Christianity and Sex

Fanny Cradock

I'm wondering how Christians tackle the idea of premarital sex/ abstinence. Having a fondness for the ladies, this is something I've always struggled with. Many people take the view that sex can just an act, something to do with someone (stranger or loved one) that happens to be enjoyable. Indeed, sex is often seen as the pinnacle of two people meeting. Christianity tells us otherwise - it is more than a shag, there is something spiritual invested in it.

philologos

Sexual intercourse before marriage is frowned upon. Jesus talks against lustfulness on several occasions. People dispute sex before marriage though, because the references to that are in the Old Testament (if anyone has any for me in the New Testament point them this way), but Jesus preaches against lust in the New Testament. It could be argued that sex before marriage is acceptable if it is in love not in lust. I'm personally of the mind that it should wait till after marriage.

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Christianity and Sex.

Sex within Christian Marriage is amongst the greatest blessings from God!!!!:D

......and the abuse of sex is amongst the greatest disasters that can befall anybody.

Many people think that Christianity is a bit of a 'killjoy' - when nothing could be further from the truth.

The Christian life leads to happiness in BOTH this life AND in eternity!!!

If you doubt me, think of behaving opposite to the Tenets of Christianity.
Does anybody think that they would be happier if they rejected all help from God, were at war with their parents and their neighbours, worked 24/7, routinely stole anything that took their fancy and were in a perpetual state of begrudgery and jealousy over their neighbour's good fortune???

I think that this would be as close to 'Hell on Earth' as anybody could get!!!

BTW many non-Christians have discovered that the Tenets of Christianity make sense - and they achieve fulfillment and happiness by behaving in accordance with them. However, unless they make a faith commitment to Jesus Christ they will not be saved.

Nobody should put off being saved - they can still enjoy everything that is legal and moral in this life - and be sure of their salvation in the next life!!!!:D

It's a win:win situation!!!!:)

stevejazzx

Human beings are animals. We have existed far longer than the construct of marriage. We were procreating then without any rules. Were our ancient ancestors guilty of committing crimes agaist God because they weren't married?
Through civilisation and the advancement of the moral code society decided that certain sexual practices are improper. These rules have changed in the last couple of hundred of years becoming increasingly more liberal with the justifiable exception of paedophilia although I am aware that it can also be argued that even paedophilia is a type of sexuality.
So nowadys we have homosexuality, hetrosexuality, bisexuality and like in the famous song - anything goes . The enlightened world is on the cusp of giving full sanction to all these variants. There is simply no logical counter argument for not allowing it unless you cite an angry sky God.
So these human constructs of Marriage, monogamy and the criminalisation of homosexuality are all slowly becoming redefined to suit modern society. This is all evidence that these ideas did not come from God but from ourselves. Humans invented these laws, not God. We create them, change them mould them and then claim they are sacrosasnct - such rubbish!
Across the animal kingdom all manner of sexual behaviour is ongoing. There is no guilt or shame in these such acts. Only humans have enough emotional ambiguity to superimpose such sensationalism upon the act of sex. It can be wrong, mentally unhealthy, shameful, embarrasing, illegal, deviant etc etc. Most of the time it is none of these things however. It is quite simply a penis entering a vagina for the gratification, not procreation, of two individuals.
The stigma surrounding sex and it's aftermath was created by a conditioned society continually conditioning it's members into believing that there is much more to this act.
Ultimately sex has been built into marriage. The two are inseperable like the famous song. Just like religon, the idea of sex only within the construct of marriage was an idea primarily instituted as a control. The general public cannot be trusted with thier sexual organs and therefore they need to be told when they can use them. So sex in marriage is essentially just an idea, not a law.

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote:

Human beings are animals. We have existed far longer than the construct of marriage. We were procreating then without any rules. Were our ancient ancestors guilty of committing crimes agaist God because they weren't married?
Through civilisation and the advancement of the moral code society decided that certain sexual practices are improper. These rules have changed in the last couple of hundred of years becoming increasingly more liberal with the justifiable exception of paedophilia although I am aware that it can also be argued that even paedophilia is a type of sexuality.
So nowadys we have homosexuality, hetrosexuality, bisexuality and like in the famous song - anything goes . The enlightened world is on the cusp of giving full sanction to all these variants. There is simply no logical counter argument for not allowing it unless you cite an angry sky God.
So these human constructs of Marriage, monogamy and the criminalisation of homosexuality are all slowly becoming redefined to suit modern society. This is all evidence that these ideas did not come from God but from ourselves. Humans invented these laws, not God. We create them, change them mould them and then claim they sacrosasnct - such rubbish!
Across the animal kingdom all manner of sexual behaviour is ongoing. There is no guilt or shame in these such acts. Only humans have enough emotional ambiguity to superimpose such sensationalism upon the act of sex. It can be wrong, mentally unhealthy, shameful, embarrasing, illegal, deviant etc etc. Most of the time it is none of these things however. It is quite simply a penis entering a vagina for the gratification, not procreation, of two individuals.
The stigma surrounding sex and it's aftermath was created by a conditioned society continually conditioning it's members into believing that there was much more to this act.
Ultimately sex has been built into marriage. The two are inseperable like the famous song. Just like religon, the idea of sex only within the construct of marriage was an idea primarily instituted as a control. The general public cannot be trusted with thier sexual organs and therefore they need to be told when they can use them. So sex in marriage is essentially just an idea, not a law.

Indeed, but to many Christians, of which I am one, this doesn't hold true ^

UU

Well, in my opinion, I think sexuality is a PERSONAL matter and it is no church's business what happens between consending adults in private. If two unmarried people wish to have sex, then that is up to them. I agree that abuse of sex is a dangerous and difficult issue. But a church telling people that they must for example, abstain from sex until married, not use contraception, not be gay, not be lustful, is all wrong. Sexual freedom between consending adults is a basic human right and no religion has the right to tell people that they should do this and not to do that. I wouldn't go up to someone and tell them that they can't for example, be in a sexual relationship with a particular person because it's none of my business. So why can a religious group get away with the same thing?

BTW, I have no problem with people abstaining from sex until married or not using contraception (if they're in a safe relationship) if that's their choice by all means do what is right for you. But don't turn around and tell people which way they must live their sexual lives. It a personal issue which our constituation, EU and the UN declaration of human rights recognises. and you can't put your religion before the law because that's undemocratic.

JoeB-

Aren't catholics very arrogant to believe that they are special in this world... and that the world was created solely for them?
Of course sex is natural and there is no shame in practicing it, only simplistic people who don't have the confidence and self belief to define their own morals would 'outsource' their morality to a bunch of proven paedophiles and paedophile facilators.
I detest the church and would consider it one of the happiest days Ireland has seen if they were proscribed an illegal organisation or a cult and run out of this country...
Why should an organisation be allowed to fill peoples minds with unproven and unproveable nonsense simply because they are in existence a long time?
So Fanny Cradock I would suggest that you do what you feel is right and don't waste any more time worrying about what the catholics tell you is right or wrong... don't forgot that their teachings change over time, at one stage you could 'buy' tickets into heaven by fighting in the crusades... mortal sins have changed and all the 'fire and brimstone' stuff has been moderated... simply because it wouldn't be tolerated by an educated audience...

Fanny Cradock

JoeBallantine wrote:

Aren't catholics very arrogant to believe that they are special in this world... and that the world was created solely for them?
Of course sex is natural and there is no shame in practicing it, only simplistic people who don't have the confidence and self belief to define their own morals would 'outsource' their morality to a bunch of proven paedophiles and paedophile facilators.
I detest the church and would consider it one of the happiest days Ireland has seen if they were proscribed an illegal organisation or a cult and run out of this country...
Why should an organisation be allowed to fill peoples minds with unproven and unproveable nonsense simply because they are in existence a long time?
So Fanny Cradock I would suggest that you do what you feel is right and don't waste any more time worrying about what the catholics tell you is right or wrong... don't forgot that their teachings change over time, at one stage you could 'buy' tickets into heaven by fighting in the crusades... mortal sins have changed and all the 'fire and brimstone' stuff has been moderated... simply because it wouldn't be tolerated by an educated audience...

Thanks for the advice, but I'm not Catholic, and don't follow their teachings. This said, I'm not demonising their faith. I guess I was asking people - and this is the tricky part - who would be of a similar belief to myself. By this I mean people who are not overly concerned with religious institutions and concentrate on the bible.

I'm particularly interested in what Jesus had to say on the amtter. Is marriage the only instance that sex is acceptable, or as Jakkass suggested, can a 'loving' relationship also be considered acceptable?

Call Me Jimmy

stevejazzx wrote:

Human beings are animals. We have existed far longer than the construct of marriage. We were procreating then without any rules. Were our ancient ancestors guilty of committing crimes agaist God because they weren't married?
Through civilisation and the advancement of the moral code society decided that certain sexual practices are improper. These rules have changed in the last couple of hundred of years becoming increasingly more liberal with the justifiable exception of paedophilia although I am aware that it can also be argued that even paedophilia is a type of sexuality.
So nowadys we have homosexuality, hetrosexuality, bisexuality and like in the famous song - anything goes . The enlightened world is on the cusp of giving full sanction to all these variants. There is simply no logical counter argument for not allowing it unless you cite an angry sky God.
So these human constructs of Marriage, monogamy and the criminalisation of homosexuality are all slowly becoming redefined to suit modern society. This is all evidence that these ideas did not come from God but from ourselves. Humans invented these laws, not God. We create them, change them mould them and then claim they are sacrosasnct - such rubbish!
Across the animal kingdom all manner of sexual behaviour is ongoing. There is no guilt or shame in these such acts. Only humans have enough emotional ambiguity to superimpose such sensationalism upon the act of sex. It can be wrong, mentally unhealthy, shameful, embarrasing, illegal, deviant etc etc. Most of the time it is none of these things however. It is quite simply a penis entering a vagina for the gratification, not procreation, of two individuals.
The stigma surrounding sex and it's aftermath was created by a conditioned society continually conditioning it's members into believing that there is much more to this act.
Ultimately sex has been built into marriage. The two are inseperable like the famous song. Just like religon, the idea of sex only within the construct of marriage was an idea primarily instituted as a control. The general public cannot be trusted with thier sexual organs and therefore they need to be told when they can use them. So sex in marriage is essentially just an idea, not a law.

QFT well said steve

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I'm particularly interested in what Jesus had to say on the amtter. Is marriage the only instance that sex is acceptable, or as Jakkass suggested, can a 'loving' relationship also be considered acceptable?

You might find this interesting

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/premaritalsex.html

According to them the ban on premarital sex is a false tradition based on miss-translation of the Greek word "porneia" to mean "fornication", which it seemingly doesn't. It means certain types of sexual immorality, such as sex with a prostitute. These are clearly prohibited by the Old Testament, but simply having sex before you are married isn't. Of if it is it is prohibited in the silly way that a lot of the Old Testament rules are framed, around the ownership of women which is largely ignored in these enlightened times.

Not being a Christian it doesn't hold much weight either way with me, but for a Christian who the ban on premarital sex just doesn't make sense this might be a good place to start to find Biblical support for your position.

BrianCalgary

stevejazzx wrote:

Human beings are animals. We have existed far longer than the construct of marriage. We were procreating then without any rules. Were our ancient ancestors guilty of committing crimes agaist God because they weren't married?
Through civilisation and the advancement of the moral code society decided that certain sexual practices are improper. These rules have changed in the last couple of hundred of years becoming increasingly more liberal with the justifiable exception of paedophilia although I am aware that it can also be argued that even paedophilia is a type of sexuality.
So nowadys we have homosexuality, hetrosexuality, bisexuality and like in the famous song - anything goes . The enlightened world is on the cusp of giving full sanction to all these variants. There is simply no logical counter argument for not allowing it unless you cite an angry sky God.
So these human constructs of Marriage, monogamy and the criminalisation of homosexuality are all slowly becoming redefined to suit modern society. This is all evidence that these ideas did not come from God but from ourselves. Humans invented these laws, not God. We create them, change them mould them and then claim they are sacrosasnct - such rubbish!
Across the animal kingdom all manner of sexual behaviour is ongoing. There is no guilt or shame in these such acts. Only humans have enough emotional ambiguity to superimpose such sensationalism upon the act of sex. It can be wrong, mentally unhealthy, shameful, embarrasing, illegal, deviant etc etc. Most of the time it is none of these things however. It is quite simply a penis entering a vagina for the gratification, not procreation, of two individuals.
The stigma surrounding sex and it's aftermath was created by a conditioned society continually conditioning it's members into believing that there is much more to this act.
Ultimately sex has been built into marriage. The two are inseperable like the famous song. Just like religon, the idea of sex only within the construct of marriage was an idea primarily instituted as a control. The general public cannot be trusted with thier sexual organs and therefore they need to be told when they can use them. So sex in marriage is essentially just an idea, not a law.

Your fundamental premise that humans are animals is where your argumant falls down. Wolves kill for fun and not just for food, so would you therefore condone such actions by humans?

Man is a special creation of God. Made by His hands from the dust of the ground, with God breathing life into man. We are held to a higher morality because we can distinguish from right and wrong and can understand the results of our actions.

God has stated that sex between a monogamous couple that is together for life is the safest and most productive sex available, outside of that and you are setting yourself up for disease, unwanted pregnancy, etc.

God has given us the ability to choose, you have made your choice, if you get a disease as the result of you actions, there is no one to blame but yourself.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

God has stated that sex between a monogamous couple that is together for life is the safest and most productive sex available, outside of that and you are setting yourself up for disease, unwanted pregnancy, etc.

How does being in a life long monogamous relationship stop you having an unwanted pregnancy or stop you getting a disease?

You do realise that there are diseases that can become sexually transmitted that don't start of as such, such as herpes?

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Your fundamental premise that humans are animals is where your argumant falls down. Wolves kill for fun and not just for food, so would you therefore condone such actions by humans?

??????
Humans literally are animals, we move and consume other organisms for food, that is the definition.

Animals:

In general they are multi*cellular, responsive to their environment, and feed by consuming other organisms or parts of them

The "in general" refers to debate over whether certain single-celled animals should be considered animals.

I don't understand how what wolves do has any baring on what we should do simply because we both eat other things and move or how that invalidates stevejazzx's arguement.

UU

BrianCalgary wrote:

Your fundamental premise that humans are animals is where your argumant falls down. Wolves kill for fun and not just for food, so would you therefore condone such actions by humans?

Man is a special creation of God. Made by His hands from the dust of the ground, with God breathing life into man. We are held to a higher morality because we can distinguish from right and wrong and can understand the results of our actions.

God has stated that sex between a monogamous couple that is together for life is the safest and most productive sex available, outside of that and you are setting yourself up for disease, unwanted pregnancy, etc.

God has given us the ability to choose, you have made your choice, if you get a disease as the result of you actions, there is no one to blame but yourself.

I do agree that sex is best reserved for a relationship with somebody you trust and love. For me, that's the case. I wouldn't do it with somebody I don't care for as I see it as a special bond between two people. But I'm an open-minded person and realise that not everyone thinks the same as I do. Maybe some are happier doing it with complete strangers for pleasure while others would like to do it for reproductive means in marriage. But as it stands, one of the basic human rights is sexual freedom. So therefore, I completely and utterly disagree with anyone whether it be a religious organisation or your next-door neighbour, making such an issue to be their business. That is, sticking their noses in places they don't belong. People should concentrate on their own sexual relationships. And I'm not saying they should ignore it when somebody is being hurt by it, such as rape. By all means, help people who are in potential danger. But please don't tell people that they must abstain from sex until married, etc. That is nobody's business but their own. Therefore, I don't want to know what my two friends are up to between themselves, that is not my place. And if somebody tries to share their sex life with me, I'll tell them that I really don't want to know!

Okay, I've finished ranting......:o

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

How does being in a life long monogamous relationship stop you having an unwanted pregnancy or stop you getting a disease? ?

I'm a lot more confused than you are wicky, I've been married for almost 22 years, and not 1 unwanted pregnanacy, unplanned maybe, but unwanted no. And not a hint of any disease.
Sex by the Bible can not have any STD involved.

Wicknight wrote:

You do realise that there are diseases that can become sexually transmitted that don't start of as such, such as herpes?

In which case they are not an STD, as they can be spread in other ways than sex. My common cold although not an STD would be transmitted to my wife through a moment of passion as well.

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

??????
Humans literally are animals, we move and consume other organisms for food, that is the definition.

Animals:
The "in general" refers to debate over whether certain single-celled animals should be considered animals..

You are giving a man made definition, SG. God clearly tell us that we are different than animals. He tells us that we are created in His image.

Son Goku wrote:

??????I don't understand how what wolves do has any baring on what we should do simply because we both eat other things and move or how that invalidates stevejazzx's arguement.

Stevejazzx uses animals and their sexual behaviour as justification for our sexual behaviour.

My question is, do we then justify all our beahaviour's based on the adgae that animals do it?

Wolves kill for the sake of killing, and leave carcasses of sheep and other livestock just lying about. Do we then justify killing because wolves do it for reasons other than food?

hairyheretic

On a similar note, what do you think of this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/lf_afp/afplifestyleussexchastity_070322082138

Sapien

hairyheretic wrote:

On a similar note, what do you think of this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/lf_afp/afplifestyleussexchastity_070322082138

That's quite revolting, and will only last until the first time one of these "father-daughter" relationships is revealed as being a little less than "pure".

Time Magazine

JoeBallantine wrote:

...

Your post made me laugh out loud. Really, ridiculous stuff.

Aren't catholics very arrogant to believe that they are special in this world... and that the world was created solely for them?

Are they arrogant to believe they're special? No. They believe in a God, much like non-Catholic Christians, Muslims and Jews who believe they are God's chosen people. This tenet runs hand-in-hand with a belief in and acceptance of God. There's nothing arrogant about it. Anyone can join the club.

Of course sex is natural and there is no shame in practicing it

This is based on the assumption that Christianity/Islam/etc. is false. If you're right, I completely agree with you. If Christianity is a sham, anything goes, including sex.

only simplistic people who don't have the confidence and self belief to define their own morals would 'outsource' their morality to a bunch of proven paedophiles and paedophile facilators.

This is the bit that made me lol. "Simplistic people who don't have ... confidence and self-belief". Is that an and/or situation? Am I both simple and lacking in confidence or will one or either do?

Are you calling me simple? Are you saying I'm lacking in confidence and self-belief? What about people like Claus von Stauffenberg [see my avatar and Google 'The July Plot' if you're wondering] are simple and/or lacking in confidence?

proven paedophiles and paedophile facilators

I don't think Christ is a proven paedophile or paedophile facilitator. The Church don't decide my views for me; I just happen to agree with much of what they say, all of it based on the teachings of somebody I honestly and instinctively believe to be God. This is not because of mental simplicity or lack of confidence. I assure you I'm far from simple and a lack of confidence is not a character trait anyone I know would associate with me. I believe in it simply because I believe in it. Is there conclusive proof? Of course not. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Would my life be easier if I didn't believe? Certainly.

I detest the church and would consider it one of the happiest days Ireland has seen if they were proscribed an illegal organisation or a cult and run out of this country...

You might be better suited to some regions of Nigeria, then. Personally, as a republican, I don't wish any religious organisation to be decalred illegal; particularly when 70%-80% of the population declare themselves to be a member.

Why should an organisation be allowed to fill peoples minds with unproven and unproveable nonsense simply because they are in existence a long time?

Should we ban Fianna Fáil, so? Bertie is claiming he will cut tax rates after the next General Election if returned to power. I ask you to prove this.

They should be allowed because it may be true and it may be the most important question each human ever takes. Certainly, it might be a load of balls, but nobody is forced to join. Where's the problem?

So Fanny Cradock I would suggest that you do what you feel is right and don't waste any more time worrying about what the catholics tell you is right or wrong... don't forgot that their teachings change over time, at one stage you could 'buy' tickets into heaven by fighting in the crusades... mortal sins have changed and all the 'fire and brimstone' stuff has been moderated... simply because it wouldn't be tolerated by an educated audience...

Simply because it wouldn't be tolerated by an educated audience? Not that the Church is a dynamic organisation that is willing to accept that some of its former teachings were wrong? Would you rather they never admitted that they have erred? Take for example the question on condoms. A decision was reached. Perhaps it was the right decision, perhaps not. If they change their mind, what should they do?

And incidentally the main tenants never change. The Church never have and never will make anything that's obviously against the Bible as dogma. They decide, given their knowledge at a particular time, on issues such as mortal sins and contraception. Going back to my original example, this is similar to any organisation/person choosing who to vote for in an election. They make their mind up based on what they know at the time. Would you rather they "didn't vote"?

I look forward to your response.

philologos

Ibid, spot on.

JoeBallantine wrote:

Of course sex is natural and there is no shame in practicing it

Nobody ever said it wasn't natural. How do you think the Israelites grew in number? Was it due to twiddling their thumbs or something. Sex is the most sacred act of love that God has given to us to share between man and woman. Therefore it should be treated with the respect it deserves, and people should be treated in the correct manner regarding it. It is not something to be taken for granted.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

I've been married for almost 22 years, and not 1 unwanted pregnanacy, unplanned maybe, but unwanted no.

Where to start ...

First of all you are basically saying that because you are married any child, even unplanned, will be none the less be wanted? Thats great, but I fail to see how this translates to being unmarried.

Are you saying that if you were not married to your wife and had one of your children in an unplanned pregnancy you wouldn't want them?

You are basically saying marriage causes no unwanted children because you will automatically want any child you have. The marriage therefore doesn't stop unwanted children at all, you stop them by saying that no matter what you will want any future children. Is there a reason why an unmarried person cannot say the same thing?

BrianCalgary wrote:

And not a hint of any disease.

Do either of you suffer from cold sores?

BrianCalgary wrote:

In which case they are not an STD, as they can be spread in other ways than sex.

The term Sexual Transmitted Disease referrers to how some gets the disease, it is not a property of bug or virus itself. All infections can be spread in other ways than sex.

HIV was initially transferred to humans from monkeys by blood. I assure you no one had sex with a chimpanzee. It can still be transferred from person to person by blood on open wounds or cuts.

The virus that causes herpes, HVS, also causes cold sores and other infections depending on where you are infected. It is called "herpes" if the infection is on the sexual organs, but the viruses (there are two) are the same.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Where to start ...

First of all you are basically saying that because you are married any child, even unplanned, will be none the less be wanted? Thats great, but I fail to see how this translates to being unmarried.

Are you saying that if you were not married to your wife and had one of your children in an unplanned pregnancy you wouldn't want them?

You are basically saying marriage causes no unwanted children because you will automatically want any child you have. The marriage therefore doesn't stop unwanted children at all, you stop them by saying that no matter what you will want any future children. Is there a reason why an unmarried person cannot say the same thing?.

I have a friend who is 17 and pregnant. The sperm donor doesn't want the baby. In a loving monogamous marriage the baby would be wanted by both.

Wicknight wrote:

Do either of you suffer from cold sores?.

Me yes, my wife no. After 22 years she has yet to catch it from me. Mine appeared when I was a kid. Therefore herpes is not an STD as it can be contracted through other means.

Wicknight wrote:

The term Sexual Transmitted Disease referrers to how some gets the disease, it is not a property of bug or virus itself. All infections can be spread in other ways than sex.

HIV was initially transferred to humans from monkeys by blood. I assure you no one had sex with a chimpanzee. It can still be transferred from person to person by blood on open wounds or cuts.

The virus that causes herpes, HVS, also causes cold sores and other infections depending on where you are infected. It is called "herpes" if the infection is on the sexual organs, but the viruses (there are two) are the same.

I don't think gonorrhea or syphilis can be transmitted any other way than by sexual contact?

HIV is not a true STD, but here in Canada it is mainly transmitted by sexual contact. In East Vancouver through drug needle sharing. In Africa and Cambodia, sexual contact.

BTW how do you know someone didn't have sex with the chimp?

Sapien

Ibid wrote:

The Church don't decide my views for me;

Really? Do you know much about the history of the Church? Or are you apostate?

Ibid wrote:

I just happen to agree with much of what they say...

Sadly, you will never really know if that is true.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

You are giving a man made definition, SG. God clearly tell us that we are different than animals. He tells us that we are created in His image.

Animal is an English word, which is defined to be something which moves responsively and eats other things. I don't get what you mean by "man-made". I mean aren't all english words "man-made"?
I actually don't understand.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Stevejazzx uses animals and their sexual behaviour as justification for our sexual behaviour.

My question is, do we then justify all our beahaviour's based on the adgae that animals do it?

No, just like I wouldn't jump head first into the ground and try to squirm into the soil. Just because we "eat and move" doesn't hold us to follow any other animal's pattern of behaviour.

robindch

> In East Vancouver through drug needle sharing.

...just out of interest, do you disagree with needle-exchanges where drug users can come in and exchange possibly-infected needles with clean ones, to reduce the chance of passing on infection through reuse?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

In a loving monogamous marriage the baby would be wanted by both.

Says who?

Are you saying now that not only does a person have to be in love to get married but they must also want any of the children produced by that marriage?

Should you not get married to a person unless you want to have kids with them straight away?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Me yes, my wife no.

Then you have the HSV virus. I suggest you don't perform oral sex on your wife while you have an out break or she will contract herpes. The fact that you are married will not stop this happening.

BrianCalgary wrote:

After 22 years she has yet to catch it from me.

I would imagine that is because you are careful not to give it to her. I would imagine you were equally careful not to give it to her before you were married.

Therefore it isn't your marriage that is stopping anything, it is your awareness and care. Your idea that marriage prevents infection only holds if you think that one will only be aware and careful if they are in a marriage. Just like your idea that every married person wants children, this idea doesn't hold in reality.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Therefore herpes is not an STD as it can be contracted through other means.

All sexual transmitted infections can be contracted through other means.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't think gonorrhea or syphilis can be transmitted any other way than by sexual contact?

You would be wrong. They can be contracted through any exposure to open wounds and body fluids. Exposure to parts of the skin such as the inside of the mouth will risk infection. Doctors have been known to contract (and die of) syphilis, so have priests. Babies are at risk at birth if their mother has the disease.

BrianCalgary wrote:

HIV is not a true STD, but here in Canada it is mainly transmitted by sexual contact.

There is no such thing as a "true STD" There is no infection that can only spread through sexual intercourse.

Time Magazine

Sapien wrote:

Really? Do you know much about the history of the Church? Or are you apostate?

It depends on your definition of much. Would I feel confident in challenging an academic in it? Certainly not.

No, I am not an apostate.

Sadly, you will never really know if that is true.

I must disagree. I believe in one Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe He sent His only son who was immaculately conceived, performed miracles, was crucified on a cross and rose after three days. I believe that the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit are a triumvariate of One.

They're quite a few big issues to agree on. Beyond that, well that's up for debate, but after one agrees with all of the above I consider it relatively trivial; at the very least my statement that "I agree with much of what they say" holds.

stevejazzx

briancalgary wrote:

Your fundamental premise that humans are animals is where your argumant falls down. Wolves kill for fun and not just for food, so would you therefore condone such actions by humans?

The idea is here is to illustrate that all human behaviour was orignally animalistic including of course, sex. There is absolutely no doubt about that. So any construct (in this case marriage) which came aftewards is simply contrived from the civilisation of humans, not god. Or do you really think that neanderthal man and woman went out for a nice meal beforehand etc. Brian, you seem unable to grasp the very simple fact that it is utterly beyond doubt that our ancient grandfathers were animals in every sense, even like the wolves who killed for fun, as you put it. It is course not my intention to compare modern people directly to animals but merely to show the lineage and history of our behaviour. These ideas of sex as something that should only happen within certain constructs like marriage or a serious realtionship are probably good ideas, nonetheless they were created by man for man, as a control, nothing else.

brain calvary wrote:

God has given us the ability to choose, you have made your choice, if you get a disease as the result of you actions, there is no one to blame but yourself.

If I get a disease? Aren't you jumping the gun here a little? I never said I advocate free casual sex. I neither advocate it nor condemn it, I believe it to be the choice of two consenting adults. An act which carries no baggage except that which the individuals involved are prepared to insert into it. Just becasue I happen to understand something differently than you have catergorised me in you head as some kind of sexual deviant. By this logic someone who writes about terrorism is a terroist.
Just for your information I am married 5 years and have a 4 year old boy, although it was a registry office becasue we're both atheists, that part might be a little less appealing to you.

braincalgary wrote:

Stevejazzx uses animals and their sexual behaviour as justification for our sexual behaviour.

No I don't. What I have said is that human beings started off as animals and invented the construts whereby sex became sinful in certain areas, like outside of marriage. Also I said that animals nowadays practice sex freely without guilt. They are hardly sinning or making god angry. We use to be just like them and that is a fact, therefore it is only through our own civilisation that sex has become immoral. Otherwise you're suggesting that we were never animals and thats just bananas.

Sapien

Ibid wrote:

I must disagree. I believe in one Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe He sent His only son who was immaculately conceived, performed miracles, was crucified on a cross and rose after three days. I believe that the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit are a triumvariate of One.

That's lovely, but you must realise that you can agree with all of the above, and still be heretical.

Ibid wrote:

They're quite a few big issues to agree on. Beyond that, well that's up for debate, but after one agrees with all of the above I consider it relatively trivial; at the very least my statement that "I agree with much of what they say" holds.

Your contention was that the Church does not decide what you believe. If you consider yourself to be part of the Roman Catholic Communion, and wish to stay that way, then the men who compose the hierarchy of the Church, and those who have for the last millennium and a half, have a great deal of control over what you believe.

To disagree on a point of dogma, of which there are many, all distinct from the body of scripture, and covering a great many matters beyond those you mention above, one is heretical and automatically excommunicated.

Time Magazine

Sapien wrote:

That's lovely, but you must realise that you can agree with all of the above, and still be heretical.

I do realise this. I am stating that today is a warm day; you claim that it may yet rain. My assertion remains valid.

Your contention was that the Church does not decide what you believe. If you consider yourself to be part of the Roman Catholic Communion, and wish to stay that way, then the men who compose the hierarchy of the Church, and those who have for the last millennium and a half, have a great deal of control over what you believe.

There is not mutual exclusivity. One can agree with dogma in its entirety and not be influenced by the Church's opinion. You've veered wildly off-topic, and I repeat my assertion that what belongs is another thread belongs in another thread.

Asiaprod

Sapien wrote:

That's quite revolting, and will only last until the first time one of these "father-daughter" relationships is revealed as being a little less than "pure".

Welcome back sir, it been a while:)
The part that intrigued me was "The highlight is when the fathers and daughters exchange vows, with dad signing a covenant to protect his daughter's chastity by living an unblemished life and the daughter promising not to have sex until marriage."

How on earth does that bit work How can that guarantee that the daughter remains unblemished, unless God actually promises that if the Father remains pure, he (God) will make sure that the daughter also remains pure.

Sapien

Ibid wrote:

You've veered wildly off-topic, and I repeat my assertion that what belongs is another thread belongs in another thread.

Matters of faith and dogma are never anything but germane to a discussion about religion.

And you started it.

Ibid wrote:

I do realise this. I am stating that today is a warm day; you claim that it may yet rain. My assertion remains valid.

I don't mean to be facetious, but do you know much about the catechesis and deposit of dogma of your Church?

Ibid wrote:

There is not mutual exclusivity. One can agree with dogma in its entirety and not be influenced by the Church's opinion.

Oh dear. Not really. As I have intimated, the requirements of belief for orthodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church are vast and intricate. It would be a coincidence of astronomical proportions if you just happened to believe it all anyway.

And what if you wanted to change your mind?

Asiaprod wrote:

Welcome back sir, it been a while

Not really. I have been watching...

Zombrex

Ibid wrote:

There is not mutual exclusivity. One can agree with dogma in its entirety and not be influenced by the Church's opinion.

I'm not sure I'm following this.

Are you saying you are not a Christian, you just happen to agree with everything that Christianity teaches?

Does that extend to the supernatural? How can you agree with things like the nature of God and Jesus if you weren't influenced by Christian teaching, such as the Bible? There aren't exactly external sources for this stuff.

Fanny Cradock

I originally intended for this thread to to be a discussion amongst Christians as a guide for something that I feel that is challenging to all of us, especially in what sometimes seems like a sex fuelled society. I have obsoletely no problem with a debate on the right or wrongs of abstaining from sex, but I really wanted to see if a consensus existed amongst Christians about the issue (supported by scripture if possible). Conversely, if no consensus existed, how people reconciled what the Bible teaches against what we want to do (again, with justifications if possible).

The way I see it is there are a number of options:

1) Abstain from sex until marriage;
2) Sex is OK in a 'loving relationship' - this is difficult to define though;
3) Any time the opportunity presents itself - and you're both in the mood - then it's OK.

Looking at the Bible I would think that Option 1 is the only acceptable one for Christians. However, Option 2 would seem to be plausible, especially when you consider the apparent mistranslation Wicknight speaks of. Yet, is this just wishful thinking on my part? Can you really justify your faith based on what some people say was a mistranslation? Option 3 would seem to be unambiguously rejected by the tenets of Christianity.

Depending on my resolve, I would lurch between my belief in Options 1 and 2. But the reality is that although they seem similar, they are actually completely different. Any thought's on this would be appreciated

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I originally intended for this thread to to be a discussion amongst Christians as a guide for something that I feel that is challenging to all of us, especially in what sometimes seems like a sex fuelled society. I have obsoletely no problem with a debate on the right or wrongs of abstaining from sex, but I really wanted to see if a consensus existed amongst Christians about the issue (supported by scripture if possible). Conversely, if no consensus existed, how people reconciled what the Bible teaches against what we want to do (again, with justifications if possible).

The way I see it is there are a number of options:

1) Abstain from sex until marriage;
2) Sex is OK in a 'loving relationship' - this is difficult to define though;
3) Any time the opportunity presents itself - and you're both in the mood - then it's OK.

Looking at the Bible I would think that Option 1 is the only acceptable one for Christians. However, Option 2 would seem to be plausible, especially when you consider the apparent mistranslation Wicknight speaks of. Yet, is this just wishful thinking on my part? Can you really justify your faith based on what some people say was a mistranslation? Option 3 would seem to be unambiguously rejected by the tenets of Christianity.

Depending on my resolve, I would lurch between my belief in Options 1 and 2. But the reality is that although they seem similar, they are actually completely different. Any thought's on this would be appreciated

The bible is certainly not vague when it comes to matters of sexuality. Sex is enjoyed in a marriage of a man and a woman, full stop! However, its defining marriage that causes the confusion. Marriage is of the heart. Marriage back in the days of Christ wasn't like we have now. If you spent a night with an honourable woman, you were married! Marriage is the loving relationship. so point one and 2 are identical. The 'wedding' is the testiment the couple makes that they are in a loving relationship, and are telling the world that they are now exclusive to each other. The marriage is in their hearts. Having a loving relationship and all its trimmings without getting married is not the Christian way. If its Love, then marriage is not an issue, its just a traditional formality that Christ. I am very sceptical of anyone who thinks marriage is a problem, for whatever reason. If you love someone, then marriage is what you do, gladly.

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

Animal is an English word, which is defined to be something which moves responsively and eats other things. I don't get what you mean by "man-made". I mean aren't all english words "man-made"?
I actually don't understand..

God's definition of man is a special created being, created differently than all other creatures on.

Man's definition of man: an animal who has evolved from the same place as other animals.which is defined to be something which moves responsively and eats other things.

There is a difference.

Son Goku wrote:

No, just like I wouldn't jump head first into the ground and try to squirm into the soil. Just because we "eat and move" doesn't hold us to follow any other animal's pattern of behaviour.

I know you don't. But Stevejazzx is justifying human sexual behaviour by the actions of animals, of which we as humans are.

My question to him then is do we justify all our actions baed on the actions of animals? Is that how we are going to define our morality?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> In East Vancouver through drug needle sharing.

...just out of interest, do you disagree with needle-exchanges where drug users can come in and exchange possibly-infected needles with clean ones, to reduce the chance of passing on infection through reuse?

I'd much rather get them off drug use altogether.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Says who?

Are you saying now that not only does a person have to be in love to get married but they must also want any of the children produced by that marriage? .

So you don't think that marrying fior love and wanting and loving the children produced is a good idea?

Wicknight wrote:

Should you not get married to a person unless you want to have kids with them straight away?.

Where did this come from?

Wicknight wrote:

Then you have the HSV virus. I suggest you don't perform oral sex on your wife while you have an out break or she will contract herpes. The fact that you are married will not stop this happening. .

Thanks Dr Laura.

Wicknight wrote:

I would imagine that is because you are careful not to give it to her. I would imagine you were equally careful not to give it to her before you were married. .

None of your business

Wicknight wrote:

Therefore it isn't your marriage that is stopping anything, it is your awareness and care. Your idea that marriage prevents infection only holds if you think that one will only be aware and careful if they are in a marriage. Just like your idea that every married person wants children, this idea doesn't hold in reality. .

No it's my marriage because we both take our vows before God seriously and we also hold God's commands on sexual behaviour.

Of course it doesn't hold in reality, because people have rejected God.

Wicknight wrote:

All sexual transmitted infections can be contracted through other means. .

So you can get gonorrhea and syphilis from toilet seats?

Wicknight wrote:

You would be wrong. They can be contracted through any exposure to open wounds and body fluids. Exposure to parts of the skin such as the inside of the mouth will risk infection. Doctors have been known to contract (and die of) syphilis, so have priests. Babies are at risk at birth if their mother has the disease.

There is no such thing as a "true STD" There is no infection that can only spread through sexual intercourse.

I don't know wicknight, sounds like junior high lockerroom stuff to me.

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote:

I know you don't. But Stevejazzx is justifying human sexual behaviour by the actions of animals, of which we as humans are.

My question to him then is do we justify all our actions baed on the actions of animals? Is that how we are going to define our morality?

Answered above.

BrianCalgary

stevejazzx wrote:

The idea is here is to illustrate that all human behaviour was orignally animalistic including of course, sex. There is absolutely no doubt about that. So any construct (in this case marriage) which came aftewards is simply contrived from the civilisation of humans, not god. Or do you really think that neanderthal man and woman went out for a nice meal beforehand etc. Brian, you seem unable to grasp the very simple fact that it is utterly beyond doubt that our ancient grandfathers were animals in every sense, even like the wolves who killed for fun, as you put it. It is course not my intention to compare modern people directly to animals but merely to show the lineage and history of our behaviour. These ideas of sex as something that should only happen within certain constructs like marriage or a serious realtionship are probably good ideas, nonetheless they were created by man for man, as a control, nothing else.




If I get a disease? Aren't you jumping the gun here a little? I never said I advocate free casual sex. I neither advocate it nor condemn it, I believe it to be the choice of two consenting adults. An act which carries no baggage except that which the individuals involved are prepared to insert into it. Just becasue I happen to understand something differently than you have catergorised me in you head as some kind of sexual deviant. By this logic someone who writes about terrorism is a terroist.
Just for your information I am married 5 years and have a 4 year old boy, although it was a registry office becasue we're both atheists, that part might be a little less appealing to you.



No I don't. What I have said is that human beings started off as animals and invented the construts whereby sex became sinful in certain areas, like outside of marriage. Also I said that animals nowadays practice sex freely without guilt. They are hardly sinning or making god angry. We use to be just like them and that is a fact, therefore it is only through our own civilisation that sex has become immoral. Otherwise you're suggesting that we were never animals and thats just bananas.

And here your premise is off. You are saying that man is an animal. We are not. We are specially created by God. As a result we have responsibilities to God and to each other.

We can not therefore act like nor be like animals. Part of our responsibility to each other is in the arena of sexuality. God has been very clear on the topic.

Do not commit adultery.
Exodus 20:14
"You shall not commit adultery.

Jesus clarifies and defines adultery
Matthew 5:27-29
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Mark 10:12
And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Mark 7:20-23
He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Romans 13:13
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.

1 Corinthians 5:1-3
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.

1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

I could go on.

BrianCalgary

stevejazzx wrote:

Answered above.

Thanks. I jumped the gun, before reading all the overnight posts.

Apologies.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Marriage back in the days of Christ wasn't like we have now

That isn't really true. Marriage back then was more formal that it is now. Today two people can just get married. Back then you needed agreement between the families and the religious leaders. There was the formal state of betrothal. This was actually considered a contract, and fines would be given if the contract was broken.

http://www.theology.edu/marriage.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrothal

robindch

> I'd much rather get them off drug use altogether.

That doesn't answer the question I asked: do you disagree with needle-exchanges where drug users can come in and exchange possibly-infected needles with clean ones, to reduce the chance of passing on infection through reuse?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

That doesn't answer the question I asked:?

I know. No morning coffee yet.

robindch wrote:

do you disagree with needle-exchanges where drug users can come in and exchange possibly-infected needles with clean ones, to reduce the chance of passing on infection through reuse?

I don't enough about the topic.

My initial reaction would be: will it help us to get folks off the street and off the drugs, then it is a yes.

If on the other hand it encourages drug use and makes matters worse then no.

I don't know what the results are of needle exchanges.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

So you don't think that marrying fior love and wanting and loving the children produced is a good idea?

I think it is a great idea. But being married isn't going to magically make someone want children that you otherwise wouldn't.

If someone, like yourself, gets married because they want children thats great every child will be wanted, even the unplanned ones.

But if someone doesn't want children but gets married the act of getting married doesn't magically make them want children. If they produce a child by accident on their wedding night that child is as wanted or not wanted as a child they would have produced before they were married. One hopes that they are realise they are happy with the idea and decide they do want the child, but being married isn't a guarantee of this.

Nor is there a system set up that says "You cannot get married unless you want children", or a test to make sure that all people who are married are happy to have children.

My objection to all this is that you put forward marriage as some kind of solution or answer to these issues. We have a problem of unwanted children? The solution is that everyone having children should be married, and therefore none of the children will be unwanted. That doesn't work.

There is an argument to be made (leaving aside the issue of abortion) that someone shouldn't be having sex unless they are prepared for any children that this sex might produce. But that is nothing to do with marriage. A couple not in a marriage can say yes they are prepared, and equally a couple in a marriage can realise that they aren't at all prepared.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Where did this come from?

It came from your idea that all kids inside a marriage will some how be automatically wanted (I assume that was your point).

The only conclusion one can draw from that is that you think no one should get married unless they want kids, otherwise how does this work?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Thanks Dr Laura.

Well leaving aside my stage name at the George nightclub on weekends, the point is that you have an infection that can be passed sexually to your wife.

You being married won't stop this happening. You being careful and caring will towards your wife will stop it happen. But you can be as careful and caring to someone outside of a marriage as you can be inside a marriage.

So again marriage in of itself isn't the solution you make it out to be. The solution actually is nothing to do with marriage.

BrianCalgary wrote:

None of your business

Ok ... I simply meant you probably didn't kiss her on the lips when you had the cold sore as this is the most common way that the virus is spread. I wasn't suggesting you had premarital relations with her and as dirty as my mind is I assure you it doesn't extend to thinking about you private time with your wife

BrianCalgary wrote:

No it's my marriage because we both take our vows before God seriously and we also hold God's commands on sexual behaviour.

There is no commandment that says don't kiss your girlfriend (the most common way HSV is spread). Nor is there any commandment regarding sexual intimacy within a marriage.

Therefore I doubt that any of God's commandments prevented you passing the virus to your future wife before you were married, nor passing the virus to your wife after you were married.

What stopped you doing this was your commendable care to not infect her. You showed this care before you were married and you showed it after you were married, which is why your wife still does not have the HSV virus. The marriage didn't change this, nor would the marriage have prevented the virus infecting your wife if you hadn't shown this care.

So again marriage is not a solution in of itself.

BrianCalgary wrote:

So you can get gonorrhea and syphilis from toilet seats?

Not that I'm aware of, but then toilet seats don't get infected with gonorrhea or syphilis. I wouldn't recommend rubbing an open cut up and down over a toilet seat though. Just to be safe.

The good news is that gonorrhea and syphilis are both bacterial infections and are very easy to treat. In this day and age getting infected with either is not a big deal so long as you become aware of it early.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't know wicknight, sounds like junior high lockerroom stuff to me.

Well how do you think you got the HSV virus in the first place? I imagine it wasn't through sex.

robindch

> I don't know what the results are of needle exchanges.

Needle exchanges are not intended to get people off drugs or to keep them on them. Rather their only purpose is to provide a service where drug users can exchange used or dirty needles with clean ones, to reduce the risk of infecting other drug users (who tend to reuse dirty needles). The wikipedia article on Needle-exchange programme seems to cover the topic fairly well.

Good thing or bad thing?

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote:

And here your premise is off. You are saying that man is an animal.

It is not a premise, it is an establised fact. We can even use thier organs when we're sick. I think that makes us compatible.

brian wrote:

We can not therefore act like nor be like animals. Part of our responsibility to each other is in the arena of sexuality. God has been very clear on the topic.

But we do act like and animals. We're perhaps infintely more civilised about it (some of us anyway). But we behave like animals nonetheless. If you read about the instinctive
needs and wants of humans and compare to it animals you'll find that they're identical. Start with Maslows hierarchy and you'll see that the sophicated human 'wants' are only wanted after the base criteria is met i.e food and shelter. Everything is predisposed with an animalistic nature. It is our history and cannot be denied, the evidence is turly overwhelming.

brian wrote:

We are not. We are specially created by God. As a result we have responsibilities to God and to each other.

I would go along with 50% of the latter half of that assumption.

brian wrote:

Part of our responsibility to each other is in the arena of sexuality. God has been very clear on the topic.

Well the old testamnet is anything but clear on the matter.

brian wrote:

Do not commit adultery.
Exodus 20:14
"You shall not commit adultery.

Thats striaght forward enough i suppose.

brian wrote:

Jesus clarifies and defines adultery
Matthew 5:27-29
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Gouge out ones eye?
Fact: The eye cannot deny the impulses of the brain.
I suggest a lobotomy is the way forward here.

brian wrote:

Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

It's getting a little complicated? So if my partner is unfaithful, i can go off and get married to someone else?. What about until death do us part? What if your partner turns out to be a murderer. Is there any provision for this. I think I'd prefer a adulterer over a murderer but under this tenet I'd be stuck.

brian wrote:

Mark 10:12
And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Yeah he said that above, funny though the way this only says 'she'. Does it cover both sexes?

brian wrote:

Mark 7:20-23
He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

But all the good stuff comes from inside aswell, like love, forgiveness, warmth, creativity and an endless amount of other feelings. Surely this is nonsense.

brian wrote:

Romans 13:13
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.

I'd agree with that more or less.

brian wrote:

1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Why is this a greater sin than another type of sin which doesn't sin directly against ones own body?

brian wrote:

I could go on.

Please do.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock said:

The way I see it is there are a number of options:

1) Abstain from sex until marriage;
2) Sex is OK in a 'loving relationship' - this is difficult to define though;
3) Any time the opportunity presents itself - and you're both in the mood - then it's OK.

Looking at the Bible I would think that Option 1 is the only acceptable one for Christians.

You are correct.

However, Option 2 would seem to be plausible, especially when you consider the apparent mistranslation Wicknight speaks of.

Wicknight is mistaken. The meaning of porneia for the New Testament writers is clear enough. The matter is beyond dispute when we look at the actual texts. A key one is:
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Note, the options are to be single and celibate, or to be married and sexually fulfilled. Indeed, marriage is specifically prescribed for those who have trouble controlling their sexual natures. It is the God-given remedy for sexual needs.

Depending on my resolve, I would lurch between my belief in Options 1 and 2.

Don't! If you find you are incapable of remaining celibate, seek a wife. Don't just wait for one to turn up. God has prescribed the remedy, so He expects you to take it. Prayerfully seek His direction to a suitable girl. Look for a godly woman. Likely she will be looking for you.

I put it like this to the young people I have counselled on this:
Pray to see if you are gifted to remain single. If you find you should be married:
Prepare for marriage by seeking a job that will keep you both; pay attention to your person (hygiene, habits, whatever might offend someone who has to live with you)
Pursue! Go and look for a suitable mate. Prayerfully, but actively.

Hope this helps.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight is mistaken. The meaning of porneia for the New Testament writers is clear enough.

I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this since I think the whole Christian attitude to sex is daft, but anyway...

1 Corinthians 6 talks about sexual immorality in terms of being with a prostitute.

The problem with this according to Paul, is that during sex you unite yourself with another body. If you unite yourself with a pagan prositute you are uniting yourself and Jesus, who is part of you, with something that is unclean. Clearly uniting Jesus with a prostitute is not a good idea.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 6 the next chapter, Corinthians 7, is clearly saying don't go to a prostitute because it is sexual immoral to unite Jesus (who is part of your flesh) with something as unclean as a prostitute. You should get married to save yourself from having to go to prositutes. Seemingly everyone was just popping down to their local whore house and this level of immorality, that he defined in the later verses of Chapter 6, was troubling Paul -

1 Corinthians 7
2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

I imagine that Franny has better self control that the ancient people of the middle east and is not burning with desire for some prostitute loving

I of course might be wrong about Franny, but I suspect not. Therefore he does not need to be married to save himself from this form of sexual immorality, he is already saving himself from sleeping with hookers. The sexual immorality of lying with an unclean prostitute doesn't tempt him (again I don't know, I'm just assuming).

I would also point out that this is Paul's teachings not Jesus. Paul himself seems to be very anti-marriage. Corinthians 7 is basically a rant on how terrible marriage and sex are (who says Christians have hang ups over sex) compared to living a celibate life devoted to God and the after life

1 Corinthians 7
28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
...
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided.

Throughout Corinthians 6 and 7 Paul says that this is his teaching, not Jesus or Gods. So make of it as you will. It is more advice than law.

Basically Paul's advice is that Jesus is part of you, so when you have sex remember that and don't unite the Jesus part of you with something that is unclean or disgusting. So only have sex with Christian girls, because you want the Jesus in you to unite with the Jesus in them around love.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Plus they are the best looking anyways

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't really true. Marriage back then was more formal that it is now. Today two people can just get married. Back then you needed agreement between the families and the religious leaders. There was the formal state of betrothal. This was actually considered a contract, and fines would be given if the contract was broken.

http://www.theology.edu/marriage.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrothal

Hmm. I say how marriage back then was different to now. You disagree, then explain how marriage back then was different back then i may have simplified the difference, but if you spent a night with a woman you were married to her. The point being, that intercourse, constituted an act of marriage and was exclusive to marriage. If it wasn't, it was fornication and punishable by death. Intercourse was actually legally binding according to your 1st link.
I fail to see why you are here in this discussion anyway, as you already hold yourself up as the great moral authority. Actually, it might be interesting for you to give us your sexual moral code, so we know where you are coming from?

robindch

> I fail to see why you are here in this discussion anyway, as you already
> hold yourself up as the great moral authority.

I don't think that Wicknight is doing anything of the kind. All that he's doing is describing what was the case historically. This is not the same as saying that it's the best way for a society to run itself.

In general, around here, there's a greater tendency for religious people to declare moral authority rather than atheists and agnostics.