.
2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.
4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.
5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.
7 Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions?
8 If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds' tents.
9 I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots.
10 Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.
11 We will make thee borders of gold with studs of silver.
12 While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.
13 A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
14 My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi.
15 Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes.
16 Behold, thou art fair, my beloved, yea, pleasant: also our bed is green.
17 The beams of our house are cedar, and our rafters of fir.

...and so on in a similar vein. The rest can be found here. (http://wikisource.org/wiki/Bible%2C_English%2C_King_James%2C_Song_of_Solomon)

Because we allll know how many more people are needed in the world. Yes, lots and lots of kids are good. You know what's even better? Actually being able to feed them.
More people = less resources
less resources = strained environment
strained environment = sad animals
Not harmful for the ecosystem huh? HAHAHA

More openess about sexuality=less strain on sex
less strain on sex=less sex (is it really so suprising that if there isn't so much media focus on sex, which there wont be when it stops selling due to less strain on sex, there will be less obsession with sex?)
+birth control(which I am suprised no one has brought up yet)=less people
less people=replenisment of resources
replenished resources= improved enviroment
improved enviroment= happy ecosystem

Over all it brings more open mindedness to society, which isn't bad.
Kids will be had, but not by horny teenagers that are incapable of raising them. Your point is meaningless and completely off subject.
not to mention it is depressing me.

when you're not doing it right!

I think the whole anti-sex thing is stupid, really. There are far worse things to worry about than sex, even from a Christian's standpoint. In particular, the US has ridiculous attitudes toward sex. The way they demonize it is rather silly when you look at many other nations' attitudes, where it isn't considered so bad.

I wouldn't say the people of the nation themselves demonize it. Sex is heavy in the media, and pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry.

It's our "fine" politicians and sensationalist groups like the Moral Majority that give people around the world the impression that Americans are sexually deprived religious nut-jobs.

Snip

Agreed, it is quite silly how sex and the human body is demonized.

when you're not doing it right!


So that's what they're all talking about. ;)
I guess sex is bad, though it always gets better the longer it goes. ;)

It was relevant to part of your post. Having the same composition doesn't make things equal. Would living the life of a blade of grass appeal to you as being equal to your life as a human? That's a serious question.

Yes, it would. It has survived through the same conditions that have been placed upon my speicies. It has survived the Ice Age, Uv radiation, so far nuclear war. What more could you ask?
It can survive conditions that we cannot, and same that we can survive conditions it can not.
I am really not comprehending how you are not comprehending this, what exactly do you not understand?

"Having the same composition doesn't make things equal."
Perhaps your question was serious, but I truly hope that this is not. I mean, wow, I could never imagine someone saying this in any serious tone.

No, your posts so far are not relevant. I was asking particularly for an explanation of a religions view on sexual activity.

I don't know what kind of sex ya'll are having but my sex is good:fluffle:

Sex is good.

Along with all other kinds of sexual immorality, sex before marriage / premarital sex is repeatedly condemned in Scripture (Acts 15:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes abstinence before marriage. Sex before marriage is just as wrong as adultery and other forms of sexual immorality, because they all involve having sex with someone you are not married to. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations that God approves of (Hebrews 13:4).

Sex before marriage has become so common for many reasons. Far too often we focus on the “recreation” aspect of sex without recognizing the “re-creation” aspect. Yes, sex is pleasurable. God designed it that way. He wants men and women to enjoy sexual activity (within the confines of marriage). However, the primary purpose of sex is not pleasure, but rather reproduction. God does not outlaw sex before marriage to rob us of pleasure, but to protect us from unwanted pregnancies and children born to parents who do not want them or are not prepared for them. Imagine how much better our world would be if God’s pattern for sex was followed: fewer sexually transmitted diseases, fewer un-wed mothers, fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions, etc. Abstinence is God’s only policy when it comes to sex before marriage. Abstinence saves lives, protects babies, gives sexual relations the proper value, and most importantly honors God.

God knows what is in our best interests. I have seen my friends get pregnant, get STD's and one even became a prostitute to pay for drugs. Not to mention, there is all sorts of emotional consequences of having pre-marital sex, which in my opinion, are far more damaging than the physical consequences. Is that what God intended for His people? NO! But we think that we know best and we ignore what He wishes us to do. Think of the Bible as our Owner's Manual. We can ignore what is in the manual, but life is so much easier and happier when we read and heed the Owner's Manual. Why? Because God knows what He is doing and He wants the best for us. God wants you to honor sex for the gift and blessing that it is. Sex isn't dirty or sinful, unless it is misused. I was not a virgin when I got married. And to this day, I wish that I could've given that gift to my husband. Instead, I squandered the gift on someone else and I have always wished that I would've waited until I got married. I didn't honor my body, my husband, sex, or God when I decided to have sex before marriage and that is something that I have to live with for the rest of my life.

I will throw my opinion in here.

I think it is another leftover from the middle ages.

Priests, monks, et al, having some leasure to contimplate life & all it's little misteries ( & miseries ), took notice not just of things that were fun; but, also their aftereffects. Brothels, bathhouses ( which tended to become brothels ), various "loose" people sure had alot of fun. Yet there were aftereffects & horrors, abandoned babies, STDs to make the rest of your life a living hell, abused childern, etc. The standard they had to compare was the common pesant familly, where such problems tended to be much less common. So out with premarital sex. A simple; but, demonstratably effective solution.

We did away with fudulalism & such like methods of organization. Modern times being what they are why not get rid of this taboo as well?

Many & various reasons. I still, IMOHO, see it as a holdover.

I agree as long as you wrap yo shit up and dont get impregenated (unless of course your planning on it)

Sex is like pizza. Even when it's bad, it's still pretty good.

My take on it(And I am a devot Christian) is that sex is good. It is natural, and it is actually encouraged, but only inside of marriage. The only time sex is bad is when it is adultery or ouutside of wedlock. I know there are a lot of whackjobs out there who have really misrepresented Christianity and now people think we are a bunch of super-religious nutjobs. I am no nutjob. Nor are any of my Christian friends. But that's just my two cents. =D

You christian people have it all wrong.
I'm pretty sure when a girl bares her chest, the little kid isn't going to be traumatized. Maybe if you killed his parents in front of him, but not when the girl bares her chest.


Anyways, I'm pretty sure sex is okay. Lust is not. The difference between the two is sex is with a man and a women. Lust is with the neighborhood and a women. The seven deadly sins are basically things that disturb society. And I'm pretty sure having sex privatly is not a distrubtion to society.

In other words. Take in moderation.

bang um and leave um sex is what theyre mainly against. premarital sex is still not...aproved of... but its different(at least i believe and im catholic) that if you have been going out with some one then you have areason but i dont agree with one night stands.

Ok yes, "sex" is bad. Because "sex" is when you do it just to have "sex" with no feelings towards your partner. "Making love" is a gift from God. BUT, it is between man and wife only that it is ordained by God.

When two people have sex or make love they become one with each other's flesh, they become one. When you get married you become one in spirit, so when you are married and make love. You become one in flesh and spirit, you share all infirmities, pleasures, pain. You are no longer two, but one in the eyes of God.

Also, on "thinking" about sex. When you lust for a man or women in your heart and mind, you have already commited adultry with them in the eyes of God.

Now, this is not an attack but fact. If you are simple minded or "dumb" then most likely you will not understand any of this. Some Christians fail to understand this, as some people claiming to be Christians in this thread and saying the stuff they are is proof.

(First of all, I should mention that I am neither a fundamentalist Christian or someone who doesn't believe in pre-marital sex)

Woodsprites: That depends on the version you're reading. The "Good News Bible" has the following:

Acts 15:20: This passage tells people not to eat food that is "ritually unclean", with a line that vaguely refers to "sexual immorality".

Romans 1:29 No mention of "fornication" among the things we should feel guilt for.

1 Corinthians 5:1 Paul blasts people for "sleeping with their stepmother", which was illegal under Levite and Roman law.

1 Corinthians 6:13,18 More vague references to "sexual immorality".

1 Corinthians 7:2 Paul says everyone should have "a husband" or "a wife" for sex. He also says that the wife does not have control over her own body but her husband does (1 Corinthians 7:4)

1 Corinthians 10:8 Another vague reference to "sexual immorality".

1 Corinthians 12:21 No mention at all of sex.

Galatians 5:19 Just reads "immoral, indecent and filthy actions", and in the next verses nowhere is "fornication" mentioned (orgies are, but an "orgy" does not necessarily mean sex).

Ephesians 5:3 Another vague reference to "sexual immorality".

Colossians 3:5 (This is actualy a cut-and-paste job of Ephesians 5:3)

1 Thessalonians 4:3 Another vague reference to "sexual immorality".

Jude 7 "Sexual immorality", it is supposed to be a reminder of "Sodom and Gorromah".

Hebrews 13:4 This is a pledge to honour marriage and says "God will judge those who are immoral and commit adultery."

Now, before anyone says that "sexual immorality" isn't vague, ask yourself this: [b]what[/i] is sexually immoral? Does it mean fornication? Does it mean froteurism? Does it mean sex with a goat? Does it mean sex in general? All those things could be considered "immoral", but because "sexual immorality" is undefined, that can't be pinpointed.

As for my own two cents:

I brought this up in another thread, but the reason I believe that certain societies talk about "sexual restraint" is because of the dangers of "uncontrolled" sex. Uncontrolled sex not only leads to diseases but- and this is the main point- lots and lots of babies that need to be taken care of. Thus, the idea of "sexual restraint" is designed to prevent something like that from happening by at least telling people to "know what they're getting into."

Having said that, I don't believe in going as far as some people do in the subject, mostly because sex can't be categorized into a "one-size-fits-all" paradigm and we need to realize that. Thus, I'm a firm believer that when it comes to sex, people need to know "what they're getting into" and take whatever precautions that may be, becuase the last thing we all want is rampant, unhealthy sex.

:D Not sure who you got that from, but sex is good.....in marriage. Outside of marriage it's abig no-no.

My girlfriend can't wait to get married..I wonder why? ;) :D

Also, "sexual immorality" is quiet clear if you accually read and understand the Bible.

Sex, Making Love, is between husband and wife ONLY. Anything outside of that is immoral. Yes, women and women; man and man sex is immoral because Sex is between husband and wife.

So, sex with a goat. Bad, again. The only sex that is not immoral or bad is between husband and wife. NOT somebody elses wife and you just happen to be someone's husband, but between two married under God.

Christianity is opposed to fundamental human nature. Acts of charity, complete goodness, and sins. All are designed to limit Earthly pleasure and comfort. Which is why I view Christianity as evil.

Also, "sexual immorality" is quiet clear if you accually read and understand the Bible.

Sex, Making Love, is between husband and wife ONLY. Anything outside of that is immoral. Yes, women and women; man and man sex is immoral because Sex is between husband and wife.

So, sex with a goat. Bad, again. The only sex that is not immoral or bad is between husband and wife. NOT somebody elses wife and you just happen to be someone's husband, but between two married under God.

Not really.

(1) The context of the verses clearly does not demonstrate definitively that "sexual immorality" is defined. Also, there are several cases where fornication is not punished: e.g. David, who had several concubines and several sons with them (his fall is attributed to sending Uriah to the frontlines so that he could take Uriah's wife) and his successor Solomon, who's fault was polygamy, not fornication ("The Song of Solomon" even celebrates wild, rampant sex).

(2) The Bible is filled with metaphors. Nothing is ever "defined", and thus they can all be taken differently.

(3) Regardless, the translations are ALL different and have wildly different meanings- thus, whatever meaning that can be gleamed from the Bible only can be gleamed from the version that you're reading.

Ok yes, "sex" is bad. Because "sex" is when you do it just to have "sex" with no feelings towards your partner. "Making love" is a gift from God. BUT, it is between man and wife only that it is ordained by God.

When two people have sex or make love they become one with each other's flesh, they become one. When you get married you become one in spirit, so when you are married and make love. You become one in flesh and spirit, you share all infirmities, pleasures, pain. You are no longer two, but one in the eyes of God.

Also, on "thinking" about sex. When you lust for a man or women in your heart and mind, you have already commited adultry with them in the eyes of God.

Now, this is not an attack but fact. If you are simple minded or "dumb" then most likely you will not understand any of this. Some Christians fail to understand this, as some people claiming to be Christians in this thread and saying the stuff they are is proof.

I like this ... any of us that don’t "understand" all of the sudden are categorized as simple minded

We get it but we still without your faith do not truly "understand"
You are welcome to think we are simple minded

That does not make it true

I want out of any religion where lust is immoral. That seems to be the only feeling I actually have. :eek:

How is lust immoral? It's only a desire, and sometimes pretty uncontrollable.

well alright, but how about gay sex and lesbian sex?

~Hine

I want out of any religion where lust is immoral. That seems to be the only feeling I actually have. :eek:

How is lust immoral? It's only a desire, and sometimes pretty uncontrollable.
Exactly. What I want to know is, how is lust and sex a sin when they're completely natural things? I mean, if we weren't supposed to have sex, why would we have puberty, giving us the development and urges to do so?

~Hine

I think anything is moral as long as you can honestly justify it...

Er, wait, no. That doesn't work, a pervert could justify raping a child then.

Ummm... I don't actually have any morals. So anything's fine by me.

(Just don't rape the children. That IS immoral. I just wouldn't ever do it so I don't need to care.)

Ok, here is a problem I have with (namely christian) religion; there is nothing 'impure' or 'sinful' about sex! if there is I totally do NOT understand it.
It is NATURAL! since when did humans start believing that they were elite in comparison with their surroundings? These type of ideals are leading to the downfall of humanity as a species!

So sex is 'primative'? Sex is 'immoral'? Sex is 'bad'? Sex is 'shameful'?

That is all I will say for now. If someone could please inform me it would be much appriciated.

Firstly, downfall of humanity? Huh? You realize that we have 2 BILLION more people now on Earth than we did 25 years ago? So, no, we are in no way seeing the end of humanity :rolleyes:

Secondly, while I don't know about sinful or anything of that nature, I can certainly say that anyone, male or female, who has casual sex can very much be considered impure. Except society calls them sluts/players. Unfortunately, for women, their names for this nearly all carry negative connotations, while men are much better off in this regard. However, I tend to look at both in the same , disputable way.

The amount of partners a person has been with and for what reaons, to me, is at least moderately important. Not for any religious reason, but because if she is so ready to perform oral sex on me, how readily has she done it before and to how many people? If you have seen the film Clerks, a crude but effective way of putting it would be, "So when I kiss you, exactly how many dicks am I tasting?" Turning down or waiting to have sex with their partners (assuming it is not strictly for fanatical religious reasons) tells a great deal of good about one's character. Someone who will go to a bar and hop into bed with a person they meet that same night is to me, utterly disgusting. That isn't even taking into consideration the huge amount of STDs hovering around everywhere.

I said I take the situation into consideration. A friend of mine had sex with his girlfriend after they were together for two full years. They are now broken up, of course, but at the time, they felt like they were truly in love. That earns a respect from me. Had they been together for three weeks and done it, I certainly would not feel the same way.

RomeW:

The definition of sexual immorality is this:

The term "sexual immorality" in the New Testament comes from the Greek "porneia," which refers to any sexual activity besides that between a husband and his wife. In other words, prostitution (male or female), bestiality, homosexual activity, any sexual intercourse outside of marriage, and the production and consumption of pornography all are included in this term.

porneiða(original word) or porneia(transliterated word):

Definition
1.)illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives;
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman.
2.)metaph. the worship of idols
of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

I think the whole anti-sex thing is stupid, really. There are far worse things to worry about than sex, even from a Christian's standpoint. In particular, the US has ridiculous attitudes toward sex. The way they demonize it is rather silly when you look at many other nations' attitudes, where it isn't considered so bad.
Demonize it? The entire US pop culture is based on sex. Commercial products are sold by using sexual advertisements. Music and movie stars do the exact same thing. Now, in the US, the line is drawn once you see visual sexual acts in their entirety. As you say, other countries (notably European ones) don't see things the same way.

Perfect example - France. Holy hell, sex is everywhere. Even in the way the people dress, it is this elegant yet very sexual fashion. In metro stations, you'll see pictures of nude models. On television, nudity and sex are commonplace. And if you thought that you have ever been to a Red Light District in the US, think again - those are kiddie playgrounds compared to the strip in Paris. You are literally between two walls of buildings with giant blinking signs of naken women and "SEXXX" signs as far as the eye can see. Taking a peek through the store windows, you'll find everything from strip clubs to sex shops to the, uh, more hardcore subjects.

Oddly, they feel the same about violence as the US does about sex, but probably even more strongly. You will find sex on TV, but never shooting or murders or gore. Film that exhibits these things are dubbed versions of Hollywood films.

"bad sex" is the best kind

"bad sex" is the best kind

rawr.

Well...if one were to refer to the Bible and the time it was created in, the dark ages, one would realize this for what it is.

The world was a horrible place, crimes were everywhere the world was not structured and had little to go on. Along comes the Bible it gives stories of the wonderful and fantastical and brings a moral code and a sense of hope.

The world recovered and the church and state ruled, the basis of religion was to bring about society changes and developement. Now such things are much 'looser' if one wants to put it that way.

Consider back then, you go around with every harlot and whore and have a grand ole time. Now you may father children who have no support except their mother and are left to grow up missing half of their moral compass and direction in the world. Same thing with sex before marriage. With a moral code it is less likely for that to occur, and if someone is going to have a baby they may get married before birth...

The Bible set down a moral and social code, this meant a stronger family and ties to God. The whole concept of 'sin' was something which would inflict suffering on others and was meant to inflict it on yourself. As such sex became a major area of this, sex itself is pleasurable and does produce offspring. Homosexual and other acts without a man and a woman was deemed wrong, as this would be of lust and not of procreation.

Today, it seems we can and NEED to be a little lax on these. Homosexuality, a natural thing is not as shocking or bad as it used to be. Though it will bear no children it does also mean no unwanted child will be born, and infact homosexual unions are able to adopt or have child with new technology. Such things as adoption SHOULD be looked upon as being proper, its better then an orphanage.

Also with the rise of population, the world simply can not take it. So many more people exist on the world then it used to be. Procreation is good, but going too far is bad. Condoms and all the methods to prevent children exist and people use them. Sex is more for fun, and when ready a child. Times have changed so much that the Bible's old beliefs and values aren't as great in the modern world.

By all means have sex and enjoy it. Though being religious means not doing certian practices, when people are ready they can have children. Times have changed, but why not still follow the 'moral code' to some extent.

Oh ya, anything that gives you a boner a sin? Ha! Every man in the world would be damned to burn in hell for waking up every morning. Also don't forget our horomonal imbalances which just cause it to happen, even in the middle of discussing math or watching a John Wayne movie. Avoid religious nuts and personally find your own path in the world.

Now I'm not going to discount the possibility that we're just freaky-liberal "New Age" Catholics in my area, but my generation was taught that while pre-marital sex is a bad idea, it's a good idea to be educated on it because, invariably, some people are going to do it. I mean, I do it. So rather than saying "sex is bad and you shouldn't do it till you're married", they said "pre-marital sex is a bad idea, quite often people will lose respect for you over it, there's a huge chance of horrible diseases, the emotional turmoil of the breakup isn't always worth it, etc" but still accepted the "sad" truth about it. Clearly, though, it all depends on who you ask, as we've already seen.....and of course, the Christians who you all so lovingly refer to as "whackjobs" and "nutjobs" and the like.....they're going to be the ones who probably don't know what they're missing, and will continually convince themselves that they don't WANT to know what they're missing. But I'm of the opinion that it's THOSE people who, later on in life, having only had sex with the person they're married to, are going to be more likely to wonder about the 'forbidden fruit' of sorts.

Then again, I guess maybe it makes a difference if, though I'm sexually active, I take no individual interest in sex. I can't think of one time in my entire relationship that I've made the first advance on my boyfriend. :rolleyes: Whatev.

Christians or Catholics do not believe sex is bad, they believe that sex outside of marriage is bad. They believe that between a married, loving, couple sex is the most beautiful thing in this world.

(First of all, I should mention that I am neither a fundamentalist Christian or someone who doesn't believe in pre-marital sex)
1 Corinthians 7:2 Paul says everyone should have "a husband" or "a wife" for sex. He also says that the wife does not have control over her own body but her husband does (1 Corinthians 7:4)


I would like to point out that you left out some information. Here is the entire verse of 1 Corinthians 7:4.

1Cr 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
I am tired of people making it sound like now that I am married my husband has complete control yes I should submit to him but it is a two way street.

sorry to get off topic but I couldn't let that one slide.

I would like to point out that you left out some information. Here is the entire verse of 1 Corinthians 7:4.

1Cr 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
I am tired of people making it sound like now that I am married my husband has complete control yes I should submit to him but it is a two way street.

sorry to get off topic but I couldn't let that one slide.
People using selective quoting of a religious text to justify mistreating someone … amazing

:p

Christians or Catholics do not believe sex is bad, they believe that sex outside of marriage is bad. They believe that between a married, loving, couple sex is the most beautiful thing in this world.

UNLESS, Its oral, anal or any other position then the female submissive missionary position.

Every religion I am familiar with venerates humans as above the animals, being either a higher state in reincarnation or having dominion over the animal kingdom.
In Hinduism, cows are number 1. Actually, that is an oversimplification (Lama Priests are considered the highest state of reincarnation, but most people are below cows.) and only applies to fundamentalist Hindus. Sorry for being off-topic. Also, I am absolutely not an expert on Hinduism, so if my statements are vastly incorrect, I apologize.

Christians or Catholics do not believe sex is bad, they believe that sex outside of marriage is bad. They believe that between a married, loving, couple sex is the most beautiful thing in this world.

Well, considering it isn't a sacriment I don't think the Church or churches feel it is the most beautiful thing. But, is it acceptable? Yes, with restrictions in some cases.

The Catholic Church believes this, with the restriction of no birth control.

Protestant/Reformed Christian Churches also believe in this, without too many restrictions, but then again Protestant/Reformed don't typically get heavily involved in the daily affairs of their believers.

Evangelical/Fundamentalist Churches refute this, to a degree. There is a tendancy to believe is that sex is for procreation alone. Not all members will adhere, but look at the Southern Baptist Conventions for a good example.

Others (Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS) tend to be closer to the Evangelical viewpoint, with restrictions on who you may marry, who you can associate with, and a tendancy to try to focus the life away from the material and toward the spiritual.

UNLESS, Its oral, anal or any other position then the female submissive missionary position.
Yeah of course sodomy is frowned on :p

Too bad for them I like my bj's too much to join their club now :p

Sex is not wrong between concenting people of the age of cencent, as an expression of true love, not of lust.

-snip-
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
I don't agree with everything that you said, but I have to say that was the most on-topic thurough explanation I have reado so far.
I'm really not asking what the Bible says, or what you believe. I'm just wanting people to explain WHY!



Firstly, downfall of humanity? Huh? You realize that we have 2 BILLION more people now on Earth than we did 25 years ago? So, no, we are in no way seeing the end of humanity :rolleyes:

Ok! More people will not necessarily help humanity! Have you ever heard of OVER POPULATION! Think outside the obvious numbers for once. what are we suffereing from now? There are people in the world without food, the enviroment is going to shit with no help from the humans that rely on it, people don't have the capability to use their so-called 'suprimative' brains, gas is scarse (increasing the prices), there is no focus on education. I could go on, do you think the end of humanity cannot be caused by TOO MANY humans?

Secondly

I'm going to pick on you now, mostly just becaue you have upset me. You obviously (in this current situation) have not recieved any 'higher-level' formal education, otherwise you would know, that I know that what you say first comes first and what you say after that is second. If I was a college professor I would have your head XD

Demonize it? The entire US pop culture is based on sex. Commercial products are sold by using sexual advertisements. Music and movie stars do the exact same thing. Now, in the US, the line is drawn once you see visual sexual acts in their entirety. As you say, other countries (notably European ones) don't see things the same way.

Yes it is, that is why I believe society should be more open about sex, which would cause the people to focus less on it. giving the media nothing to sell. that createseven less focus, and less obsession etc etc

Evangelical/Fundamentalist Churches refute this, to a degree. There is a tendancy to believe is that sex is for procreation alone. Not all members will adhere, but look at the Southern Baptist Conventions for a good example.


I am southern baptist and have to say that we are not of the opinion that sex is for procreation alone. You have us confused with other baptist denominations.
for more info (if anyone really even cares which I doubt) you can visit www.sbc.net/

The attitudes that many religions have towards sex are pretty simple to dissect, IMO. Sex is natural. It might be the most natural thing in the animal kingdom. It's such a fundamental biological reality that it evolved to be pleasurable just to encourage animals to participate in it. It's even pleasurable when we aren't doing it to propogate the species. Sex is an animal drive, and homo sapiens just happen to be the most technologically sophisticated animal in the natural world right now-- thank you, opposable thumbs.

So along with technological sophistication and our ascent to the top of the animal heirarchy, humans began developing larger and larger packs, with larger power structures than before. Control became an issue, so something was needed by those who wanted power over their pack in order to get all of those individualistic, sex-enjoying homo sapiens' natures under heel.

Hence religion. The introduction of the supernatural to subdue people's natural drives. A deity or deities to tell the pack what was right and wrong, and because sex has always created power dynamics in pack animals, sex was drawn under the purview of religious 'morality.' Sex was given sanctionable boundaries (ie monogamy, contrary to our primate instincts) and institutionalised with things like marriage-- a thoroughly unnatural invention of man if ever there was one. Some animals mate for life, but last time I watched Animal Planet, the majority did not.

That's what it boils down to. Religions are supernatural belief structures created in an attempt to control the pack by placing constraints on our nature. Imagine if a pack of wolves-- animals whose power heirarchy is inextricably linked to sex-- could be convinced that sex had a moral value and that mating should be for life instead of for as long as the alpha male could keep his mating privelages with the alpha female. Or if chimps, who use sex to maintain friendly relations and assert status, could be convinced that promiscuity was frowned upon by their ape gods. Somehow we find it absurd, because we can accept other animals' nature, yet it's so much more reasonable to overrule our own, even in areas that are morally neutral.

Wolves in wedding dresses and chimpanzees in tuxedos, it would be rediculous.

Robin Williams: "I'm episcopalian. Thats catholic light. Same Religion, half the guilt." :D

Robin Williams: "I'm episcopalian. Thats catholic light. Same Religion, half the guilt." :D
God I love his live on broadway

I’m a fundamentalist Christian. While the Bible makes it very clear the pre-marital sex is bad, sex between husband and wife is somewhat of a gift from God. Paul told married couples that they should make love often, to avoid temptation.


Where specifically in the bible does it say, "And God said "Premarital Sex is bad!"? Is that like, commandment 11? I must have missed it.

The Bible...one of the most unreliable pieces of story ever written. Let's look at some other ideas from "the bible" (most of which can't be supported if you actually look in one):

"Black people are inferior"
"Jews need to die as they are a plaque on society"
"All muslim nations must be destroyed" (I'm referring to the crusades of the middle ages, not GWB's current religious crusade).

The Bible...the New Testament was written 400 years after Jesus died by a group of people the really wanted to recruit more Christians. Thanks Constantine.

Never use the bible as a resource...it's a poorly translated and frankly not very original story book. Nothing more.

Lust is a sin. To explain lust, we must understand the Mortal Sins. The Mortal Sins are nothing more than having an overabundance of a certain material aaffinity. Lustful people are too involved in pleasures of the flesh. Vain people are too ocncerned with physical appearance, etc. So, sex in itself isn't bad, but when it is applied wrongly or for the wrong reasons, it is.

Lust is a sin. To explain lust, we must understand the Mortal Sins. The Mortal Sins are nothing more than having an overabundance of a certain material aaffinity. Lustful people are too involved in pleasures of the flesh. Vain people are too ocncerned with physical appearance, etc. So, sex in itself isn't bad, but when it is applied wrongly or for the wrong reasons, it is.
So is having too much compassion a sin

How about too much love?

Or too much faith?

How bout too much religion?

Where specifically in the bible does it say, "And God said "Premarital Sex is bad!"? Is that like, commandment 11? I must have missed it.

The Bible...one of the most unreliable pieces of story ever written. Let's look at some other ideas from "the bible" (most of which can't be supported if you actually look in one):

"Black people are inferior"
"Jews need to die as they are a plaque on society"
"All muslim nations must be destroyed" (I'm referring to the crusades of the middle ages, not GWB's current religious crusade).

The Bible...the New Testament was written 400 years after Jesus died by a group of people the really wanted to recruit more Christians. Thanks Constantine.

Never use the bible as a resource...it's a poorly translated and frankly not very original story book. Nothing more.

where does the Bible say that stuff?
I am sad that you think that.
By the way as a Christian I am not bound by Jewish Law (the ten comandments) I am under grace and even then the ten comandments does have a comandment against aldultry which is basically having sex with someone to whom you aren't married.

For such religions and the societies they tend to dominate, sex ( particularly the sensuality of the female of the species ) is subversive.
Why do you single out women?

Ok! More people will not necessarily help humanity! Have you ever heard of OVER POPULATION! Think outside the obvious numbers for once. what are we suffereing from now? There are people in the world without food, the enviroment is going to shit with no help from the humans that rely on it, people don't have the capability to use their so-called 'suprimative' brains, gas is scarse (increasing the prices), there is no focus on education. I could go on, do you think the end of humanity cannot be caused by TOO MANY humans?
Were you not a proponent of sex? Can one logically assume that what you propose would lead to the very overpopulation you speak of, thus making this entire point of yours a giant contradiction? Also, the world produces more than enough food for all its inhabitants – it is just that this food is distributed in a completely uneven manner to the industrialized countries of the world.

I'm going to pick on you now, mostly just becaue you have upset me. You obviously (in this current situation) have not recieved any 'higher-level' formal education, otherwise you would know, that I know that what you say first comes first and what you say after that is second. If I was a college professor I would have your head XD
Really? Oh, this will be good.

Firstly, secondly, thirdly, and so forth are all adverbs, as indicated by the –ly suffix. As we all learned in second grade, an adverb can modify a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a phrase, or a clause. Take note of those last two.
Here is an example.

“Unfortunately, the bank closed at three today.”
In this example, the adverb “unfortunately” modifies the entire sentence, just as “secondly” can modify an entire sentence. Here is an example straight from one of the most famous pieces of literature ever made.

“Secondly, In respect of military method, we have, firstly, Measurement; secondly, Estimation of quantity; thirdly, Calculation; fourthly, Balancing of chances; fifthly, Victory. “
The Art of War by Sun, Tzu

Now, since you are so keen on higher learning, I will take the time to point out that you have spelled six words incorrectly as “suffereing,” “enviroment,” “suprimative,” “scarse,” “becaue,” “recieved,” and have failed to use proper capitalization and/or punctuation 10 full times that I noticed on my first read. That isn’t even bringing up the painful amount of grammatical errors that are prevalent throughout your work. By the way, in your sentence, “If I was a college professor…” the word “was” is subjunctive – the proper word choice would be “If I were a college professor…”

Yes it is, that is why I believe society should be more open about sex, which would cause the people to focus less on it. giving the media nothing to sell. that createseven less focus, and less obsession etc etc
Sex will still sell. I mentioned how open the subject was in France, and nearly everything there is sold through that kind of advertising. The only difference is that theirs is generally tasteful and artistic, whereas the US has women parading on a stage in their underwear.

Now, since you are so keen on higher learning, I will take the time to point out that you have spelled six words incorrectly as “suffereing,” “enviroment,” “suprimative,” “scarse,” “becaue,” “recieved,” and have failed to use proper capitalization and/or punctuation 10 full times that I noticed on my first read. That isn’t even bringing up the painful amount of grammatical errors that are prevalent throughout your work. By the way, in your sentence, “If I was a college professor…” the word “was” is subjunctive – the proper word choice would be “If I were a college professor…”
I've been wanting somebody to point that out for so long. Kudos.

......
"Jews need to die as they are a plaque on society"
.......
Jews most certainly are not meant as a plate or slab meant for engraving, ornamentation, mounting, or any other maiming for the purpose of informing or commemorating anything whatsoever. Now, as for a film of mucus on a tooth that often harbours bacteria.....

(In no way was that serious. If you simply must believe otherwise, I pity you.)

Bwahaha! Sex is bad because Christians can't get any, why do you think there are less christians every day?

Why do you single out women?
I didn't except in reaction to their already having been singled out by the leaders of many patriarcial societies.

Were you not a proponent of sex? Can one logically assume that what you propose would lead to the very overpopulation you speak of, thus making this entire point of yours a giant contradiction?
Really? Oh, this will be good.
:rolleyes: Of course I know that... if it makes you feel like you have proven any more of a point I will gladly add that my sperm and egg cells defeated both the condom and the pill. Ah, oh well. I give my mom props for trying. Was that good for you? ;)


Firstly, secondly, thirdly,-snip-
Thanks for pointing out the 'was' and 'were' bit, I will claim that as a logical mistake. Spelling and such really do not concern me as it is the message that is conveyed by the idea of the words that is key.
By using words such as 'firstly' and 'secondly' you are portraying that you believe I cannot simply assume that what you say before something, does indeed proceed whatever you say afterwards. It's really insulting if anything.
I am sorry if you are offended by reasoning that my mispellings convey my lack of concern and proper etiquette regarding what you say to me. though...I will say that with such reasoning I will not disagree ;)


Sex will still sell. I mentioned how open the subject was in France, and nearly everything there is sold through that kind of advertising.
It is sold because the oppresion is still prevalent in the world as a whole. Take in to concideration: these markets you speak of are probably highly aimed at tourists. I mean, you, I am assuming, are not a local in France (seeing how you say 'was in France' while I am quite sure it rather IS in france) and it has obviously made enough inpact on you to *cough*firstly take note of it, and *cough*secondly take the time to evaluate it in comparison to that of the US.
I know few people from france, they are all rather open about sex, though do not obsess over it seemingly quite as much as some of the people i know in the US.

UNLESS, Its oral, anal or any other position then the female submissive missionary position.


Not true, I grew up in Italian churches, and anything other then sodomy is considered fine between a married, heterosexual couple. If oral sex was so bad, then the penis and vagina wouldn't respond to breathy heat as well as they do.

The Key phrase here though, is married & heterosexual.

Then again, if your gay, just give up on being whatever religion you are. My cousin is a lesbian, and while she has Christian beliefs, she's realized that as long as she feels and acts the way she does, she is not following Gods word.

Lust is a sin. To explain lust, we must understand the Mortal Sins. The Mortal Sins are nothing more than having an overabundance of a certain material aaffinity. Lustful people are too involved in pleasures of the flesh. Vain people are too ocncerned with physical appearance, etc. So, sex in itself isn't bad, but when it is applied wrongly or for the wrong reasons, it is.

Thanks for trying to explain this... but if you would further I would like to ask, what makes these specific sins so prominant? I think someone else pointed out that anything could apply... even faith, though I note that in accordance to what you have said these sins apply only to material aspects. What I mean to ask is (aside from health risks and such) what makes these specific sins turn into something accepted by society as morally wrong?

I used to scoff at the whole "premarital sex = bad" thing, but now I know I was sadly mistaken. I am now 30 and have had more premarital relations than I care to recall let alone share. Big surprise? I'm not married. I asked myself, "Why is this?". It's because the whole premarital sex thing screwed me!

So many guys I know are getting married to girls who won't have sex until they tie the knot. Is a virgin that exciting? Of course the guy I have been with for many years now, fell into that trap. His family wouldn't let him be with this girl unless they got married. I guess he really wanted the punani because he married her. Then she cheated on him, they seperated and he hasn't been able to get a divorce from her for ten years. I want to cry. Seriously, how do I go about becoming a born-again-virgin? Anyone, please?

I should have waited... now I'm an old maid. :(

Then again, if your gay, just give up on being whatever religion you are. My cousin is a lesbian, and while she has Christian beliefs, she's realized that as long as she feels and acts the way she does, she is not following Gods word.
I understand that... though wouldn't it be better stated that she isn't fallowing ALL of Gods words? Is there no 'grey' area in these veiws that might make a person partially christian?
Is the 'you are completely christian, or you are not one at all' view most commonly accepted?

I used to scoff at the whole "premarital sex = bad" thing, but now I know I was sadly mistaken. I am now 30 and have had more premarital relations than I care to recall let alone share. Big surprise? I'm not married. I asked myself, "Why is this?". It's because the whole premarital sex thing screwed me!

So many guys I know are getting married to girls who won't have sex until they tie the knot. Is a virgin that exciting? Of course the guy I have been with for many years now, fell into that trap. His family wouldn't let him be with this girl unless they got married. I guess he really wanted the punani because he married her. Then she cheated on him, they seperated and he hasn't been able to get a divorce from her for ten years. I want to cry. Seriously, how do I go about becoming a born-again-virgin? Anyone, please?

I should have waited... now I'm an old maid. :(

First thing you should do is quit the whole pre-marital relations stuff, it is bad and focus on a non-sexual relationship first. Then after awhile have some fun. By building a strong strong relationship instead of one based solely on sex, sex and more sex; it will stand a better chance of lasting. Thirty isn't old btw. I know women in the 40's who still have yet to get married and some who have.

I used to scoff at the whole "premarital sex = bad" thing, but now I know I was sadly mistaken. I am now 30 and have had more premarital relations than I care to recall let alone share. Big surprise? I'm not married. I asked myself, "Why is this?". It's because the whole premarital sex thing screwed me!

So many guys I know are getting married to girls who won't have sex until they tie the knot. Is a virgin that exciting? Of course the guy I have been with for many years now, fell into that trap. His family wouldn't let him be with this girl unless they got married. I guess he really wanted the punani because he married her. Then she cheated on him, they seperated and he hasn't been able to get a divorce from her for ten years. I want to cry. Seriously, how do I go about becoming a born-again-virgin? Anyone, please?

I should have waited... now I'm an old maid. :(
I would ask myself if you really want a guy that is that shallow that the limiting factor to loving you is the state of your previous life

I would never accept such a girl into my life

And once more my sarcasm slides quietly by, unnoticed and unhinged.

And once more my sarcasm slides quietly by, unnoticed and unhinged.
That one I did not even catch ... I am normaly good at it

I think we aught to make the [sarcasm] tag a reality lol

-snip-
In my opinion you should not focus on love, or sex even, instead try loving yourself (not sexually) but try focusing on creating yourself into being a more educated, self suficiant person. Think about it, you are a human in the earliest formings of humanity, your possibilities to create something new, different, noteworthy (etc) are nearly infinite! Why would anyone want waste precious years pondering over their lack of love (or sex) or anything else that is redundant or common place? :D

Love, compassion and religion aren't material. They are part of the super-spectrum of existance. Guess some people need it spelled out for them... :D
But how is compassion for humans and better then lust for humans

They seem equaly "material" to me

In the Shin'ei it is written, "Seen from the eyes of compassion, there is no one to be disliked. One who has sinned is to be pitied all the more." There is no limit to the breadth and depth of one's heart. There is room enough for all. That we still worship the sages of the three ancient kingdoms is because their compassion reaches us yet today.
Whatever you do should be done for the sake of your master and parents, the people in general, and for posterity. This is real compassion. The wisdom and courage that come from compassion are real wisdom and courage. When one punishes or strives with the heart of compassion, what he does will be limitless in strength and correctness. Doing something for one's own sake is shallow and mean and turns to evil.
-Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo (1659-1719)

In the Shin'ei it is written, "Seen from the eyes of compassion, there is no one to be disliked. One who has sinned is to be pitied all the more." There is no limit to the breadth and depth of one's heart. There is room enough for all. That we still worship the sages of the three ancient kingdoms is because their compassion reaches us yet today.
Whatever you do should be done for the sake of your master and parents, the people in general, and for posterity. This is real compassion. The wisdom and courage that come from compassion are real wisdom and courage. When one punishes or strives with the heart of compassion, what he does will be limitless in strength and correctness. Doing something for one's own sake is shallow and mean and turns to evil.
-Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo (1659-1719)
You assume lust only pleases the one lusting and that compassion only pleases the one giving

Not always true

Allurism is deffinatly arguable

I understand that... though wouldn't it be better stated that she isn't fallowing ALL of Gods words? Is there no 'grey' area in these veiws that might make a person partially christian?
Is the 'you are completely christian, or you are not one at all' view most commonly accepted?

There is the believer, and the follower. Granted the degree of "following" varies depending on who you ask, it is still there. And defying one of The Christian/Catholic Gods, primary "rules" is seen as definently NOT following. There are plenty of believers, but it's the followers that are said to go somewhere with God.

I used to scoff at the whole "premarital sex = bad" thing, but now I know I was sadly mistaken. I am now 30 and have had more premarital relations than I care to recall let alone share. Big surprise? I'm not married. I asked myself, "Why is this?". It's because the whole premarital sex thing screwed me!

Not sure if you meant this... but anyone else notice a pun. The whole pre-marital sex thing screwed me.... Rofl. Sorry.... Haha.

Not sure if you meant this... but anyone else notice a pun. The whole pre-marital sex thing screwed me.... Rofl. Sorry.... Haha.

Yes, it was meant. Glad to see you caught it. :D

Not at all. Here's another quote.

Master Ittei said, "If one were to say what it is to do good, in a single word it would be to endure suffering. Not enduring is bad without Exception."

Yes, it was meant. Glad to see you caught it. :D

lol Well Good One. I grinned when I read it :D.

:rolleyes: Of course I know that... if it makes you feel like you have proven any more of a point I will gladly add that my sperm and egg cells defeated both the condom and the pill. Ah, oh well. I give my mom props for trying. Was that good for you? ;)
And what percentage of sperm and egg cells are as resilient as those? It'll happen, but safe sex mostly eliminates the chance. My point is what if that had not been with a stable husband, but some guy met in a bar? That sort of thing happens more and more, not even taking into account STDs. I think that sex should mean something more than just one more bodily function.
grammar snip
Whatever, from now on let us agree not to point out trivial grammatical or spelling errors. I understood what you said as you understood what I said. And don't forget, for some of us, English isn't a first language.

It is sold because the oppresion is still prevalent in the world as a whole. Take in to concideration: these markets you speak of are probably highly aimed at tourists. I mean, you, I am assuming, are not a local in France (seeing how you say 'was in France' while I am quite sure it rather IS in france) and it has obviously made enough inpact on you to *cough*firstly take note of it, and *cough*secondly take the time to evaluate it in comparison to that of the US.
I know few people from france, they are all rather open about sex, though do not obsess over it seemingly quite as much as some of the people i know in the US.
When I say nearly all advertisement, I mean like around 90-95%. The difference is that it is generally shown in a much more subtle, cultured, classy, sensual way. Like I said before, such things in the US are blatant sexual references. And just because I was there doesn't mean I didn't live there for a good deal of time. I took the compare it to the US because this discussion happens to be about sexuality in the US, and others brought into consideration how foreign countries view it as well to help set a qualitative measure. The reason why I bring up France is because I have the most experience in European culture from that nation. I also bring it up because it is the cliché nation saturated with sex and innuendo, so it serves as a good example.

Sex is good.

Rape is bad. Adultery is bad. Polygamy is bad.

But everything else is great.

I was looking around on some web site that said Jesus indirectly founded Catholicism.

1. Jesus was born and raised a Jew.
2. The Catholics hated Jews.
3. The Catholics killed Jews.
4. Jesus didn;t hate himself, and he didn't kill himself.
5. Christians worship God. Catholics worship a fat, old, rich guy with a cool hat.

Catholics aren't Christians.

Back to my main point, though.

SEX. IS. GOOD.

I would like to point out that you left out some information. Here is the entire verse of 1 Corinthians 7:4.

1Cr 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
I am tired of people making it sound like now that I am married my husband has complete control yes I should submit to him but it is a two way street.

sorry to get off topic but I couldn't let that one slide.

My bad :( . I didn't intend to say that I wanted to use that thread to justify "male chauvanism" but rather to point out what was there.

RomeW:

The definition of sexual immorality is this:

The term "sexual immorality" in the New Testament comes from the Greek "porneia," which refers to any sexual activity besides that between a husband and his wife. In other words, prostitution (male or female), bestiality, homosexual activity, any sexual intercourse outside of marriage, and the production and consumption of pornography all are included in this term.

porneiða(original word) or porneia(transliterated word):

Definition
1.)illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives;
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman.
2.)metaph. the worship of idols
of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

Wrong.

The Greek word "porneia", from which we derive the word
"pornography," comes from the root word pernemi-"to sell." The original
idea was to offer one's body for a price. The word was used especially of
slaves and meant "a harlot for hire."11 Historically, porneia has been
used with wider and narrower meanings. The wider meaning includes unlawful
extra-marital intercourse such as prostitution, fornication, and adultery.
The narrower meaning can refer to sexual aberrations such as homosexuality
(cf. Rom 1:29), incest (cf. 1 Cor 5:1) , and unlawful marriages within the
forbidden degrees of relationship (Acts 15:20,29).

The word does not definitively mean "fornication"- it can mean that depending on what Bible you're reading, but, again, that depends on who's the translator. The point is that it's open to interpretation and, obviously, everyone's interpretation will be different.

*********************************************************

Now, assuming that the Biblical writers did intend to definitively mean "fornication" when they wrote "porneia", understand that- at the time there was a very good reason for speaking out against it. Ancients- especially in Greece and Rome- got married just as they entered their teenage years because the average life expectancy was below 30, thus meaning that "fornication" would be the equivalent of "statuatory rape" today. However, in today's world, with our medical prowess, the average life expectancy has risen to around 80, and thus people today don't marry until they're in their late twenties or early thirties- thus, unlike their 13-year-old counterparts, they're a lot more mature and able to handle sexual situations, which is why (I think) the old definition of "fornication" has been outdated. In fact- and this is merely a hypothesis- I believe that one day you'll be seeing Biblical translations changing any references to "marriage" to "committed relationships" to reflect society's currently-accepted form of relationships, since very few people today consider sex outside of a committed relationship (which may not be a *technical* marriage but, in many cases, is a *practical* marriage). It could also go the other way, but if there's anything that's true about the Bible is that it, and its meanings, evolve just like society's does, so I do forsee changes in Biblical meanings in the future.

RomeW:

If you look at what I have wrote, you will realize that I KNOW "fornication" is not the only thing that "porneia" refers to:

I wrote:

(The term "sexual immorality" in the New Testament comes from the Greek "porneia," which refers to any sexual activity besides that between a husband and his wife. In other words, prostitution (male or female), bestiality, homosexual activity, any sexual intercourse outside of marriage, and the production and consumption of pornography all are included in this term.)

My point is that you have no basis for saying that "porneia" doesn't ALSO include sex before marriage since it can also mean "any sex outside of marriage". Also, it is MY belief, and you certainly don't have to agree with me (and I won't debate it either) is that the Bible and all of it's teachings is timeless and always will be relevant to present day. We have rampant STD's, more babies born than are wanted, teens using abortion and the morning-after-pill as methods of birth control and even teenage girls getting pregnant on purpose so they will have someone to love and someone that will love them back and I could go on and on. In fact, I have a whole list of real stories of friends that know by experience the consequences of sex before marriage. It is hard to listen to a friend (while on the phone with them) have to tell their toddler that there is NO money to buy milk and she has to go without.....I live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and every year we have the Calgary Stampede (which is a HUGE fair/rodeo/party)....and every year the pregnancy and abortion rates SKY ROCKET a short time after the yearly party ends. Just because someone is in their thirties, does NOT mean they are mature enough to have sex. I was married at the age of 20 (and we have been married for 6 years) and, trust me, married sex is the hottest, most passionate and beautiful sex that there is!! The wonderful thing about being married and having sex is there is no waiting on pins and needles for your next period, or monthly STD tests, or BAD pregnancy scares. And when someone gets married I would hope that they would marry their best friend, their soulmate...and as long as that is the case.....a married couple can share their most intimate secrets, fantasies and desires with each other. And I far prefer that over my younger days of premarital sex.

RomeW:

If you look at what I have wrote, you will realize that I KNOW "fornication" is not the only thing that "porneia" refers to:

I wrote:

(The term "sexual immorality" in the New Testament comes from the Greek "porneia," which refers to any sexual activity besides that between a husband and his wife. In other words, prostitution (male or female), bestiality, homosexual activity, any sexual intercourse outside of marriage, and the production and consumption of pornography all are included in this term.)

My point is that you have no basis for saying that "porneia" doesn't ALSO include sex before marriage since it can also mean "any sex outside of marriage". Also, it is MY belief, and you certainly don't have to agree with me (and I won't debate it either) is that the Bible and all of it's teachings is timeless and always will be relevant to present day. We have rampant STD's, more babies born than are wanted, teens using abortion and the morning-after-pill as methods of birth control and even teenage girls getting pregnant on purpose so they will have someone to love and someone that will love them back and I could go on and on. In fact, I have a whole list of real stories of friends that know by experience the consequences of sex before marriage. It is hard to listen to a friend (while on the phone with them) have to tell their toddler that there is NO money to buy milk and she has to go without.....I live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and every year we have the Calgary Stampede (which is a HUGE fair/rodeo/party)....and every year the pregnancy and abortion rates SKY ROCKET a short time after the yearly party ends. Just because someone is in their thirties, does NOT mean they are mature enough to have sex. I was married at the age of 20 (and we have been married for 6 years) and, trust me, married sex is the hottest, most passionate and beautiful sex that there is!! The wonderful thing about being married and having sex is there is no waiting on pins and needles for your next period, or monthly STD tests, or BAD pregnancy scares. And when someone gets married I would hope that they would marry their best friend, their soulmate...and as long as that is the case.....a married couple can share their most intimate secrets, fantasies and desires with each other. And I far prefer that over my younger days of premarital sex.

Point taken (I do miss things), but what you said is that "porneia" definitively includes "fornication"- which it doesn't have to. So we're back at square one with a vague term about "sexual immorality" which can mean anything.

Second of all, I could also argue that there are 14-year-olds who are mature enough to have sex, because age is nothing but a number (to quote the oft-overused saying). The fact that, more likely than not, a 30-year-old is more likely than a 14-year-old to be mature enough (through simply being older and having more life experiences) to be able to have sex does not get clouded because of a few exceptions to the rule.

Third of all, the rampant sex at the Calgary Stampede (whose exploits are well known to me since I am also Canadian) has nothing to do with fornication and everything to do with (frankly) people being so stupid that they get drunk and have unprotected sex (well, most of it anyway). Pre-marital sex doesn't cause unwanted pregnancies if the participants are smart about it; plus it's also very possible that some of those "unwanted pregnancies" at the Stampede occur among married couples too, because not every married couple wants a child at every sexual encounter.

RomeW:

Here are some other examples. I have had to watch one of my friends get and STD and get pregnant in the same go-around. She then got hooked on drugs and had her child taken from her. She got pregnant again, and this time her child was taken from her at birth. Finally, she became a prostitute to get money for drugs and went to jail for it. I have another friend who had sex with a married man and got pregnant on purpose, knowing that he would go back to his wife and wouldn't want anything to do with the child. I have another friend who got pregnant and purposely got into a fight so that she would lose the baby, which she did. I have another friend who has gotten 4 abortions and is the same age as me. My brother has had a girl "pretend" she was pregnant so she wouldn't lose him. And the list goes on....Sex education is certainly not helping...all of my friends were in the same classes that I was in, where we were given the facts and the condom on the banana. The answer is simple, NONE of these situations would've happened if they had WAITED to have sex until AFTER they were MARRIED.

Sex is good.

Rape is bad. Adultery is bad. Polygamy is bad.

But everything else is great.

I was looking around on some web site that said Jesus indirectly founded Catholicism.

1. Jesus was born and raised a Jew.
2. The Catholics hated Jews.
3. The Catholics killed Jews.
4. Jesus didn;t hate himself, and he didn't kill himself.
5. Christians worship God. Catholics worship a fat, old, rich guy with a cool hat.

Catholics aren't Christians.

Back to my main point, though.

SEX. IS. GOOD.

It's arguable that Jesus did indirectly, VERY indirectly, found Catholicism....but look at it more from the post-Jesus Church history. To put it incredibly simply, the early Christian "church" that Jesus did have a direct hand in, that's what molded itself into the Catholic Church centuries down the line. There were a lot of differences in what was being taught between the different sects, and the Catholics rose out of all of that to unify the teachings. But to say that you BELIEVED that un-referenced website that claimed that Jesus "founded" the Catholic Church, and then to try to put the spin on it that you did, comes off as both ignorant and a little nauseating to me as a Catholic. And I know you could, if you decided to take the time yourself, look into an in-depth, HISTORICALLY ACCURATE version of how the Catholic Church came to be, but I'm sure that's just too much work, isn't it?

And I don't know what Catholics you've been talking to, but I don't hate Jews, I don't kill Jews, and I don't worship the Pope. We VENERATE (from Latin venerari (I think I spelled and conjugated that correctly, it's been awhile since Latin 3), base is Venus -- to LOVE) the Pope, and we view him as the most direct link between God and His Catholic followers, but to worship the Pope would be to go directly against God's word and straight into praising a false idol. To worship him in truth would be to imply that not only are his divinations a doing of himself rather than God, but that he is equal to, or above, God, neither of which is true.

Until I see the Pope conjuring rains and sending plagues of locusts, I think I'll keep my stocks in God.

But how is compassion for humans and better then lust for humans
They seem equaly "material" to me
Compassion is better. You see, those who are compassionate will give to those who are lustfull some ... um ... compassion.

<pant> <pant> <pant>

where does the Bible say that stuff?
I am sad that you think that.
By the way as a Christian I am not bound by Jewish Law (the ten comandments) I am under grace and even then the ten comandments does have a comandment against aldultry which is basically having sex with someone to whom you aren't married.


Exactly. Where does the bible say that? People that made the claims I wrote said that "The Bible TOLD me this" or "It says this in the Bible".

Adultery is not having sex with someone you aren't married to. It's having sex with someone when:
a) That person is married to someone else
b) You are married to someone else
c) All of the above.

You, I'm afraid, are not under grace.

Sex is good.

Rape is bad. Adultery is bad. Polygamy is bad.

But everything else is great.

I was looking around on some web site that said Jesus indirectly founded Catholicism.

1. Jesus was born and raised a Jew.
2. The Catholics hated Jews.
3. The Catholics killed Jews.
4. Jesus didn;t hate himself, and he didn't kill himself.
5. Christians worship God. Catholics worship a fat, old, rich guy with a cool hat.

Catholics aren't Christians.

Back to my main point, though.

SEX. IS. GOOD.


I have a few issues with this one. The first being that the Catholic Church formalized the Christian religion (i.e. you couldn't be christian if there weren't catholics first). Therefore Christians are Catholics and Vice Versa (if you don't believe me look into the Lutheran Manifesto).

Catholics never "hated" Jews as a whole. Some Catholics did, and I think one of the popes did too. And Hitler. To clarify though, I have no problem with people of any faith, except for their lack of supportive evidence.

Technically if you believe Jesus was god, and god made sure that Jesus dies on the cross, he killed himself. It's probably all semantics anyway. And his name wasn't really Jesus to begin with, it was probably Yeshua. But I digress. That's if he even existed, which is unlikely at least in the capacity the bible purports.

The pope does have the coolest hat like ever. I want one but they don't have any on eBay.

Sex is good.

So we agree on 2 points at least. And they say christians and atheists never get along.

Exactly. Where does the bible say that? People that made the claims I wrote said that "The Bible TOLD me this" or "It says this in the Bible".

Adultery is not having sex with someone you aren't married to. It's having sex with someone when:
a) That person is married to someone else
b) You are married to someone else
c) All of the above.

You, I'm afraid, are not under grace.

Don't touch me!

I'm in a state of Grace!

Don't touch me!

I'm in a state of Grace!


First of all Who is Grace?!?! and secondly, if you are following the thread here...are you married to her? Better be...no pre-marital life experiences.

Exactly. Where does the bible say that? People that made the claims I wrote said that "The Bible TOLD me this" or "It says this in the Bible".

Adultery is not having sex with someone you aren't married to. It's having sex with someone when:
a) That person is married to someone else
b) You are married to someone else
c) All of the above.

You, I'm afraid, are not under grace.

Sorry about the first part. I misunderstood what you had written.

Adultery- Having sexual relations with someone other than one's husband or wife. (this would include premarital sex since you are not married to that person) I am willing to agree to disagree on that one though.

as far as the rest I am most certanly under grace and you have no power to take that promise away from me

Romans 6 : 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

1Pe 1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

And what percentage of sperm and egg cells are as resilient as those? It'll happen, but safe sex mostly eliminates the chance. My point is what if that had not been with a stable husband, but some guy met in a bar? That sort of thing happens more and more, not even taking into account STDs. I think that sex should mean something more than just one more bodily function.

I don't think I'm getting your point because though it wasn't some guy at a bar, it was FAR FAR from a stable anything (though I'm not going to get into my 'tragic' life story' I will say that I haven't even contacted him since I was 2 and my moms relations...being my 'father figures'... have mostly been semi-serious boyfriends, relations lasting for an average of 5 years)
There were no STD's involved... so I can see how it could be worse... but I'm still not understanding your point.

Sex is more than a bodily function, though should be treated more like one... but with precautions.
example: eating (gluttony is a 'sin', so is lust, they are atleast in that way comparible) you eat food, it is normal, but don't eat to much and don't consume anything unhealthy for you. though people don't really over react to this as much, I mean, maybe the occasional fat person gets laughed at... but they aren't labeled anything to the extremes of 'slut' or such names.

If it was focused on to the same degree you would see fanaticals saying things in the likes of 'if you even think about eating too much (being promiscuous), you are imoral. Eat that moldy (STD filled?) bit of cheese before you buy(marry) it you are going to hell! If you eat (have sex with) your neighbors cheese (wife) or think about eating your neighbors cheese... even with his promission, you are commiting an act of glutony (lust) and will be shunned by the church! etc etc'

Annd companies would have advertisments mostly focusing around food, because people would be oppressed from food and desire it.
comments like "oh look at that person, must weigh 100 lbs! bet they are always hanging around that deli down the street! tsk tsk." would be heard.
'bad' people would go around stealing food (raping) because the media convinces them that they NEED it. (only due to the media noticing that the suppresed want of food makes them money)

The population would then become so obsessed with food that it interferes with their fashion, their television programing, their video games.
Twinkie wrappers would be smuggled like womens under garments.

I know i've taken this out of proportion, but I just wanted to prove something (plus it is really funny to think about.)
Food is a day-to-day need, sex is a generation-to-generation need, without either humanity wouldn't survive.
This only seems radical because most of us deal with food more often than we do sex, and we have delt with it for a longer time (since birth, eh?)
so society has realized that condeming it as much as they do sex would just seem silly; though really gluttony and lust are proportional, as I said, one is a day to day necessity, the other a generation to generation one.

Perhaps with the lifespan of the average person increasing, the realization that sex isn't so "wrong" or "immoral" will flourish as it does with food.

Twinkie wrappers would be smuggled like womens under garments.

That thought alone scares me....deeply.

Sex is only bad if its immoral though right? What if the morals are clean and pure, but just more often then a generation to generation thing. You could have it either be liberal and free like expression or conservative as restricted and proper. It could go both ways in that case.

I don't think I'm getting your point because though it wasn't some guy at a bar, it was FAR FAR from a stable anything (though I'm not going to get into my 'tragic' life story' I will say that I haven't even contacted him since I was 2 and my moms relations...being my 'father figures'... have mostly been semi-serious boyfriends, relations lasting for an average of 5 years)
There were no STD's involved... so I can see how it could be worse... but I'm still not understanding your point.

I didn't mean to say that with your parents it was with someone in a bar or that STDs were involved, but that was meant as a general remark as an example of promiscuous sex and its consequences. I apologize for what must have been a difficult youth, but the causality of sex that already exists leads to more struggling single parents, or orphans and abortions. One of the smartest people I have ever known made this error, and she is now a devoted, although thoroughly exhausted, single parent trying to juggle her daughter and her career.

The thing is though I don't know how to the US can become as open to sex as Europe without this problem increasing. The US is youth-oriented in nearly every way, and "fun" and entertainment are its biggest sellers. A more open attitude about sex has greatest chances of just leading to more casual sex, resulting in even more of the problems above. Europe (the majority - some areas are quite repulsive) is not this way, and things must be of class and proper if they are to be considered worth listening to. I wonder, AIDs and other STDs have become a great problem in the States, but why is it less of an problem in Europe? Here are some statistics I dug up:
http://www.unaids.org/en/geographical+area/by+country/united+states+of+america.asp
http://www.unaids.org/en/geographical+area/by+country/france.asp
http://www.unaids.org/en/geographical+area/by+country/germany.asp
http://www.unaids.org/en/geographical+area/by+country/italy.asp
http://www.unaids.org/en/geographical+area/by+country/united+kingdom.asp
None are as high as the US, percentage-wise or other. Meanwhile the US leads the world in the number of AIDs awareness programs and treatment/prevention techniques.

Your cheese idea actually is pretty good (especially the food hunger and sexual hunger connection). I’m not much for any religious reasons myself, but I can understand how so many people are. I don’t think it is really immoral, but as with food, there must be limits to consumption, and my personal beliefs lead me to think that the US has already become, uh, sexually “obese” for the average level of maturity of the sexually active. Perhaps where you live, it is a small community with a quaint religious school, but a surprising amount of people lose their virginity long before they can vote or drink – and many before they can even legally drive.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/national.asp
According to the link in this page, 61.6% of all US teens in the 12th grade have had sex at least once. Just imagine what the numbers after college must look like.

{snip}
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/national.asp
According to the link in this page, 61.6% of all US teens in the 12th grade have had sex at least once. Just imagine what the numbers after college must look like.
Only about 13.8%

They just weren't impressed the first time around.

Only about 13.8%

They just weren't impressed the first time around.
...what do you mean? 13.8% of all people lost their virginity in college, or 13.8% of the remaining virgins did?

...what do you mean? 13.8% of all people lost their virginity in college, or 13.8% of the remaining virgins did?
Ahhh lessee ... that would be the ones who ( *ahem* ) said they lost the big V in college.
Unless we're talkin' about a theological seminary higher educational thingie. Then I'm not sure.

RomeW:

Here are some other examples. I have had to watch one of my friends get and STD and get pregnant in the same go-around. She then got hooked on drugs and had her child taken from her. She got pregnant again, and this time her child was taken from her at birth. Finally, she became a prostitute to get money for drugs and went to jail for it. I have another friend who had sex with a married man and got pregnant on purpose, knowing that he would go back to his wife and wouldn't want anything to do with the child. I have another friend who got pregnant and purposely got into a fight so that she would lose the baby, which she did. I have another friend who has gotten 4 abortions and is the same age as me. My brother has had a girl "pretend" she was pregnant so she wouldn't lose him. And the list goes on....Sex education is certainly not helping...all of my friends were in the same classes that I was in, where we were given the facts and the condom on the banana. The answer is simple, NONE of these situations would've happened if they had WAITED to have sex until AFTER they were MARRIED.

I think the answer is simple too- none of that would have happened if they were smart about it. You're confusing "uncontrolled" sex with pre-marital sex, and it's not the same thing. Just by reading your post, you're refuting your own point that being married makes you smart about sex, because you've just recounted a story where a friend participated in active adultery (thus making that married man not very smart about sex). Furthermore- if you really want to get into sex education, though I'd rather not- you took those same classes, had premarital sex yourself (reference (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9453578&postcount=100)- it's in the last line where you wrote, "and I far prefer that over my younger days of premarital sex") and turned out fine. Sure, you prefer your married days as opposed to your unmarried days, but it still doesn't change the fact that you had premarital sex and turned out fine, so the education worked for you, so it wasn't a complete failure and provides something from which to build upon. From what I'm gleaming, you advise that people wait until they're married because it worked so well for you and I think that's great- you're happy and justifiably you want others to be happy to. However, you have to understand that what worked for you won't necessarily work for somebody else, especially when it comes to sex. I personally think the least anyone can do is be respectful of someone else's wishes and leave it at that- I'm not going to force the abstainers to have sex so long as they don't force me to abstain (though I should say that I don't have rampant sex mainly because I don't think that I should, but that's me); and if there's anything you and I can agree on (I believe, especially because I don't think we'll agree on much else :D) it's the question of respect, because I think the world needs more of that. :)

RomeW:

Without getting into specifics, my days of premarital sex and my husband's days of premarital sex were emotionally hard on our relationship and marriage...you don't know enough about MY story to make any statements or assumptions on how I have turned out. I can tell you this much, premarital sex damaged our relationship in such a way that it took years to heal the damage....and the only reason WHY the damage did eventually heal is because my husband and I have a strong relationship....but the fact that it did damage our relationship will always be a part of our marriage. I never once pleaded for people to wait until they were married...I was simply stating the Christian belief and reasons behind waiting to have sex before they are married. That is WAY different. I can't stop anyone from having sex...but I can educate them as to why the Bible says what it does. Sex education in school didn't work for me, in fact, it just made me more curious about what having sex was like...I lost my virginity at the age of 15, on a skidoo....how romantic, eh?....I was never on the pill during my pre-marital sex days...and I was damn lucky that I didn't get pregnant....and to this day my stomach aches whenever I think of the fact that I gave my body to someone other than my husband. ALL of my high school friends traded sex partners more often than they changed their underwear. In fact, by grade 12, ALL of my friends had slept with each other at some point (boy/girl combinations). All that I did differently than them is that I had a steady boyfriend that was not within my group of friends, so I wasn't part of their sexcapades....and that still screwed me up emotionally. One of my guy friends even slept with TWO of my girlfriends in the same night at a party....and at another party (at the tender age of 15) two of my girlfriends gave a guy friend a blow job in a bathroom. I just think that it all makes a mockery of how wonderful and beautiful sex is supposed to be.

RomeW:

Without getting into specifics, my days of premarital sex and my husband's days of premarital sex were emotionally hard on our relationship and marriage...you don't know enough about MY story to make any statements or assumptions on how I have turned out. I can tell you this much, premarital sex damaged our relationship in such a way that it took years to heal the damage....and the only reason WHY the damage did eventually heal is because my husband and I have a strong relationship....but the fact that it did damage our relationship will always be a part of our marriage. I never once pleaded for people to wait until they were married...I was simply stating the Christian belief and reasons behind waiting to have sex before they are married. That is WAY different. I can't stop anyone from having sex...but I can educate them as to why the Bible says what it does. Sex education in school didn't work for me, in fact, it just made me more curious about what having sex was like...I lost my virginity at the age of 15, on a skidoo....how romantic, eh?....I was never on the pill during my pre-marital sex days...and I was damn lucky that I didn't get pregnant....and to this day my stomach aches whenever I think of the fact that I gave my body to someone other than my husband. ALL of my high school friends traded sex partners more often than they changed their underwear. In fact, by grade 12, ALL of my friends had slept with each other at some point (boy/girl combinations). All that I did differently than them is that I had a steady boyfriend that was not within my group of friends, so I wasn't part of their sexcapades....and that still screwed me up emotionally. One of my guy friends even slept with TWO of my girlfriends in the same night at a party....and at another party (at the tender age of 15) two of my girlfriends gave a guy friend a blow job in a bathroom. I just think that it all makes a mockery of how wonderful and beautiful sex is supposed to be.

Well, my stance that the sex education worked was because you didn't get any STD's, which is the point of that kind of education. Obviously, like everything, it wasn't perfect, but I don't think it's enough to say "it just flat-out doesn't work"- that kind of education just needs work, like everything else.

I was pretty certain that the effect of what you were saying was "wait until marriage" but if that's not what you meant, my apologies. In fact, I personally am with you on the casual sex part- I just don't believe there's much of a difference between "committed" and "married" except the fact that the latter has a marriage contract.

I've also heard a lot of stories about people like you- those whose past sexual experiences haunt them. It's not everyone though- my parents are both happily married and both have had sex before their marriage and sex with other people before they met. All I can say is "people are different".

That said, I'm willing to just let this whole debate go before things get too heated. Truce?

RomeW:

How do you know that I didn't get any STD's before I got married? I won't go into that whole story....

RomeW:

How do you know that I didn't get any STD's before I got married? I won't go into that whole story....

(I don't think you did. Regardless, I just want to end this and just agree to disagree)

RomeW:

You're right, you caught me, I have never had and STD!! :eek:..and apparently I am also a bad liar!! Ha, ha!!....I just wanted you to think about how dangerous assuming anything about someone else can be...since I was having sex, I could've gotten an STD quite easily. And you don't know if me and my partner used condoms every time. Heck, if someone has a cold sore and gives someone else oral sex, they can spread herpes. Assumptions are a dangerous thing, my friend. Please forgive me for my lie....it was more to illustrate a point to you that you don't know MY sexual history at all....in fact, I could quite easily have children that aren't my husband's...I could have numerous STD's....I could have been raped...the truth is, you only know what I have told you about my sexual history. I totally will agree to disagree....and I have had fun chatting with you! So, yes, I would like to call a truce and be friends!! :) :)

RomeW:

You're right, you caught me, I have never had and STD!! :eek:..and apparently I am also a bad liar!! Ha, ha!!....I just wanted you to think about how dangerous assuming anything about someone else can be...since I was having sex, I could've gotten an STD quite easily. And you don't know if me and my partner used condoms every time. Heck, if someone has a cold sore and gives someone else oral sex, they can spread herpes. Assumptions are a dangerous thing, my friend. Please forgive me for my lie....it was more to illustrate a point to you that you don't know MY sexual history at all....in fact, I could quite easily have children that aren't my husband's...I could have numerous STD's....I could have been raped...the truth is, you only know what I have told you about my sexual history. I totally will agree to disagree....and I have had fun chatting with you! So, yes, I would like to call a truce and be friends!! :) :)

(Thank you :) . I should mention that technically speaking I have no way of verifying your "condition" across the Internet- all I see are pixels on a screen, which is VASTLY different than a person :D )

RomeW:

LOL!!...So, I should've let you wonder about whether or not I've ever had an STD?! Ha, ha!....I couldn't do that....because I AM a BAD liar!! Ha, ha!! You ROCK!!....and I'm sure that we DO agree on SOME things...just not the topic of sex...we just haven't found WHAT we agree on yet!!...but I'm sure we will find something to agree on someday!! :)

I couldn't bring myself to think of sex as bad. It's actually been wonderful to me. But then again, I'm not religious, so I guess my opinion isn't needed.

Reading this thead made my realize something quite funny: Jezus (as christians view him) was conceived in an extra-marital sexcapade :P

After all, Mary was married to Joseph and not to god :D

Pre-note:I understand that these veiws do not apply to ALL christians, but I also understand that they do apply to many, and do apply to a large portion of society;

I have read recentally a supposed Christian claiming that sexual thoughts and acts were concidered "sinful", "lewd", "impure", "wrong" (especially when directed from a male to a female).

Ok, here is a problem I have with (namely christian) religion; there is nothing 'impure' or 'sinful' about sex! if there is I totally do NOT understand it.
It is NATURAL! since when did humans start believing that they were elite in comparison with their surroundings? These type of ideals are leading to the downfall of humanity as a species!

I have had this theory that shame is only functionable in our human created society. When it comes to means of survival shame is useless and can only cause a negative situation for it's user.
(quick/specific/extreme example that needs little comenting on: Two people are trapped in a crashed plane that has fallen in snow, signs of being rescued are minimum. One person dies, the other person eats the one that has died. So it is the 'suffering' of 'shame' vs. certain death. In order to survive, death is not chosen, ok, fin. :rolleyes: )

So sex is 'primative'? Sex is 'immoral'? Sex is 'bad'? Sex is 'shameful'?

The only reasons I can conjure up for this are all figments of society, and thus hold little water in my rational.

That is all I will say for now. If someone could please inform me it would be much appriciated.
(Side notes: if you use references from the Bible or your own opinion, please include additional sources and/or a thurough explanation so that I can completely comprehend the logic.
No sarcasm necessary or intended.
It shouldn't matter, but I am female.
This isn't ment to insult anyone, if it does I appologize.
I understand that these veiws do not apply to ALL christians, but I also understand that they do apply to many, and do apply to a large portion of society.)

Amongst those of us in the Reformed Tradition, I would have to disagree with those Christians which hold this view. Our desires, especially in regards to sex between husband and wife; are not sinful; those desires are a natural course of intimacy between spouses, and part of the illustration of intimacy shared between Christ and His Church.

As humans, in relation to our Creator (God); part of God's great command was to "be fruitful and multiply" and this, in turn is done in relation to the itimate relationship generated between a loving husband and wife; and understood, in our tradition, to be an example of intimacy share between ourselves (as the Church) and Christ, whom is our (as illustrated) "Husband".

That being said, by the understanding of scripture, that sexual desire between loving spouses is not, in any way, sinful or lustful; lust (as a sin) is only generated by one's "sinful desire" of the property of another... Spouses, however, are of a class whereby the two are the property of each other; and therefore "desire" for such (being your own property) cannot be construed, biblically, as sinful.

Such Christians espousing the view of the physical world, and natural desires as being "sinful"; are guilty of idolatry (in connection with the Bible); whereby they have replaced; not only in the marrital relationship, but also in their interrelationship with Christ, the inherant intimacy of said "marriage" with a clinical and academic substitute, whereby intimacy is denied in the most glorious of relationships.

It's not the idea of sex that's bad to us
It's sex before marrage
And worshiping sex before god

The before god part is what made it so bad before the other stuff just stemmed off of that when people wanted a better reason

It's not the idea of sex that's bad to us
It's sex before marrage
And worshiping sex before god

The before god part is what made it so bad before the other stuff just stemmed off of that when people wanted a better reason
At least sex is real :p I know I video tape it all the time

At least sex is real :p I know I video tape it all the time

Oooh, amateur pron ! :P

Oooh, amateur pron ! :P
Who you calling amateur ;) lol

It's not the idea of sex that's bad to us
It's sex before marrage
And worshiping sex before god

The before god part is what made it so bad before the other stuff just stemmed off of that when people wanted a better reason

God is love, sex is love, sex is God :fluffle: :D

Reading this thead made my realize something quite funny: Jezus (as christians view him) was conceived in an extra-marital sexcapade :P

After all, Mary was married to Joseph and not to god :D
omg I never thought of that.... :eek:

Who you calling amateur ;) lol
You get PAID? Damn! And all these years I've just been doing it for the fun! :(

omg I never thought of that.... :eek:
Though you have to figure the conception story did not involve sex …

You get PAID? Damn! And all these years I've just been doing it for the fun! :(
I find having sex fun and getting paid fun

:) I just combined the two

I find having sex fun and getting paid fun

:) I just combined the two
Well, shit! Why didn't I think of that? :(

Um ... care to conduct a class on the subject? :D

Though you have to figure the conception story did not involve sex …
wow gee thanks whew! now I feel better. how could I forget that the whole miracle of the virgin birth is the fact that she was a virgin. I am soo not on my game today.

Well, shit! Why didn't I think of that? :(

Um ... care to conduct a class on the subject? :D
Maybe ;) lol specialy to all the lovly strait women and gay/bi men out there :)

I didn't mean to say that with your parents it was with someone in a bar or that STDs were involved, but that was meant as a general remark as an example of promiscuous sex and its consequences. I apologize for what must have been a difficult youth, but the causality of sex that already exists leads to more struggling single parents, or orphans and abortions. One of the smartest people I have ever known made this error, and she is now a devoted, although thoroughly exhausted, single parent trying to juggle her daughter and her career.

It's ok, I wan't saying that I was offended by that or anything, just I have always lived with the "single parent trying to juggle her daughter and her career." and maybe to you the concept is more alien, but many people I know are in similar situations... I suppose it just seems more commonplace to me.

I think that with a combanation of our ideas I can conclude... or atleast put out the idea that casual sex should be acceptable with the concideration people do the 'smart' thing and use contraceptives.
Over all I think society needs to be more educated on many levels, sex, sexuality, and contraceptives included (along with sciences, literature, politics, whatever, sex is just a small part).

We should take the focus off obtaining sex because it is desirable (though it is only more desirable due to the 'immorality' connected with it) and should take the focus off sex being wrong, and instead focus on educating people about how to prevent the direct dangers associated with it.

And I don't really mean the US specifically. Though comparing the US to Europe is a good idea, perhaps people in europe are more educated on the ways to aviod std's and pregnancy, in the US (well atleast where I live) it is really more like 'Don't do it, because it makes you a bad person, here are some gross pics of gonorrea, ok bye bye, if you have anymore questions you will be embarased as hell... so just wait until you can take the time to drive all the way to the clinic in town"
And some parents don't even let their children attend these classes... they don't believe that 'showing pornography to our children' is 'moral'... and the dont believe their 'precious children of god' are having sex...which most likely they are.
So if we become more open about sex, these people really wont have anything to go on to not allow their children to learn something about it, then STD's, pregnancy, ect will be eliminated or less likely to occur.

i am sorry if this point has been made. i dont have any time to read it all so i will say this. christians dont hate sex. we just think that sexual activity outside of marrage is bad. further more. impure thoughts are dangerous in many religions. not just christianity.

i am sorry if this point has been made. i dont have any time to read it all so i will say this. christians dont hate sex. we just think that sexual activity outside of marrage is bad. further more. impure thoughts are dangerous in many religions. not just christianity.
Just because it is popularly assumed it is dangerous does not make it so

wow gee thanks whew! now I feel better. how could I forget that the whole miracle of the virgin birth is the fact that she was a virgin. I am soo not on my game today.

Actually...she probably wasn't a virgin. Imagine this...Jesus was a bastard child by two horny teens that did it.

These days it happens all the time. I'm sure a few girls even try to claim immaculate conception. If you look at it from this perspectice you realize that Jesus' folks probably had premarital sex. He probably did too...

Just because it is popularly assumed it is dangerous does not make it so


I agree. Some other thoughts that were assumed dangerous by the church:

1) The Earth goes around the sun
2) The Earth is not flat.
3) The Earth is millions of years old.

Well that's three strikes and I have to say the church is out!

I think that with a combanation of our ideas I can conclude... or atleast put out the idea that casual sex should be acceptable with the concideration people do the 'smart' thing and use contraceptives.
Over all I think society needs to be more educated on many levels, sex, sexuality, and contraceptives included (along with sciences, literature, politics, whatever, sex is just a small part).

We should take the focus off obtaining sex because it is desirable (though it is only more desirable due to the 'immorality' connected with it) and should take the focus off sex being wrong, and instead focus on educating people about how to prevent the direct dangers associated with it.

And I don't really mean the US specifically. Though comparing the US to Europe is a good idea, perhaps people in europe are more educated on the ways to aviod std's and pregnancy, in the US (well atleast where I live) it is really more like 'Don't do it, because it makes you a bad person, here are some gross pics of gonorrea, ok bye bye, if you have anymore questions you will be embarased as hell... so just wait until you can take the time to drive all the way to the clinic in town"
And some parents don't even let their children attend these classes... they don't believe that 'showing pornography to our children' is 'moral'... and the dont believe their 'precious children of god' are having sex...which most likely they are.
So if we become more open about sex, these people really wont have anything to go on to not allow their children to learn something about it, then STD's, pregnancy, ect will be eliminated or less likely to occur.
This I agree with. People need to be properly educated about it, and then maybe it won't have that same allure to it that makes young children curious to try it...often with bad results.

I'm still a little iffy about just how "casual" casual sex should be, but that comes down to personal opinion, and is totally subjective.

Actually...she probably wasn't a virgin. Imagine this...Jesus was a bastard child by two horny teens that did it.

These days it happens all the time. I'm sure a few girls even try to claim immaculate conception. If you look at it from this perspectice you realize that Jesus' folks probably had premarital sex. He probably did too...

interesting viewpoint.
how old are you btw? just curious

interesting viewpoint.
how old are you btw? just curious


I'll be 30 all too soon...in just a couple months. I am also a guy, in NY state. Why?

I'll be 30 all too soon...in just a couple months. I am also a guy, in NY state. Why?
I was just wondering. older than I thought but I did figure you were a guy.

The bible says that having "impure" thoughts about someone else not your wife/husband is a sin. What I dont like is how people pick and choose what they want out of the bible the way they percieve it and ignore the rest. I think that you should either believe in the bible or you not. Its not something that you should just censor out what you dislike about it.

Actually...she probably wasn't a virgin. Imagine this...Jesus was a bastard child by two horny teens that did it.

These days it happens all the time. I'm sure a few girls even try to claim immaculate conception. If you look at it from this perspectice you realize that Jesus' folks probably had premarital sex. He probably did too...

This is probably what happened in reality, virgin birth is just a bit too "out there" imho to have even a remote chance of being the truth.

I'm still a little iffy about just how "casual" casual sex should be, but that comes down to personal opinion, and is totally subjective.

On the lighter side, does casual sex mean 'Ahh, hard day at work today, you wanna have sex?... could you wait til the ad break?... Sure, don't really mind.'
Casual is a bit of a misleading term!

On a more serious note, I think the whole question of morality, and the task of religion, be it christian or otherwise to convey a moral message, is one that changes constantly...
Morals rarely change as quickly as circumstances, a hundred years ago, being gay got you in jail, nowadays the question of gay marriage is seriously considered by governments around the world, and already adopted by some. The society has changed, but religous commentators don't change as quickly.
This could be a good or a bad thing, a stable moral compass has many positive asspects, but one which does not change with societal requirements grows stagnant and ultimately irrelevant.

What those of a religious nature need to ask themselves is how they should reconcile millenia old religious views with an ever changing society, while maintaining a good moral nature? All comes down to the individual, as with so many other things I suppose.

You're still a virgin if you put it in her pooper or her mouth ;)

LOL! :D
In that case, a virgin birth just becomes a matter of logistics then! :eek:

I was just wondering. older than I thought but I did figure you were a guy.

Why did you figure I was a guy?

You're still a virgin if you put it in her pooper or her mouth ;)

That's an objective way of looking at it. I kne wa girl who figured she was a bvirgin so long as she didn't have sex everyday. The 24 hours virgin renewal concept.

Why did you figure I was a guy?
you seemed to talk (type) like a guy. it isn't a bad thing. I didn't want to make you feel insulted or anything sometimes I forget that it is hard to tell tone of voice when you are typing (well that and you can't actually hear my voice)

you seemed to talk (type) like a guy. it isn't a bad thing. I didn't want to make you feel insulted or anything sometimes I forget that it is hard to tell tone of voice when you are typing (well that and you can't actually hear my voice)

True, but I am betting that you are younger than me and female.

True, but I am betting that you are younger than me and female.
true. hope you don't hold it against me.

[Whoever says sex is bad has a certainally ignorent idea of how you were made. Since ti was given to us by God, it si not in of itself bad. Btu sex is the lovly union where two fleshes becoem one. Thigns such as counterseption will take away that which si buetiful. When a compel is married, they can have sex, open to creation, so cration can take its osurce. Sex is the sign of love between a amrreid man and woen. It is nto to be abused, in theings such as abortion, counterseption, per-marital sex, or gay itneraction.

You're still a virgin if you put it in her pooper or her mouth ;)
not rele...^^^^ :fluffle: the thing about sex is like if u have sex b4 ur married its wrong b/c bible says that ur not supposed to hvae sex for anything but having a kid when ur married or w/e but there r some ppl that r weird about that stuff

Sex is more than a bodily function, though should be treated more like one... but with precautions.
example: eating (gluttony is a 'sin', so is lust, they are atleast in that way comparible) you eat food, it is normal, but don't eat to much and don't consume anything unhealthy for you. though people don't really over react to this as much, I mean, maybe the occasional fat person gets laughed at... but they aren't labeled anything to the extremes of 'slut' or such names.

If it was focused on to the same degree you would see fanaticals saying things in the likes of 'if you even think about eating too much (being promiscuous), you are imoral. Eat that moldy (STD filled?) bit of cheese before you buy(marry) it you are going to hell! If you eat (have sex with) your neighbors cheese (wife) or think about eating your neighbors cheese... even with his promission, you are commiting an act of glutony (lust) and will be shunned by the church! etc etc'

Annd companies would have advertisments mostly focusing around food, because people would be oppressed from food and desire it.
comments like "oh look at that person, must weigh 100 lbs! bet they are always hanging around that deli down the street! tsk tsk." would be heard.
'bad' people would go around stealing food (raping) because the media convinces them that they NEED it. (only due to the media noticing that the suppresed want of food makes them money)

The population would then become so obsessed with food that it interferes with their fashion, their television programing, their video games.
Twinkie wrappers would be smuggled like womens under garments.

I know i've taken this out of proportion, but I just wanted to prove something (plus it is really funny to think about.)
Food is a day-to-day need, sex is a generation-to-generation need, without either humanity wouldn't survive.
This only seems radical because most of us deal with food more often than we do sex, and we have delt with it for a longer time (since birth, eh?)
so society has realized that condeming it as much as they do sex would just seem silly; though really gluttony and lust are proportional, as I said, one is a day to day necessity, the other a generation to generation one.

Perhaps with the lifespan of the average person increasing, the realization that sex isn't so "wrong" or "immoral" will flourish as it does with food.

:eek: That was brilliant! Really! :)

My philosophy on sex:

First off: Sex is good. It was created by God, and created to be enjoyed. It is the sinful nature of the world that we live in, that requires the laws that we Christians live by with regard to sex. I believe that once we are purified, these laws will be lifted, and therefore I believe that sex in heaven is a distinct possibility (although images of orgies in heaven would be missing the point). As such, I look on the laws of God concerning sex as rules of thumb, but they are rules of thumb that you violate at your peril, and the sin may not be the violation itself, but what was in your mind that led you to do it. Note also that violations of the laws of sex are covered by the grace of God, and are not mortal sins (for protestants, I don't know about catholics).

true. hope you don't hold it against me.

Not at all. Or was that a pick-up line..."if i told you you had a beautiful body would you hold it against me?" Just kidding...

Not at all. Or was that a pick-up line..."if i told you you had a beautiful body would you hold it against me?" Just kidding...
better be lol.

My philosophy on sex:

First off: Sex is good. It was created by God, and created to be enjoyed. It is the sinful nature of the world that we live in, that requires the laws that we Christians live by with regard to sex. I believe that once we are purified, these laws will be lifted, and therefore I believe that sex in heaven is a distinct possibility (although images of orgies in heaven would be missing the point). As such, I look on the laws of God concerning sex as rules of thumb, but they are rules of thumb that you violate at your peril, and the sin may not be the violation itself, but what was in your mind that led you to do it. Note also that violations of the laws of sex are covered by the grace of God, and are not mortal sins (for protestants, I don't know about catholics).

But sex was around prior to the ideas of Yahweh (or most other modern gods for the matter). And no one was married.

better be lol.
HEY!!
















Okay...I am old...nevermind...

On the lighter side, does casual sex mean 'Ahh, hard day at work today, you wanna have sex?... could you wait til the ad break?... Sure, don't really mind.'
Casual is a bit of a misleading term!

I think promiscuous would be a better term for what I meant. Casual sex in terms of a couple that has been together for a long time or a husband and wife is (or should be) natural. Casual sex in terms of having sex on the second or third date with someone (if they even wait that long) I don’t like. I’m not saying it is necessarily “wrong”, but I am saying that I especially, and most others, look very differently at a person who does.
In that case, a virgin birth just becomes a matter of logistics then!
Hah nice :p

:) I thought so!
As for the casual point, I'd have to admit a bit of a decadent european attitude to the whole thing. Casual in the young unmarried unattached sense, in my personal view is fine, provided both people want it and neither are under any mistaken impressions as to what it means.

i.e. Q:I thought it was just that once?
A:Get out of my flat!

If the attitude is common between the two (/three/four...whatever you're into) people involved is the same, and they both know the story, I see no problem (provided all necessary precautions are taken of course).
Misleading is NOT COOL however, and is unfortuanately a common risk with casual sex, even if it's not intended, a difficulty with not knowing people well before hand is that you can't guage their intentions as well as you could if you knew them better.

:) I thought so!
As for the casual point, I'd have to admit a bit of a decadent european attitude to the whole thing. Casual in the young unmarried unattached sense, in my personal view is fine, provided both people want it and neither are under any mistaken impressions as to what it means.

i.e. Q:I thought it was just that once?
A:Get out of my flat!

If the attitude is common between the two (/three/four...whatever you're into) people involved is the same, and they both know the story, I see no problem (provided all necessary precautions are taken of course).
Misleading is NOT COOL however, and is unfortuanately a common risk with casual sex, even if it's not intended, a difficulty with not knowing people well before hand is that you can't guage their intentions as well as you could if you knew them better.


After reading this I was reminded of an interesting point. In Sweden, couples are encouraged to live together, have sex, and possibly have children before getting married (although once the children come you are seen as married and can take each other's name).

I don't know if you'd call that casual sex or believe that it really supports the idea of knowing the person you are going to marry.

I wouldn't call it casual, I'd call it responsible.
'Before you marry a woman, make sure you like the way she cracks her eggs.'
It's always the little things taht piss you off, and living together and doing all the things married couples do before you're hitched gives you a chance to figure out if it's gonna be good or a struggle... I'd imagine.

Exactly my point. Sadly, I think a lot of traditional settings where the people never sleep together (mush less have sex) or live together prior to getting married end in divorce. Knowing someone outside of the house is not knowing what they're like at home.

Exactly my point. Sadly, I think a lot of traditional settings where the people never sleep together (mush less have sex) or live together prior to getting married end in divorce. Knowing someone outside of the house is not knowing what they're like at home.

Some of the strongest couples I know didn't live together until after marriage. It CAN work, and can work well.

Is 'CAN' enough? Now I admit I don't know the statistics as regards divorce, or whatever, but it seems intuitive that not knowing someones home habits would at the very least present an extra unknown to the big bad world of matrimony. In any case, what's the harm in a couple cohabiting for a time before tying the knot? Does it devalue their marriage?
I don't see a single problem with co-habitation prior to marriage, but at least one possible misgiving for going into it effectively blind to your partners home habits, which can seed larger problems.

Is 'CAN' enough? Now I admit I don't know the statistics as regards divorce, or whatever, but it seems intuitive that not knowing someones home habits would at the very least present an extra unknown to the big bad world of matrimony. In any case, what's the harm in a couple cohabiting for a time before tying the knot? Does it devalue their marriage?
I don't see a single problem with co-habitation prior to marriage, but at least one possible misgiving for going into it effectively blind to your partners home habits, which can seed larger problems.

Co-habiting is fine. I just expressed that it is possible to not do it and still succeed. I just personally don't like the idea of sex before marriage.

It seems to depend on the person, though, as with most things.

Getting to know each other is extremely important - no argument there.

Right now, I'm thinking though, it'd be nice to still have new things to discover about your significant other after marriage.

True enough, which is why I guess the Swedes only encourage it rather than enforce it. To each his own and no further, but the more info goin' in the better.
So like you say, depends on the person.

though I'd say there's plenty to discover after marriage, even after a period of cohabitation!

Getting back to the original question.

Remember there was a time when civil marriage didn't exist. The only way to get married was to go to the church. Sex before marriage meant that people would be partnering without the sanction or knowledge of the church.

In a society where the church was also basically the justice system and main means of government, this can make it difficult to determine how to deal with individuals. Do you require tithe of both of them if they are living in the same household? How do you know they are? If you're providing help to a needy family, how do you know they're actually a family unless you have some sort of record of their union.

Back in a time without a significant police force and the various organizational accoutrements that come with a modern government, these are all hard problems. The answer to them is that you require the people to register themselves with you using the only universal means you have available - "God'll getcha if you don't!"

That this has the secondary benefits of reinforcing the church's role in people's lives, and makes having children by people out of wedlock (ergo, not sanctioned by the church) a serious offense against the mores of the people is an extra bonus, as it works to ensure that those having children are generally those who are loyal to the church, and can be relied upon to imprint their values upon their children.

It's odd though, because when you think about the mechanics of Christianity, you can do absolutely anything you want. Lie, cheat, steal, murder, fornicate with anything under the sun (or moon if you care to wait that long), torture babies and kittens before barbecuing them and serving them at the local parish pot-luck, and so long as you keep a list and tell your sad story to a priest or to God before you drop dead, you're still good to go.

At the same time, if you happen to have a car-accident after sleeping with your girlfriend and only partner of six years and don't manage to ask for forgiveness before the steering wheel caves your skull in, it's off to the pits for you.

Yeah, that's really a religion I want to be a part of.

Sex is good God made it so we need Sex Ed :fluffle:

To say that sex was bad, is tantamount to saying that God made a booboo in creating sex in the first place. Sex is a precious gift from God. Whether you are married or not has no bearing on it. Only the "intent" behind the sexual act itself gives it its negative or positive slant. In other words if it is truly a loving or positive experience between entities then there is nothing "wrong" with it. When love or respect are absent with one or all parties it becomes a negative experience.

Some of the strongest couples I know didn't live together until after marriage. It CAN work, and can work well.

This of course is statistically the norm. Disregarding stats prior to the '60's when a divorce was rare and marital problems were often not evident as most of the time couples were seperate for most activites, modern statistics show that 2 of 3 marriages between people who did not live together prior to marrying fail. I'm sure there are some couples who work it out, or just live in an unhappy situation to afraid to let on for various reasons. But overwhelmingly, it doesn't work out.

Getting back to the original question.

It's odd though, because when you think about the mechanics of Christianity, you can do absolutely anything you want. Lie, cheat, steal, murder, fornicate with anything under the sun (or moon if you care to wait that long), torture babies and kittens before barbecuing them and serving them at the local parish pot-luck, and so long as you keep a list and tell your sad story to a priest or to God before you drop dead, you're still good to go.
There is the minor detail that if you're not really sorry, God will know, and you're really not so good to go.

At the same time, if you happen to have a car-accident after sleeping with your girlfriend and only partner of six years and don't manage to ask for forgiveness before the steering wheel caves your skull in, it's off to the pits for you.

Yeah, that's really a religion I want to be a part of.
You wouldn't necessarily go off to "the pits". If the rest of your life was fairly good, but you still had sins unanswered for, you would go to Purgatory, and wait for a while as penance before moving on to heaven.

Balipo, I am highly suspicious of your "2 of 3 marriages" statistic. Statistics can easily be manipulated, or just plain made up. Besides which, how does that compare to the overall divorce rate? ANYway...

Look, avoiding premarital sex isn't some crazy idea churned out by the early Vatican to control population or whatever. It's a good idea. So is eating healthy food and driving the speed limit. Same problem across the board: people just don't do it. They find excuses, they come up with rationalizations, the works. The bottom line is a lot of people just don't pay attention. Death is not guaranteed to be a penalty for ignoring any of them, but they're still a good idea.

And so i take the same stance here as i do with the speed limit: I can't stop you, but don't say i didn't warn you.
All these people who are praising sex are just as bad as drunk people. Yes, sex is fun. Yes, sex is natural. Does it hurt anyone? No, in most cases you can get away with it easily, just like going 60 mph where it says 45. My point is, sex is not risk-free. Besides, if the church started saying there was nothing wrong with it, everyone would have orgies as often as they could, and that wouldn't be so good.

I'd like to burst a particular naive bubble right now:
more openness about sex ≠ less sex
look at Europe. As people have said, a lot of openness about sex there. do you think they have less sex than we do? I don't think so. The only reason it might have for working would be the idea that teens are interested in sex because it is "off limits". This may be true, but the biggest reason they're interested is because it feels good. (duh)

I do disagree with the church about gay sex though. I just don't buy their logic. The argument I've heard is that straight sex is natural and promotes order, while gay sex is unnatural and promotes disorder and chaos. Thus, because God likes order, gay sex is bad. This argument is worse than saying "because we said so".
Its simply not consistent with history.
Example 1: Jesus. Jesus created lots of chaos. A lot of his mission was to stir the Israelites out of complacency and make them reexamine the rules they lived by.
Example 2: martyrs. Was breaking Roman law, to the point of sacrificing their lives, by practicing their faith supposed to promote order?
There are probably more examples but i'm too lazy to try and look things up.


P.S. to TearTheSkyOut
when you start a thread, remember that this is a forum. Demanding that we stay on topic is sometimes asking a bit much.;)

´<snip>
I´ve always thought of this question as hilarious. So, sex is a sin, and if everyone would go to heaven, no one would have sex. As such, no new children would be born and the human race would go extinct. This makes me make the conclusion that if there is a God and it tried to make us it´s equals, it screwed up.
To bring order back, it then decided to try and force everyone to kill the race by ourselves, as it might be seen as a bit cruel and maybe even slightly evil if a God would destroy one of it´s creations by itself. Actually very clever.
And I mean this seriously. No joke, no sarcasm.

Getting to know each other is extremely important - no argument there.

Right now, I'm thinking though, it'd be nice to still have new things to discover about your significant other after marriage.

For the record, I've been married a mere 5 years (we lived together for 3 years prior to that) and i find that there is always something new to learn about your spouse given that life's little (and big) pitfalls don't seem to repeat.

-snip-
Hey! thanks a lot, I was really hoping more people would take this kind of approach to the subject. I don't agree with everything you said, but atleast you had a some-what orriginal idea, and explained more on the lines of what might have actually been the cause rather than just 'well the bible says this and that, my mom says this and that, i think this or whatever'

need to get people thinking more on the terms of 'why' and 'how' rather than just the 'who' 'what' 'when' and 'where'(...and 'imo' XD)


I'd like to burst a particular naive bubble right now:
more openness about sex ≠ less sex
look at Europe. As people have said, a lot of openness about sex there. do you think they have less sex than we do? I don't think so. The only reason it might have for working would be the idea that teens are interested in sex because it is "off limits". This may be true, but the biggest reason they're interested is because it feels good.

Well one of the only direct problems concering sex presented on this thread is STD's, and some links were posted (I suggest you visit them) showing european std's were CONSIDERABLY lower than the USA.
It's ok if they have sex, aside from religion and the 'morals' that society has, the only consequences directly relative are STD's and pregnancy.
The sex isn't the problem, it is the lack of contraceptive/STD education/awarness and suppressive 'morals' that are cause to pregnancies and STD's.

Getting to know each other is extremely important - no argument there.

Right now, I'm thinking though, it'd be nice to still have new things to discover about your significant other after marriage.
Why does it matter if you learn it before or after? how does that effect your love for that person?

Why does it matter if you learn it before or after? how does that effect your love for that person?
Moreover, what the hell does love have to do with:
Sex,
Marriage,
Religion. etc
And why?