Religion and sex

Post Reply New Topic

Religion used to need to control sex to keep overpopulation and disease from breaking out.

With the invention of condoms religion can be replaced with a sex ed class and a Trojan.

Ok, so theres a half chapter, 17 out of 30 verses, and most of them are just to list various close relatives you shouldnt have relations with.

But there is a whole book of the Bible that shows the beauty of Love and sex when in its proper context with such lovely words as

"5 Your two breasts are like two young ones, the twins of a female gazelle, that are feeding among the lilies.”

What a lovely way to describe bouncy tits.

Other then the Essenes and the Shakers, I can't think of a single religion that has tried to control overpopulation. And even those are probably poor examples. The opposite is more generally correct. Hell they can't make themselves fast enough, they want to convert me too. Governments, yes I can think of in terms of over population as an issue. What am I missing in your statement?

Disease, yeah you could make the argument you do and take home a blue ribbon.

If you replace religion with condoms and a sex ed class, would that not be the religion of the Educated Rubber?

I feel that the pleasure aspect of sex should be there. I don't feel that it should be 100% about procreation.

Tim

Procreation is a harmful SIDE EFFECT.

But, there IS a mystical side to
sex.

IMO When the Abrahamic monotheistic beliefs started, sex and reproduction could not have been separate ideas as they are today. These rules about sex were probably cultural mores meant to organize family and clan relationships into comprehensive nations. Originally, sexual sin was probably more about breaking obligations to family and nation than about lust.

I see that I should not have feared you having your feelings hurt by my original post. This makes me happy.
Actually I have had quite a good chuckle at your reply. I find it uncommon on the internet for someone to not take offence and start 'flaming' over a post like mine.
I'm going to enjoy this discourse

Let's get to it...

Yes, that is correct. Although I do find the topic of some interest, your comments were what drew me into the fray.




Actually, I do not fancy myself to be a great debater but I do at times enjoy heady discourse.



Perhaps it was my choice of words. I wish to make it clear that I do find "lovemaking" simply a body function.
But, viewing from the physical aspect only, then it does fall into that category of body function. I simply did not attach the emotional aspect to it for my statement.



I do not see the flaw with my analogies. In keeping with the theme of considering only the physical aspect of sex eliciting emotional pleasure, comparing this to other bodily functions that also draw out emotional pleasure seems fine to me.


Based upon earlier posts you have made, I actually had no idea that you understood the situation as you have described above.
My questions were genuine, though, because I took from your earlier statements that you believed you had somehow divined the truth and felt compelled to show us all (hence the 'ego' comment ). I was merely interested in seeing your statements explaining what I thought you felt you knew.


I believe that prior to my daughter being born (still in the womb), I created this idea of my love for her, much as I have done for other people I say I love. By whatever chemical means the brain applies, I have ingrained my 'feelings' for her in my mind. As for spiritual feelings, I cannot claim to understand spirituality yet. This 'soul' you and others have mentioned is a nice romantic ideal, but I have not come to a full understanding as to it's existence. I'll reserve comment on this for another time, another topic.
Concerning my daughter's love for me... I'll have to sit down with her and ask her about that someday. I was an adopted child. The adoption was arranged prior to my birth. The only mother and father I have ever known were the people who adopted me.
There was no physical connection between me and my parents prior to the hospital handing me over. My love for my new parents had to have come out of our meeting and time spent together since. As sterile and unemotional as it may seem, this love was brought about (to the best of my knowledge) by reinforcement in my brain that these people brought me pleasure, provided for my basic needs for survival, and in so doing created this bond between us.
Again, the spiritual aspect of this eludes me to this day. I do hope someday to understand it, and I fully believe this may come about on my death bed.




I did. She rolled her eyes (as she often does to me ) and told me that was enough information... or too much actually. Of course, I preceded this with the disclosure that you and I were having a debate.
I am disappointed in you Icarus. This comment is shallow. No where did I ever call sex... going to the bathroom. Sex may technically be the expelling of body fluids, but these fluids have a purpose outside of my body as opposed to stool and urine. I have to say that this comment of yours did seem inflammatory, but I hold no grudge against you for that.


I did that also. This time she gave me quite the stern look and asked me to tell you not to suggest I bring anymore of these comments to her
I do not shield my daughter from life. I have tried to teach her to view it with an open mind and be critical of it... or more specifically, be critical of the people who try to convince her of things.
Back to your comment #2...
I see nothing wrong with allowing her to know that sex IS a bodily function, technically, and that it can be pleasurable. What she feels about it when it becomes a fact in her life... is up to her. The last sentence also disappoints me Icarus. I do not recall debating the issue of when humans should start having sex.

You appear to be intent on equating every facet of sex with those of other bodily functions. My only argument was that sex could indeed share the same physical pleasure as certain bodily functions (going to the bathroom). I never suggested that although humans can enjoy going to the bathroom at any age, sex should also be enjoyed as soon as an individual is physically capable of it.

Your two questions above rankle me partly because they seem to be made without much thought towards good argument. Simple attacks that stray from my earlier arguments by trying to expand on the statements I made instead of dealing with the words I typed specifically.


Perhaps my interpretation was flawed.


See above


As I mentioned earlier, I felt some of your comments implied you had the 'truth' and others did not and you felt compelled to show us the truth. Mind you, this was all typed at 3 a.m. after I had gotten off work at 11:30 the night before. I find those factors can create a situation where I am not at my best for posting on the internet... if I ever am



Thank you

Mailer said, "There is no such thing as, safe sex."

Comments?

Safe as in %100 safe?

Nope.

Safe as in a high safety factor? (Condoms, sterilized participants etc.)

Aye, wear a condom and be make sure your partner has no STDs and you probably won't get sick.

Nothing is truly safe - you can die any second from any number of reasons that have a 0.0000000001 probability of happening.

Last edited by Flagg on 22 Sep 2007, 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

With out tipping to much ammo for Cal. (or anyone else for that matter) I think he had something else in mind as well.

Er... Is that second sentence missing a "not"? (A minor typo? I make them myself quite frequently.) If that second sentence is as you meant it, that lovemaking is simply a bodily function, my original point is something that will never reach you, and I'll just give up now.


Alright, let me try this again. When you get emotional pleasure from taking a really good dump, who is it that you may become closer to through the sharing of that pleasure? Who is it you are forming a bond with? Or is it your position that shared emotional pleasure does not bring two people together? Either it does, or it doesn't. If it does... A good dump is a flawed analogy for sex, because it lacks a second person to bond with; my "merging of souls" notion requires a soul to merge with.


It's cool, I'm used to people having no idea what I really understand. I maintain that what I purport to know is what I originally meant to imply: lovemaking is much more than going to the bathroom, which if you recall were the original statements I was arguing with. I maintain my reasons for stating this: those who stop short at such a qualification are robbing themselves. I'm no grand master of some ultimate truth; but when I see something being portrayed in a way I believe is wrong and limiting, I feel compelled to say something.


In my experience, the feeling of "spirituality" comes from some part of the brain which may either be active or dormant. Having an active spiritual center or not means nothing good or bad; perhaps it is a road to enlightenment, or perhaps it is simply a form of insanity. But I know that for my own part, my "spiritual centers" were dormant for the first 32 years of my life. Then they became active, and I struggled with what to do with these newfound feelings of spirituality. As I'm only 34 now, they remain a relatively new experience for me, and I'm still struggling to integrate them into myself. BUT, if you have no spiritual feelings of any kind, what I am saying will never make sense to you, for it depends on having some real feeling of spirituality. NOT an intellectual understanding of the notion, but the feeling of spirituality; it is not a rational thing.


I cannot disagree with you; the notion of a soul is a romantic ideal. I do not claim to have any real understanding of what it is either; in fact, I should clarify that I use the term "soul" simply as shorthand for something along the lines of, "that which makes living things different than non-living things"; my use of the term "soul" is not intended to have any particular religious context. When I speak of the "merging of souls" (in retrospect "mingling" is a better term), I only wish to imply two people's life-forces come very close together, possibly touch, possibly more than that. I do not know. But, it is something that I maintain a claim to have experienced.


The fact that you were adopted is entirely irrelevant; I don’t believe that your attachment to them is sterile and unemotional at all; in fact, I’m perplexed as to why you would suggest such a thing. In any case, let me ask you a very simple question: Do you believe you have any sort of spiritual connection to your (adoptive) parents, who you claim to love? Do you really believe that your love for them is just chemical reactions in your brain brought about by simple circumstance? If your answer to this question is “yes”, then we are at an impasse.


I did not mean to suggest that you should actually do this; as I said it was a hypothetical thought exercise! I thought I was very clear about that.


<sigh> Any disappointment or apparent shallowness is a matter of misunderstanding. Sex = going to the bathroom; this is what I was originally arguing against… Right? Really, go back and look at my original post, at the two statements that I quoted for rebuttal. In challenging me on arguing with those statements, you carry those statements into the argument. My memory is not so short as may seem.


In all sincerity, I commend you on your parenting technique.


Again, you misunderstand my point. Let me pose a very simple question to you: If sex is simply a bodily function, how is one's age relevant to experiencing it? What difference does it make? In expressing “disappointment” at me raising that aspect of things, you inadvertently acknowledge that sex is more than “technically” a pleasurable bodily function; thank you.


And once again, my argument was that sex can be about much more than physical pleasure, and that people who equate it to nothing more than a pleasurable bodily function are robbing themselves. And, I'll ask once again, what difference does age make WRT to pleasurable bodily functions?


If you took my example as an attempted attack, then I apologize; no attack was intended.

What I was trying to do was to bring emotional connection with a second person into the argument, the part that basically everything you’ve said is missing. As a father myself, I know that emotional attachment to one's child can be a very powerful thing; it is probably the most powerful emotional attachment we can have. In fact, my statements were made with great thought and consideration toward the argument at hand, and they do not stray from your arguments; they attempt to get you to understand emotional attachments between people.


Not "the" truth; "a" truth, or more accurately, "my" truth; what my experiences have apparently shown me. And, I've got my excuses also; I had also worked a long day yesterday; and, I must admit, had just finished my 8th "pint" of Guinness before making my cocky post. Hell, I’m on my fifth pint right now.


And, to end with the beginning... It's all good; I'm not overly sensitive. If you want me to fly into a fit of flaming, just be mean to one of my friends. (Really, I've gone way overboard in that vein here in the past.) But debating? I've been in too many debates about too many subjects to be much bothered by the notion anymore. It is nothing more than a bit of intellectual sparring to me. And, to leave things in that light, here is a jocular tribute to arguing. Enjoy.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc[/youtube]
(We should be careful; we're hijacking this thread with our sparring.)

Good fortune,

- Icarus is Shallow and Thoughtless

Nice debate.

Last edited by Flagg on 23 Sep 2007, 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Frame of reference error: Please define something that you consider to be "spiritual".

Good fortune,

- Icarus is Reason's Advocate

1. Of or pertaining to the "spirit" or the "soul"
2. Of or pertaining to the "god"/"gods" or a religious institution; sacred
3. Of or pertaining to "spirits"; supernatural

The fact that this discussion is taking place should serve as a humbling reminder of human idiocy. What sort of universe-creator god would be so petty as to care what you do with your wing-wang? After all, if he made people with the biological impulses and anatomical equipment that they have, then the resulting actions are his fault and not yours.

Last edited by Coyote27 on 23 Sep 2007, 2:02 am, edited 3 times in total.

Explain.