Why is sex a sin?

Post Reply New Topic

Which is why women were given the humble clitoris? And men the nervy equivalent? And people instinctively attach so much feeling of love and enjoyment to it?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DteDRD6cbbM[/youtube]

The seismic activity and the natural gas ... explain to me why it happened at that time & in that place. If you can't, stick to science. You are out of your element here.

Well-played.

slowmutant: are you catholic by any chance? Catholicism does Not regard sex as being a "sin". It does regard homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, and fornication to be sins. Ostensibly God made sex, but also ennacted a set of rules for humans to follow regarding sexual behaviour. Christians say god doesnt like homosexuality and zoophilia because it doesnt lead to procreation. But all these religious precepts are myths to manipulate peoples behaviour for the benefit of society.

Are they?

It's that attitude whicih promotes the destruction and peversion of all that God made as good and pure.

Sin is maybe the first ever Slippery Slope. After the Garden of Eden, there was no going back for mankind. Sin had permeated every aspect of his world, as it does to this day.

It's fairly clear that, at least for Catholics, sex is acceptable as long as it is performed for reproduction. I'm not sure whether it should or should not be enjoyable. It is, after all from the point of biology, merely one of the essential body functions. I wonder if other essential body functions are permitted to be enjoyable for Catholics. Should food taste good or must it be ingested merely for nourishment? Is defecation more acceptable religiously if you have constipation or piles and therefore is painful? Is urination permitted if one plays games and tries to aim at targeted spots or must one not be inventive? One should not, of course, enjoy a good sneeze or try to be musical with farts. No pleasure for body functions for the faithful.

well, it happens that when a natural disaster comes and it is unexplained or not understood what caused it and the why by primitive people (I mean thousands of years ago), then it must be related to something supernatural, as a punishment from God would be assumed if you don't approve the lifestyle and the culture from the people affected.

Last edited by greenblue on 21 Sep 2008, 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Most of the rules relating to sex are found in the old testament. The rules about any form of sex other than for the express purpose of reproduction stems from the fact that the jews in the desert (and even later once they reached the Promised Land) needed to keep their population going. If someone isn't reproducing because they're having sex with a camel, that person isn't contributing to maintaining the population. This is similar to how followers of Islam (and I believe the Jewish people as well) are forbidden from eating pigs, since the methods of cleaning a pig to make it safe to eat are fairly modern, and before that, eating anything from a pig would result in disease.

As for the whole Sodom and Gomorrah story, there was a whole slew of things that the people were doing other than sexual sins. God said this about Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49-50: The main sin of Sodom is that they were hedonistic in general, not merely because of their sexual acts. If God were to destroy cities based on the criteria he used to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, He would probably have destroyed more than half of the cities in the United States (though, ironically enough, probably not San Francisco). It's only in modern times (as in the last 500 years) that, thanks to the word "sodomy" entering the English language with it's currently-accepted meaning, that the sexual perversions committed by Sodom were trumped up over their general lack of hospitality.

I wasn't aware that you thought me, an active and practicing christian, stupid. I'll keep that in mind when I talk to you next time...

What you do on your own time is your prerogative, so if you want to be a satanist, I don't have a problem with that. But I don't take kindly to being called "stupid".

Unless of course, you were joking, in which case forget what I just said in this post...

Rape of men. Rape of women is apparently ok (the daughters mentioned above). Incest is also ok according to this story.

There's no hatred of sex.

Look at it from a Benthamist Utilitarian view for a second. The greatest good for the greatest many. The idea that short term pleasures with long term negative consequences (no, not hell, baby's out of wedlock, STD's, wellfare moms, Lindon B Johnson's Great Society and all the miraculous things that did for our culture), but rather choosing things that may or may not be pleasurable in the immediate sense but give long term happiness and pleasure (achievement, shoring up society, making the world a better place to live in aspect - higher goals).

The emphasis that the bible gave to unwedded sex was logistical. It feels good, if people are a bit dimly lit upstairs they can't hammer out why they're supposed to care or why it matters if they knock up a whole bunch of women who they aren't providing for or can't (or alternately in a woman's case the same thing). Seeing the outcomes of the free love movement, how whorish both genders have been acting, the way that really erodes the quality of the dating scene, the way it erodes the quality of relationships, people's ability to even feel for eathother past a point rather than just for themselves (quite often emotional damage from either pettiness or dealing with the pettiness that our culture has clamped down on us - as a result of this). If looking at the changes in how our society works shows us I think exactly what the framers of the Bible meant.

Of course, human beings are animals and are more prone to not give a flying f--- about the long term. As in, if it won't get me high, if it won't make my d--- bigger, if it won't make me rich, why the f--- should I care? That's how people or at least the majority of alphas and even many betas in our society operate. For the sake of getting these people dealt with, the bible had to lay down the law to such a degree. Also of course, cheating had men killing eachother, killing women, dad's probably killing the guys or vice a versa, and no - not as a direct result - as result of what people do in the situations where their resources are impinged on. It probably was a much less civil world back then and because of that they had to use a very blunt instrument - ie. the eternal fires of hell - to get people to, if they couldn't move themselves to do a damn thing for anyone else, at least stop doing negative things just because, not to many people want to go to hell. I'd imagine its the same reason why the inquisition and Salem Witch-burning type ideas were so strong and so much there, it was regulation and the people of course following up on these actions and being what we'd think of as Westboro Baptist schizo-christians were in fact showing the side effects of a system that was built at least one and half millenia before them but still unbelievably held great power over the social framework. These rules (of the bible) really were that well built that even when people just became superficial, had no understanding of what it really meant aside from the unreal and superstitious magical world the thought it conveyed if read straight on superficiality, it still worked, badly of course and with a lot of fall out, but it still worked.


I may have gotten off on a bit of a tangent, but, this does hit on broader topics. Best way to sum it up though, the bible - with or without God being real - had a lot of value in terms of the values it taught people to have. If it wasn't divinely inspired it was at least written by individuals who were at least as bright or at least moreso than those who wrote the U.S. Constitution. When you do look at it as an erational book of persecutions though or 'though shalt nots' though, try to see the other side of it and not as it hammering you personally into the ground with rules but rather that its supposed to really instruct society and why those things are there (ie. in the Kantian sense - if everyone did this, how would it change the world).

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 21 Sep 2008, 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thank you
I try my best to upset narrow minded christians

Here's something to throw into the works for many people

Now, sex is for procreation only?
Here's ONE problem that has been overlooked:

If two people are having sex to procreate and one is infertile, and they keep doing so, would this be seen as a sin? What about if either or both were to go for tests? The male would have to literally masturbate with aid, isn't this regarded as a sin?

Someone with answers please ...

The above refers to standard male/female

Musical farts are, apparently, OK. St. Augustine, believe it or not, said so. He says in his City of God that the Fall deprived Adam of his former perfect control of his body, and to prove that this was so, said that even now, we have people who can wiggle their ears and others who can fart tunes at will...so presumably the implication is that the innocent Adam could do all this and more, including keeping control of his now wayward genitalia. Interesting.

As for all sex having to be procreative, I'm interested that people who believe this are rarely explicit as to just how much is forbidden. If it's any act that can't produce babies, then it's not just homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, and fornication (and lumping them all together is a little unfair, because it's failing to consider out the crucial thing that for most people makes the middle two unacceptable, which is the straightforward lack of consent.) Logically, the rules should also ban any legal, consenting act that married couples do that doesn't involve the appropriate bits colliding. Which would, face it, be a bit boring.

LeKiwi has raised an interesting point. In women, the organ of sexual arousal is totally separate from the baby-making equipment - so much so that normal, baby-making sex doesn't give a lot of women much pleasure at all. A woman doesn't have to be aroused to get pregnant, nor does she have to be ovulating, or even fertile, to want and enjoy sex. You can only conclude that sex and reproduction aren't actually as closely connected as we'd like to think. In women, at least. But then, it hasn't generally been women making up these rules...

! !! !

The bible is a compilation of desert myths and mores; the writers didn't invent them whole cloth. As with any culture's code of behavior, there are some factors that have a legitimate functional basis - but, as with most cultures' codes of behavior, the emphasis has settled over time onto the 'good' of the preventive behavior rather than the 'good' of the prevention itself.

Techstepper, that phrase seems to be advocating dominionism; I haven't gotten the idea that you're a dominionist from your other writings, so I hope that I'm not reading your actual intent.