Christianity, its great if you are straight

archdukefranz · 10-09-2007 12:26PM

Every living organism designed to be obsessed with propagating the species...
not just Christians

Do you think that someone could be close to Jesus and be in a homosexual relationship?

Scofflaw · 10-09-2007 12:44PM

PDN wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

You reject the fact that Christians are preoccupied by sex yet your congregation felt the need to make a joke T-Shirt to explain how sex is not a bad thing, that God gave us sex for us to enjoy.

Did you think why there needs to be a t-shirt in the first place? Maybe because the traditional Christian view that people are used to is that sex is immoral and evil.

Maybe because of the repeated stereotypical false assertions by outsiders who really should know better?

And perhaps because the media genuinely are obsessed with sex.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 10-09-2007 01:53PM

PDN wrote:

Maybe because of the repeated stereotypical false assertions by outsiders who really should know better?

Doubtful. I would imagine the t-shirt was for the audience, not for those outside the church.

Sex has been an obsession for the Christian Church pretty much since St. Paul. Out of all aspects of life sex comes second to only death in the importance Christians place in how they deal with it in a "Christian way"

Sex is at the core of the Christian idea of restriction and excess. Sex is seen as giving into sinful motivations. To be righteous one must resist this temptation, as it is a temptation that comes from the sinful nature of man. Sex is seen as an manipulation to abuse, to sin. Do not have sex, ever, until you are married. Ever. To do otherwise is wrong. It is harmful and sinful and a form of self abuse.

Look at the abstinence programs promoted by the Christian churches, particularly in America. It has been said here on this forum that homosexuals should just never have sex. Ever.

Compared to the Hebrews, who had long lists of restrictions and things they shouldn't do covering a wide range of issues (including sex of course), there are very few things a Christian is told not to do, but sex is up near the top of the list. Sex is dirty, mentioned in the same breath as thieves, and is a form of self abuse, a sin against ones own body. The only way to have clean sex is in side a marriage.

When the early Christians had to decide what to keep and what to discard from the old Hebrew traditions the idea of "fornication" as an abuse of God's body (God owns your body) was central to what they decided future Christians must follow.

All sex outside of a marriage is seen as dangerous and wrong, an abuse of God's body. Even the idea of getting married was seen as a concession by Paul, truly devoted should commit totally to never having sex or getting married, as he did.

I suppose as Arch points out this simply reflects the sex is a powerful emotive force in humans, and Christianity attempts to handle that in this particular fashion.

Excelsior · 10-09-2007 02:43PM

Wicknight wrote:

Doubtful. I would imagine the t-shirt was for the audience, not for those outside the church.

Just back from lunch with the t-shirt wearer. I think he wore it because he appreciated the sentiment of the community who prepared it- that contrary to the misconception at large, Christianity is often less preoccupied with sex than wider society, especially when the Biblical framework of sexuality is heeded consciously.

Wicknight wrote:

Sex is at the core of the Christian idea of restriction and excess. Sex is seen as giving into sinful motivations. To be righteous one must resist this temptation, as it is a temptation that comes from the sinful nature of man. Sex is seen as an manipulation to abuse, to sin....

Wick, we've come to some serious mutual respect on this forum. I always welcome your posts for being straightforward and fair and clear. The series of posts you've made here are as usual, great to read. But does it worry you at all that the issues you are describing and the general thrust of your articles bear no resemblance to Christianity as I have seen it practiced in Ireland today?

Genuinely, my non-Christian friends are far more concerned with sex and sexuality than my Christian friends who to a great majority have a very positive, healthy and light attitude to their sexuality.

Wicknight wrote:

Sex is dirty, mentioned in the same breath as thieves, and is a form of self abuse, a sin against ones own body.

For every reference to Paul that you make (referenceless) I can make reference after reference to the Biblical texts, both Old and New, testifying to the life affirming view of sexuality that Christianity has. I feel you have done a grave dis-service to Paul in your shallow assessment of his theology of sex, just as you have done a dreadful dis-service to Jesus as a Jewish teacher in your casual dismissal of his comments as being in any way even hypothetically binding.

You are right that Christianity teaches that you can be a sexual person without having sex, a satisfied and happy person and a celibate man or woman. This to me speaks not of a preoccupation with sex but the opposite.

The bias, preoccupation and over-emphasis seems to me to be on your side when you can't imagine a celibate life as being utterly fulfilling, exciting and satisfying. I have many friends who would live lives that destroy such a notion.

Scofflaw · 10-09-2007 02:45PM

PDN wrote:

I spend most of my time conversing with Christians and the percentage of the conversation that refers to sex is certainly lower than when I used to chat with my mates in the pub before my conversion.

Wicknight wrote:

Sex has been an obsession for the Christian Church pretty much since St. Paul. Out of all aspects of life sex comes second to only death in the importance Christians place in how they deal with it in a "Christian way"

I wouldn't say Christians are any more obsessed with sex than the next arbitrary group of humans. Nor would I imagine that the internal councils of Christianity spend an unhealthy amount of time focused on it. In Western society, on the other hand, the main distinguishing feature of Christians (outside Church) does tend to be their attitudes to sex and sexuality.

In part, this reflects western society's own obsession with sex, and in part it reflects the absence of other strong Christian prohibitory doctrines - no dietary restrictions, no public fasts, no clothing restrictions, no ban on usury, no ban on military service, no ban on images, no sacred animals, no unclean animals.

To some extent, the absence of these elements represent the original compromises made to allow Christianity to spread its message to the Gentiles., and to allow it in turn to become the official religion of the later Roman Empire. Others have been eroded in more recent years by further compromises with secular society, and some, like temperance, have always been a matter of fashion in any case.

By contrast, the Christian community most often locks horns with society on sexual matters, broadly defined - contraception, sex before/without marriage, abortion, stem cells, and of course the various sex scandals - which makes it rather easy to consider Christianity as being primarily defined, rather than merely distinguished, by its attitudes to sex. Unfair, but not all that bizarre.

musingly,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 10-09-2007 03:51PM

Excelsior wrote:

Christianity is often less preoccupied with sex than wider society, especially when the Biblical framework of sexuality is heeded consciously.

I think you are misunderstanding what my point is.

Adhering to the Biblical framework of sexuality is being obsessed with sex, or more specifically the negative aspects of, to the extreme point where one will simply not have it for fear of all the effect on them.

Organizing your entire life around the idea that you will simply ignore one of the most basic human instincts is being obsessed with that instinct, be it sex or otherwise.

If someone said "I do not shake other peoples hands. Ever" I would, rightly I feel, say that this person is obsessed with not touching hands with other people.

Why they feel this way could be for a number of reasons. But they are going out of their way to ignore a normal human activity, for a reason.

Now you might say that it is quite the opposite, everyone else is obsessed with shaking hands, and this person is the only person who isn't obsessed with the action, because he chooses to simply not do it. But then if someone said to him "Shake my hand" his reaction would probably be quite telling.

Excelsior wrote:

But does it worry you at all that the issues you are describing and the general thrust of your articles bear no resemblance to Christianity as I have seen it practiced in Ireland today?

Well I suppose your experience of Christianity in Ireland may be a little different to mine, though TBH I think it is more likely that you don't see Christian absolute abstinence (or guilty when this abstinence is broken) as obsession with sexual matters.

I have a friend who every few weekends goes home to her parents and tries to pluck up the courage to tell them that she is living (in sin) with her boyfriend, and every weekend chickens out knowing that her parents will be disappointed that she is having pre-marital sex (she doesn't even need to say that, the fact that she is living with him means that she won't be able to help herself)

To an atheist like myself it seems utterly bizarre that some one would be ashamed of simply having a sexual relationship with someone the care about. But your religion, the religion of the parents, teaches that this is very wrong, that it is something to be ashamed about.

Excelsior wrote:

Genuinely, my non-Christian friends are far more concerned with sex and sexuality than my Christian friends who to a great majority have a very positive, healthy and light attitude to their sexuality.

They have premarital sex without guilt or shame?

If so I'm happy for them and I wish more Christians could get over that feeling of shame over something that is perfectly natural.

Excelsior wrote:

For every reference to Paul that you make (referenceless) I can make reference after reference to the Biblical texts, both Old and New, testifying to the life affirming view of sexuality that Christianity has.

I doubt that, but go ahead ...

Excelsior wrote:

You are right that Christianity teaches that you can be a sexual person without having sex, a satisfied and happy person and a celibate man or woman. This to me speaks not of a preoccupation with sex but the opposite.

That is the issue.

You see attempting to ignore sex and sexual desire as the opposite of being preoccupied with it, in the same way that the man who refuses to shake someones hand is actually the only person not obsessed with hand-shaking.

TBH that is because I feel you believe your own propaganda a little too much, that sexual lust is not part of normal human nature, but part of the sinful side of us. It is not right to feel strong sexual lust, sexual lust is something added to our normal state, by sin.

This goes back I supposed to the examples in the Bible of sex being an expression of loss of control. People in control of themselves don't experience this, it is the weak who either lose control or give in, that end up being consumed by lust.

Excelsior wrote:

The bias, preoccupation and over-emphasis seems to me to be on your side when you can't imagine a celibate life as being utterly fulfilling, exciting and satisfying. I have many friends who would live lives that destroy such a notion.

Well I've no doubt that they believe that. But I would wonder how often they need to remind themselves that they are having an utterly fulfilling, exciting and satisfying life without sex. The very fact that they are doing this shows a preoccupation with abstinence.

And then of course it comes back to the whole issue of why they feel they don't want to have sex in the first place. Sex is a perfectly natural biological process that we are designed to want to do. If someone told me that they never have strong sexual desire I would say that there is something wrong with them. Why would they not want to have sex? What is wrong with sex? Do they have reasons other than religious?

PDN · 10-09-2007 04:24PM

Wicknight wrote:

I think you are misunderstanding what my point is.

Adhering to the Biblical framework of sexuality is being obsessed with sex, or more specifically the negative aspects of, to the extreme point where one will simply not have it for fear of all the effect on them.

Organizing your entire life around the idea that you will simply ignore one of the most basic human instincts is being obsessed with that instinct, be it sex or otherwise.

If someone said "I do not shake other peoples hands. Ever" I would, rightly I feel, say that this person is obsessed with not touching hands with other people.

Why they feel this way could be for a number of reasons. But they are going out of their way to ignore a normal human activity, for a reason.

Now you might say that it is quite the opposite, everyone else is obsessed with shaking hands, and this person is the only person who isn't obsessed with the action, because he chooses to simply not do it. But then if someone said to him "Shake my hand" his reaction would probably be quite telling.

This is getting tiresome.

Let me use a simple analogy. Everytime I drive my car I put on my seatbelt. I do this even in societies (parts of Nigeria, for example) where few people wear seatbelts. In fact if you tried to force me to drive without wearing a seatbelt I would resist.

Does this mean that I am obsessed with seatbelts? Of course not! The definition of obsession (from dictionary.com) is "the domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc". I don't spend any time at all thinking about seatbelts - in fact I put it on without thinking at all. I have simply developed a habit and a lifestyle that utilises seatbelts to help protect me.

Now, most Christians I know, and certainly Christianity as a whole, are not dominated by thoughts or feelings about sex. Therefore it is totally false to accuse Christians of being obsessed with sex. We have simply developed habits and a lifestyle that are harmonious with our beliefs and our preferred lifestyle. Your preoccupation with that fact is the true obsession.

Am I obsessed with wear

Zombrex · 10-09-2007 05:33PM

PDN wrote:

This is getting tiresome.

Let me use a simple analogy. Everytime I drive my car I put on my seatbelt. I do this even in societies (parts of Nigeria, for example) where few people wear seatbelts. In fact if you tried to force me to drive without wearing a seatbelt I would resist.

Does this mean that I am obsessed with seatbelts? Of course not!

But do you not see the very telling use of the analogy.

To you sex is both immoral and dangerous, and abstaining from sex is a sensible, correct thing to do.

Using your analogy, imagine now if you insisted on wearing your seat belt even while parked safely in your drive way.

The idea that someone would go through there entire life thinking sex outside of marriage is wrong no matter what is the obsession.

Why sex? Why is sex wrong?

PDN wrote:

I don't spend any time at all thinking about seatbelts - in fact I put it on without thinking at all. I have simply developed a habit and a lifestyle that utilises seatbelts to help protect me.

Exactly.

And if Christians had the same attitude to sex I would say they are not obsessed with sex or the dangers of sex. You don't after all wear your seat belt all the time

But my point is that Christians (at least ones who take the rules on sex seriously, which is the minority) are the people wearing the seat belt all the time

Completely abstaining from all sexual desire because of fear is the obsession.

Is there anything else you have a natural desire to do (food, travel, knowledge) that abstain from completely

PDN wrote:

We have simply developed habits and a lifestyle that are harmonious with our beliefs and our preferred lifestyle.

But PDN you are not seeing the wood from the trees. To you having such strict beliefs around sex is perfectly normal, because you religion is obsessed with sex in the first place

. To your religion sex is something to be strictly controlled and organized, to be carried out only in certain circumstances and under very strict conditions.

Have you ever wondered why sex within your religion even has these rules around it in the first place? Does anything else?

Scofflaw · 10-09-2007 06:12PM

Wicknight wrote:

But do you not see the very telling use of the analogy.

To you sex is both immoral and dangerous, and abstaining from sex is a sensible, correct thing to do.

Using your analogy, imagine now if you insisted on wearing your seat belt even while parked safely in your drive way.

The idea that someone would go through there entire life thinking sex outside of marriage is wrong no matter what is the obsession.

Why sex? Why is sex wrong?

Exactly.

And if Christians had the same attitude to sex I would say they are not obsessed with sex or the dangers of sex. You don't after all wear your seat belt all the time

But my point is that Christians (at least ones who take the rules on sex seriously, which is the minority) are the people wearing the seat belt all the time

Completely abstaining from all sexual desire because of fear is the obsession.

Is there anything else you have a natural desire to do (food, travel, knowledge) that abstain from completely

But PDN you are not seeing the wood from the trees. To you having such strict beliefs around sex is perfectly normal, because you religion is obsessed with sex in the first place . To your religion sex is something to be strictly controlled and organized, to be carried out only in certain circumstances and under very strict conditions.

Have you ever wondered why sex within your religion even has these rules around it in the first place? Does anything else?

I don't think you're making a good case here. As a society, we have strict rules surrounding murder. Does that mean we are obsessed with murder?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 10-09-2007 06:23PM

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't think you're making a good case here. As a society, we have strict rules surrounding murder. Does that mean we are obsessed with murder?

Well yes. We think it is very very bad, and we go to great lengths to stop it happening. And we worry about it a lot. What do you think the police are for.

And we seem to be becoming even more obsessed with crime, particularly murder, as thinks like the drug crime increases.

Its not a particularly rational obsession, there is far more fuss made over a drug war than over say car accidents, despite the fact that a person is far far far more likely to die in a car accident than to be murdered these days.

But I guess that is human nature.

Its interesting thought that people keep picking very negative things to associate with sex (murder and car accidents). The over riding assumption is that sex is dangerous.

If I said that religion X has very strict rules about how to open a door properly, would anyone say "Well, we have very strict rules around murder, like and like after all" I doubt it. They might though if opening a door properly was very important.

To me the fascinating bit the relationship between the Christian religion and sex is how totally normal the very strict restrictions on sex are to a lot of Christians, including the ones posting here. Its like saying "Well of course we shouldn't have sex before marriage, that is just good common sense. Sex before marriage is just bad!" When asked why one gets very fuzzy range of answer, from STDs to unwanted pregnancies to sexual abuse.

Scofflaw · 10-09-2007 06:40PM

Wicknight wrote:

Yes. We think it is very very bad, and we go to great lengths to stop it happening. And we worry about it a lot. What do you think the police are for.

And we seem to be becoming even more obsessed with crime, particularly murder, as thinks like the drug crime increases.

Its not a particularly rational obsession, there is far more fuss made over a drug war than over say car accidents, despite the fact that a person is far far far more likely to die in a car accident than to be murdered these days.

But I guess that is human nature.

Hmm. Well, I accept that Christianity is obsessed with sex to the same extent as society in general is obsessed with murder...however, 'obsessed' is not a word I would use of either. Your usage of 'obsessive' appears to me to mean "irrationally considered important", whereas I would only use it to mean "focused on to the exclusion of other things".

Wicknight wrote:

To me the fascinating bit the relationship between the Christian religion and sex is how totally normal the very strict restrictions on sex are to a lot of Christians, including the ones posting here. Its like saying "Well of course we shouldn't have sex before marriage, that is just good common sense. Sex before marriage is just bad!" When asked why one gets very fuzzy range of answer, from STDs to unwanted pregnancies to sexual abuse.

Ah, well, I accept that it's irrational - just not obsessive, by my lights. I also suspect that the justifications are post hoc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch · 10-09-2007 06:46PM

PDN wrote:

Therefore it is totally false to accuse Christians of being obsessed with sex.

While I do know some christians who are obsessed with sex (prompted and encouraged by their religion), I largely agree with PDN and Scofflaw here and don't believe that they are generally obsessed with sex any more than the rest of us are.

What's different, of course, is that christians want to control sex, especially the sex that other people have. That's where the obsession comes in.

.

Fanny Cradock · 10-09-2007 07:47PM

Wicknight wrote:

To you sex is both immoral and dangerous, and abstaining from sex is a sensible, correct thing to do.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you have a bad memory?

I would think that Excelsior's and PND's flat denial that sex is' both immoral and dangerous' would have made some sort of lasting impression on your opinion by now.

It seams that you are determined to argue about this issue whatever side you approach it from. On one had, you are of the opinion that Christianity states that sex is immoral. Yet on the other, you criticize a Christian speaker for broadcasting that sex is good.

philologos · 10-09-2007 08:04PM

Fanny Cradock wrote:

It seams that you are determined to argue about this issue whatever side you approach it from. On one had, you are of the opinion that Christianity states that sex is immoral. Yet on the other, you criticize a Christian speaker for broadcasting that sex is good.

Thats what happens, and what is to be expected when he tries to undermine Christianity.

Scofflaw · 10-09-2007 08:12PM

Jakkass wrote:

Fanny Cradock wrote:

It seams that you are determined to argue about this issue whatever side you approach it from. On one had, you are of the opinion that Christianity states that sex is immoral. Yet on the other, you criticize a Christian speaker for broadcasting that sex is good.

Thats what happens, and what is to be expected when he tries to undermine Christianity.

So if I were to claim that Islam states sex is immoral, and then criticise a Muslim for broadcasting that sex is good, would something different happen?

Or, say, if I claim that Christianity states usury is immoral, and then criticise a Christian speaker for saying that charging interest is OK, would that be the same thing?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock · 10-09-2007 08:29PM

Scofflaw wrote:

So if I were to claim that Islam states sex is immoral, and then criticise a Muslim for broadcasting that sex is good, would something different happen?

Or, say, if I claim that Christianity states usury is immoral, and then criticise a Christian speaker for saying that charging interest is OK, would that be the same thing?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

I assume you are addressing me here. What do you mean by 'something different happen'?

I think Wicknight is the correct person to respond to your questions. He is, after all, the person who makes the claim that Christianity deplores sex but objects when a Christian states that sex is there to be enjoyed (within a framework) as a gift from God.

Scofflaw · 10-09-2007 08:40PM

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I assume you are addressing me here. What do you mean by 'something different happen'?

I think Wicknight is the correct person to respond to your questions. He is, after all, the person who makes the claim that Christianity deplores sex but objects when a Christian states that sex is there to be enjoyed (within a framework) as a gift from God.

My apologies - the question was actually addressed to Jakkass, whose contention that "that's what happens, and what is to be expected when he tries to undermine Christianity" rather intrigued me, as I couldn't really see its relevance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock · 10-09-2007 08:47PM

Scofflaw wrote:

My apologies - the question was actually addressed to Jakkass, whose contention that "that's what happens, and what is to be expected when he tries to undermine Christianity" rather intrigued me, as I couldn't really see its relevance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I forgive you.

Magnanimously,
FC

ferdi · 10-09-2007 08:55PM

I'll just give my 2cents here and say the idea that God is seriously preoccupied with humanity's puerile sexual habits is laughable to me. Give God more credit. Surely he would be less interested in such natural animal activities and more concerned with the contents of our hearts and souls? He made us in his own image...but flawed. I think that when we meet him again, if during our lives our hearts were in the right place, he'll be just fine with that.

BrianCalgary · 10-09-2007 09:14PM

Wicknight wrote:

Its interesting thought that people keep picking very negative things to associate with sex (murder and car accidents). The over riding assumption is that sex is dangerous.

To me the fascinating bit the relationship between the Christian religion and sex is how totally normal the very strict restrictions on sex are to a lot of Christians, including the ones posting here. Its like saying "Well of course we shouldn't have sex before marriage, that is just good common sense. Sex before marriage is just bad!" When asked why one gets very fuzzy range of answer, from STDs to unwanted pregnancies to sexual abuse.

I had a headache the other day. I took a tylenol for relief of the headache. The instructions on the bottel told me to take a maximium of 2 every 4 hours and if symptoms persist to contact my doctor.

I followed the instructions and got relief from my headache.

Taking too many tylenols can be quite dangerous, people have actually died from overdoses of tylenols, hence the warnings. I would warn anyone against taking tylenols, as I am sure you would as well.

Christians do not nor ever say that sex is dangerous, as long as it is enjoyed as God made it to be enjoyed, as the drug company made their drug to be used.

Any sex outside of those parameters can be dangerous.

How can it be dangerous? You get unwanted preganancies, young girls having to face the pain of a preganancy at 17, and giving up their babies and the damaging emotions that go alongwith it.

You can contract STD (SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED diseases) which are also harmful and damaging to your health and can eventually cause death.

I haev yet to meet someone who waited for marriage to have an unwanted preganancy (maybe a surprise one, but not unwanted), or to contract an STD.

So wicknigt please stop arguing this you are making no sense and passing falsehoods on teh Christian position of sexual relations.

It probably appears to you that we are obsessed with it because you wish to speak of it quite often and tell us how aghast you are at the rules surrounding the topic.

Scofflaw · 10-09-2007 09:30PM

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christians do not nor ever say that sex is dangerous, as long as it is enjoyed as God made it to be enjoyed, as the drug company made their drug to be used.

Any sex outside of those parameters can be dangerous.

How can it be dangerous? You get unwanted preganancies, young girls having to face the pain of a preganancy at 17, and giving up their babies and the damaging emotions that go alongwith it.

You can contract STD (SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED diseases) which are also harmful and damaging to your health and can eventually cause death.

I haev yet to meet someone who waited for marriage to have an unwanted preganancy (maybe a surprise one, but not unwanted), or to contract an STD.

So wicknigt please stop arguing this you are making no sense and passing falsehoods on teh Christian position of sexual relations.

It probably appears to you that we are obsessed with it because you wish to speak of it quite often and tell us how aghast you are at the rules surrounding the topic.

The problem with this argument is, once again, that Christian society doesn't appear, on a statistical level, to offer better protection against all these unpleasant things compared to secular society. The US is off the chart on things like teen pregnancies and STDs compared to other first-world countries that are less religious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ferdi · 10-09-2007 09:45PM

BrianCalgary wrote:

As for sexuality, God is quite clear on how sex is to be practiced. It is a gift to be enjoyed within teh confines of a marriage relationship. One were the couple is committed for life. The reason I believe is to protect us form disease and unwanted pregnancies, etc.

So you believe that God gave humanity the gift of sex and then created sexually transmitted disease in order to promote marriage?

Do you in turn believe that sexually transmitted diseases are a punishment visited by God on those who engaged in sex outside marriage?

BrianCalgary · 10-09-2007 10:38PM

Scofflaw wrote:

The problem with this argument is, once again, that Christian society doesn't appear, on a statistical level, to offer better protection against all these unpleasant things compared to secular society. The US is off the chart on things like teen pregnancies and STDs compared to other first-world countries that are less religious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree that Christians aren't behaving as Christians should. Christianity doesn't prevent STD's etc, but proper Christian living as God instructs will prevent the STD's etc.

BrianCalgary · 10-09-2007 10:40PM

ferdi wrote:

So you believe that God gave humanity the gift of sex and then created sexually transmitted disease in order to promote marriage? ?

STD's are the result of man's sinful nature. If people engaged in sexual activity as God directed the virus' and bacteria that cause the STD's would die off as they would have nowhere to thrive and grow.

ferdi wrote:

Do you in turn believe that sexually transmitted diseases are a punishment visited by God on those who engaged in sex outside marriage?

No not God's judgement, they are a consequence of unhealthy living.

Zombrex · 10-09-2007 10:55PM

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I would think that Excelsior's and PND's flat denial that sex is' both immoral and dangerous' would have made some sort of lasting impression on your opinion by now.

Fanny we both know how this is going to go

I'm going to say "Oh so if I go out now and sleep with my girlfriend that is not immoral according to your religion"

And you are going to go "Yes that is immoral because it is not done inside of a marriage. Sexual intercourse is not immoral if it is done inside of marriage"

And I'm then going to say "So sex is immoral unless it is done inside of marriage"

And so on and so on ...

Your religion teaches that sex is immoral unless certain strict conditions are met. The default act is immoral unless these conditions are met.

You can see this because every time some one here says sex is not immoral it is followed by the fine print along the lines of when done in the correct relationship or framework of marriage

Zombrex · 10-09-2007 10:56PM

Scofflaw wrote:

whereas I would only use it to mean "focused on to the exclusion of other things".

I would use it that way too. As I've already mentioned when the early Christians were deciding what to keep from the old Hebrew laws and traditions, deciding what elements were vital and could not be excused, sexual behaviour featured prominently in this of things that were vitally important.

I would say that there is so much else in the world to be worried about, sex wouldn't feature highly on my list of worries. I'm far more worried about being injured or even dying in a car accident, yet I keep waiting for some religion some where to tell me it is immoral to drive.

Yet to a devoted Christian abstaining from sex is not only important it is considered at the centre of moral self control and respect for ones self.

Zombrex · 10-09-2007 11:05PM

BrianCalgary wrote:

Any sex outside of those parameters can be dangerous.

As ever, thank you BC for demonstrating my point.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It probably appears to you that we are obsessed with it because you wish to speak of it quite often and tell us how aghast you are at the rules surrounding the topic.

BC the very fact that you come out with such ridiculous "this is how it is dangerous" justifications as if everyone who has pre-martial sex ends up a 17 year old single mother with Hepatitis C infection, simply demonstrates what I'm talking about.

Pre-marital sex can be dangerous. But most of the time it isn't, particularly if people are educated (which ironically Christian abstinence programs don't do, in case it leads to curiosity or encouragement) and take responsibility for their own sexual health. Its a bit like driving a car (in more ways than one). You may die in a horrible car accident burning alive at the side of the road. But you probably won't.

The very fact that the Christian religion needs to demonize pre-marital sex to such an extreme that it is taught that one should just never ever do it, lest bad things will happen, simply highlights exactly what I've been saying.

(I'm wondering now how many of the Christians reading that last sentence are rolling their eyes at me trying to imagine how something like a random one night stand with a stranger might not be dangerous, ignoring or not considering the fact that the vast majority of pre-marital sex happens inside stable monogamous relationships with people who are, or at least believe they are, in love)

Your religion is obsessed with sex, but it attempts to justify this attention by trying to make out that sex is worthy of it because it can be really really bad/dangerous/harmless unless these strict rules and restriction is brought to it.

Trying to point out that sex isn't actually that worthy of these rules, its not actually that big a deal, that it is quite easy and possible to avoid turning into a 17 year old single mother with a raging herpes infection without dedicating ones life to abstaining from sex for, how long, 20 years or so (most people these days get married in their 30s while their sexuality kicks in in their teens), if they are lucky to find someone to actually marry, seems to be completely lost.

But once again I find myself tilting against windmills, because you guys really believe this stuff. Pre-marital sex is immoral, it is dangerous, it will lead to bad things, it is going against nature etc etc

Scofflaw · 10-09-2007 11:19PM

BrianCalgary wrote:

I agree that Christians aren't behaving as Christians should. Christianity doesn't prevent STD's etc, but proper Christian living as God instructs will prevent the STD's etc.

"No true Scotsman", etc. The higher levels of overt Christian worship are statistically associated with higher levels of exactly the problems you decry.

Now, would you argue that there is no correlation between the number of apparent Christians in a country and the number of true Christians - indeed, that it is inversely correlated? So that the US, for all it claims to be a more Christian country, is actually less Christian than, say, Sweden, or Japan?

Because if you're not arguing that very silly argument, then your argument simply doesn't hold up. The proportion of self-declared Christians in the US is very high, and that should mean that there are an equally high proportion of 'true Christians' in the US - yet the US has the worst record for the issues you're worried about, the issues you claim can be solved by properly observing Christian principles?

Your argument cannot work, Brian. Christianity is negatively correlated with all the measures you claim it should improve. There is no point in offering anecdotal evidence, either, because out of all the atheists I know, not one has had either an abortion, an unwanted pregnancy, or an STD - so even you must admit that anecdotal evidence can prove nothing here.

I can see how, in theory, it should work - two virgins marrying should hardly have to worry about STDs - but, you know, secular medicine does not advise people to "sleep around without protection", or to sleep around at all. What it does advise is that if you're going to do it, you do it with protection and forethought - and that message works better than trying to be good and giving in to sin occasionally without protection or forethought, even though it's an inherently more sinful thing to do.

So, while in theory Christianity is positive here, the practice is worse than the alternatives. Not because the theory is bad, but because humanity don't stick to the theory - and you of all people should know that, because you believe in the Fall.

rather vehemently,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 10-09-2007 11:20PM

Wicknight wrote:

Pre-martial sex can be dangerous.

Presumably, though, it's not as dangerous as the military actions following it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 10-09-2007 11:23PM

Scofflaw wrote:

Presumably, though, it's not as dangerous as the military actions following it?

You've never been to Ibiza while the British Army boys are on R&R ... :eek:

Christianity, its great if you are straight

Comments