Total Posts:134|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why are most religions so concerned about Sex

drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 1:23:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

As regards the title question, Jealousy?
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 1:24:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin.

Um. No. All the Abrahamic religions do but that's largely because they get it all from the same source. Check out pre-Christianity Greece and Rome for some reasonable contrast.

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

Rape isn't sex. It's domination.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 1:29:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

Because a gay person is one less person who can bring a nice little worshipper into the world! Everyone must be straight and because contraception and abortion are evil, everyone should have as many babies as they can so that the number of worshipers increases. Disgusting isn't it?!


The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

And yet even that is practiced by some priests!
To believe is to know nothing.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 1:34:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lust is immoral. But lust is poorly defined by most; I define it as an unreasonable action based on desire. Sex is one category of lust; lust could also be used to describe a thirst for power, wealth, or anything else where you are blinded by your desire and commit actions that you otherwise logically would not. In Dante's Inferno, the lustful are blown about tumultuously by Cleopatra's whirlwind, never able to settle in one place.

So I have provided a criterion now to answer your question. What's "wrong" with such acts, you ask? Well, the actor must decide whether such acts are reasonable, if the factor of lust (in this case, sexual desire specifically) is removed from the analysis. If, when lust is removed the action is decidedly selfish,, you can be assured it is immoral.

Sex is not a totally selfish act, at least it is not when two people are in love. The younger people on this site will likely be unable to follow my reasoning here, but sex is a good thing when you are focused on the other person's feelings. Consider the difference between having sex to please your partner because you love them, as opposed to attempting to have sex with somebody because you desire them but whom you ultimately don't care about. The latter is lust; the former is based on empathy, reason, and love. Even while engaged in intercourse, a person who is lustful will tend to perform differently than a person who is in love. Even if a person is married and in love, one must always concentrate on the other person and ask themself if they are initiating sex selfishly or otherwise. And trust me, sex is a LOT more enjoyable when you seek to please the other person as opposed to seeking to please yourself.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 1:42:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

Where does it say anything about oral sex? I suggest you check the source.

Only homosexuality, adultery, and possibly sex swapping are outlined as being "sins" according to the bible and other religious works. It'd be incorrect to believe that the bible is completely anti-sex.

Check Proverbs 5:18-19 for example:

5:18: "Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth."

5:19: "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 3:45:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:34:27 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Lust is immoral. But lust is poorly defined by most; I define it as an unreasonable action based on desire. Sex is one category of lust; lust could also be used to describe a thirst for power, wealth, or anything else where you are blinded by your desire and commit actions that you otherwise logically would not. In Dante's Inferno, the lustful are blown about tumultuously by Cleopatra's whirlwind, never able to settle in one place.

So I have provided a criterion now to answer your question. What's "wrong" with such acts, you ask? Well, the actor must decide whether such acts are reasonable, if the factor of lust (in this case, sexual desire specifically) is removed from the analysis. If, when lust is removed the action is decidedly selfish,, you can be assured it is immoral.

Sex is not a totally selfish act, at least it is not when two people are in love. The younger people on this site will likely be unable to follow my reasoning here, but sex is a good thing when you are focused on the other person's feelings. Consider the difference between having sex to please your partner because you love them, as opposed to attempting to have sex with somebody because you desire them but whom you ultimately don't care about. The latter is lust; the former is based on empathy, reason, and love. Even while engaged in intercourse, a person who is lustful will tend to perform differently than a person who is in love. Even if a person is married and in love, one must always concentrate on the other person and ask themself if they are initiating sex selfishly or otherwise. And trust me, sex is a LOT more enjoyable when you seek to please the other person as opposed to seeking to please yourself.

Rob, I am 41 years old, and married for 15 years so I understand sex is better when there is love involved. When it is just lust, sex is still pretty damn good. There is a saying, "Sex without love is a meaningless act, but as far as meaningless acts go, it is the best one"

Again, if two people who do not love each other simply want to please each other and themselves. Whats wrong with that?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 3:48:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 3:45:06 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:34:27 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Lust is immoral. But lust is poorly defined by most; I define it as an unreasonable action based on desire. Sex is one category of lust; lust could also be used to describe a thirst for power, wealth, or anything else where you are blinded by your desire and commit actions that you otherwise logically would not. In Dante's Inferno, the lustful are blown about tumultuously by Cleopatra's whirlwind, never able to settle in one place.

So I have provided a criterion now to answer your question. What's "wrong" with such acts, you ask? Well, the actor must decide whether such acts are reasonable, if the factor of lust (in this case, sexual desire specifically) is removed from the analysis. If, when lust is removed the action is decidedly selfish,, you can be assured it is immoral.

Sex is not a totally selfish act, at least it is not when two people are in love. The younger people on this site will likely be unable to follow my reasoning here, but sex is a good thing when you are focused on the other person's feelings. Consider the difference between having sex to please your partner because you love them, as opposed to attempting to have sex with somebody because you desire them but whom you ultimately don't care about. The latter is lust; the former is based on empathy, reason, and love. Even while engaged in intercourse, a person who is lustful will tend to perform differently than a person who is in love. Even if a person is married and in love, one must always concentrate on the other person and ask themself if they are initiating sex selfishly or otherwise. And trust me, sex is a LOT more enjoyable when you seek to please the other person as opposed to seeking to please yourself.

Rob, I am 41 years old, and married for 15 years so I understand sex is better when there is love involved. When it is just lust, sex is still pretty damn good. There is a saying, "Sex without love is a meaningless act, but as far as meaningless acts go, it is the best one"

Again, if two people who do not love each other simply want to please each other and themselves. Whats wrong with that?

Just another method of control and indoctrination.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 3:49:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 3:45:06 PM, drpiek wrote:

Rob, I am 41 years old, and married for 15 years so I understand sex is better when there is love involved. When it is just lust, sex is still pretty damn good. There is a saying, "Sex without love is a meaningless act, but as far as meaningless acts go, it is the best one"

Vice can feel good, nobody is denying that. Smoking crack feels good as well I'm sure...

Again, if two people who do not love each other simply want to please each other and themselves. Whats wrong with that?

I'm not sure whether your example is lust; if they are doing it for "each other," then it doesn't sound like they are doing it for themselves. But like I said, it depends on if the act is reasonable or if it just selfish.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 3:55:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:42:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

Where does it say anything about oral sex? I suggest you check the source.

Only homosexuality, adultery, and possibly sex swapping are outlined as being "sins" according to the bible and other religious works. It'd be incorrect to believe that the bible is completely anti-sex.

Check Proverbs 5:18-19 for example:

5:18: "Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth."

5:19: "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."


My real question is not about the details but why religions think any given kind of sex act is disrespectful to god. I cannot image god saying to me after I die. Sorry man, you had premarital sex, and a threesome with your wife and her sister. Your going to hell, but then again you did accept my son as your lord, so we will just forget about that.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 3:58:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 3:49:19 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I'm not sure whether your example is lust; if they are doing it for "each other," then it doesn't sound like they are doing it for themselves. But like I said, it depends on if the act is reasonable or if it just selfish.

The bible does not suggest it has anything to do with being selfish or not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin even between people in love. So your lust/love theory is shot. Even if both people were being approvingly selfish, again no one is getting hurt.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:12:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 3:58:24 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:49:19 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I'm not sure whether your example is lust; if they are doing it for "each other," then it doesn't sound like they are doing it for themselves. But like I said, it depends on if the act is reasonable or if it just selfish.

The bible does not suggest it has anything to do with being selfish or not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin even between people in love. So your lust/love theory is shot. Even if both people were being approvingly selfish, again no one is getting hurt.

Sex outside of marriage can be considered sinful, because if you are not married, then you are likely going to break their (or your) heart when the relationship fails. If you don't take some time beforehand and make sure the relationship is viable, you are being selfish - giving in to desire in an unreasonable fashion. The only 100% non-lustful method of having sex is to wait until marriage. Is it what I'm going to do? No, but I've spent a good part of my life breaking women's hearts and being heart-broken myself, and if I had followed that advice I would have avoided all that. So the Bible essentially is saying what I am, based on perspective and how finely you want to dice that hair (being in love vs. being married).
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
iSpy
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:12:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My real question is not about the details but why religions think any given kind of sex act is disrespectful to god. I cannot image god saying to me after I die. Sorry man, you had premarital sex, and a threesome with your wife and her sister. Your going to hell, but then again you did accept my son as your lord, so we will just forget about that.

More details of this threesome are needed to better solidify your argument, please.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:13:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 3:55:35 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:42:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

Where does it say anything about oral sex? I suggest you check the source.

Only homosexuality, adultery, and possibly sex swapping are outlined as being "sins" according to the bible and other religious works. It'd be incorrect to believe that the bible is completely anti-sex.

Check Proverbs 5:18-19 for example:

5:18: "Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth."

5:19: "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."


My real question is not about the details but why religions think any given kind of sex act is disrespectful to god. I cannot image god saying to me after I die. Sorry man, you had premarital sex, and a threesome with your wife and her sister. Your going to hell, but then again you did accept my son as your lord, so we will just forget about that.

god doesn't really exist [the bible is more symbolic of certain things] so I wouldn't worry yourself over it.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:19:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A bunch of reasons. For one, it can be seen as a sort of hunger which brings us to poach upon our own kind, thus creating the need for it to be controlled. Sexual guilt is actually huge - sex can belittle us, make animals of us in our own eyes. Then there are other reasons...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:19:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 4:12:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:58:24 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:49:19 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I'm not sure whether your example is lust; if they are doing it for "each other," then it doesn't sound like they are doing it for themselves. But like I said, it depends on if the act is reasonable or if it just selfish.

The bible does not suggest it has anything to do with being selfish or not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin even between people in love. So your lust/love theory is shot. Even if both people were being approvingly selfish, again no one is getting hurt.

Sex outside of marriage can be considered sinful, because if you are not married, then you are likely going to break their (or your) heart when the relationship fails. If you don't take some time beforehand and make sure the relationship is viable, you are being selfish - giving in to desire in an unreasonable fashion. The only 100% non-lustful method of having sex is to wait until marriage. Is it what I'm going to do? No, but I've spent a good part of my life breaking women's hearts and being heart-broken myself, and if I had followed that advice I would have avoided all that. So the Bible essentially is saying what I am, based on perspective and how finely you want to dice that hair (being in love vs. being married).

Junk. There is no indication that it's to protect anyone's feelings. That's strictly your interpretation of the law. The laws just says it's wrong and the woman who does it can be stoned for it. I forget if the man can be stoned or if he gets off more lightly.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:22:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 4:19:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 4:12:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:58:24 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:49:19 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I'm not sure whether your example is lust; if they are doing it for "each other," then it doesn't sound like they are doing it for themselves. But like I said, it depends on if the act is reasonable or if it just selfish.

The bible does not suggest it has anything to do with being selfish or not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin even between people in love. So your lust/love theory is shot. Even if both people were being approvingly selfish, again no one is getting hurt.

Sex outside of marriage can be considered sinful, because if you are not married, then you are likely going to break their (or your) heart when the relationship fails. If you don't take some time beforehand and make sure the relationship is viable, you are being selfish - giving in to desire in an unreasonable fashion. The only 100% non-lustful method of having sex is to wait until marriage. Is it what I'm going to do? No, but I've spent a good part of my life breaking women's hearts and being heart-broken myself, and if I had followed that advice I would have avoided all that. So the Bible essentially is saying what I am, based on perspective and how finely you want to dice that hair (being in love vs. being married).

Junk. There is no indication that it's to protect anyone's feelings. That's strictly your interpretation of the law. The laws just says it's wrong and the woman who does it can be stoned for it. I forget if the man can be stoned or if he gets off more lightly.

It is to protect one's feelings though, or rather to ensure a certain perception of the world. There isn't much else like sex that can so demoralise us. Recreational sex can very easily meat of the other - 'chicks' of women, as an illustration.

(I know this probably isn't exactly in line with what Rob was saying, but still.)
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:23:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 4:22:56 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/22/2015 4:19:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 4:12:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:58:24 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:49:19 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I'm not sure whether your example is lust; if they are doing it for "each other," then it doesn't sound like they are doing it for themselves. But like I said, it depends on if the act is reasonable or if it just selfish.

The bible does not suggest it has anything to do with being selfish or not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin even between people in love. So your lust/love theory is shot. Even if both people were being approvingly selfish, again no one is getting hurt.

Sex outside of marriage can be considered sinful, because if you are not married, then you are likely going to break their (or your) heart when the relationship fails. If you don't take some time beforehand and make sure the relationship is viable, you are being selfish - giving in to desire in an unreasonable fashion. The only 100% non-lustful method of having sex is to wait until marriage. Is it what I'm going to do? No, but I've spent a good part of my life breaking women's hearts and being heart-broken myself, and if I had followed that advice I would have avoided all that. So the Bible essentially is saying what I am, based on perspective and how finely you want to dice that hair (being in love vs. being married).

Junk. There is no indication that it's to protect anyone's feelings. That's strictly your interpretation of the law. The laws just says it's wrong and the woman who does it can be stoned for it. I forget if the man can be stoned or if he gets off more lightly.

It is to protect one's feelings though, or rather to ensure a certain perception of the world. There isn't much else like sex that can so demoralise us. Recreational sex can very easily meat of the other - 'chicks' of women, as an illustration.

(I know this probably isn't exactly in line with what Rob was saying, but still.)

make meat* obviously.
Got a bit caught up in the spookiness of that...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:25:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 4:19:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 4:12:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:58:24 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:49:19 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I'm not sure whether your example is lust; if they are doing it for "each other," then it doesn't sound like they are doing it for themselves. But like I said, it depends on if the act is reasonable or if it just selfish.

The bible does not suggest it has anything to do with being selfish or not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin even between people in love. So your lust/love theory is shot. Even if both people were being approvingly selfish, again no one is getting hurt.

Sex outside of marriage can be considered sinful, because if you are not married, then you are likely going to break their (or your) heart when the relationship fails. If you don't take some time beforehand and make sure the relationship is viable, you are being selfish - giving in to desire in an unreasonable fashion. The only 100% non-lustful method of having sex is to wait until marriage. Is it what I'm going to do? No, but I've spent a good part of my life breaking women's hearts and being heart-broken myself, and if I had followed that advice I would have avoided all that. So the Bible essentially is saying what I am, based on perspective and how finely you want to dice that hair (being in love vs. being married).

Junk. There is no indication that it's to protect anyone's feelings. That's strictly your interpretation of the law. The laws just says it's wrong and the woman who does it can be stoned for it. I forget if the man can be stoned or if he gets off more lightly.

Law? First off, I don't accept anything in the Bible as fact, or law, or divine. It's just a book. It's got some good stuff, some not so good stuff.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:39:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 4:25:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/22/2015 4:19:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 4:12:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:58:24 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:49:19 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I'm not sure whether your example is lust; if they are doing it for "each other," then it doesn't sound like they are doing it for themselves. But like I said, it depends on if the act is reasonable or if it just selfish.

The bible does not suggest it has anything to do with being selfish or not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin even between people in love. So your lust/love theory is shot. Even if both people were being approvingly selfish, again no one is getting hurt.

Sex outside of marriage can be considered sinful, because if you are not married, then you are likely going to break their (or your) heart when the relationship fails. If you don't take some time beforehand and make sure the relationship is viable, you are being selfish - giving in to desire in an unreasonable fashion. The only 100% non-lustful method of having sex is to wait until marriage. Is it what I'm going to do? No, but I've spent a good part of my life breaking women's hearts and being heart-broken myself, and if I had followed that advice I would have avoided all that. So the Bible essentially is saying what I am, based on perspective and how finely you want to dice that hair (being in love vs. being married).

Junk. There is no indication that it's to protect anyone's feelings. That's strictly your interpretation of the law. The laws just says it's wrong and the woman who does it can be stoned for it. I forget if the man can be stoned or if he gets off more lightly.

Law? First off, I don't accept anything in the Bible as fact, or law, or divine. It's just a book. It's got some good stuff, some not so good stuff.

Yet you are defending its strictures. I do not understand that.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:53:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

They're concerned with it because they're not having it.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 5:05:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 4:39:00 PM, dhardage wrote:

Law? First off, I don't accept anything in the Bible as fact, or law, or divine. It's just a book. It's got some good stuff, some not so good stuff.

Yet you are defending its strictures. I do not understand that.

There are good ideas in the Bible. I don't accept it's wisdom as divine, but I won't ignore the good points it makes.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 10:31:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:24:19 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin.

Um. No. All the Abrahamic religions do but that's largely because they get it all from the same source. Check out pre-Christianity Greece and Rome for some reasonable contrast.

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

Rape isn't sex. It's domination.

Rape is an act usually committed BY dominating another to achieve sex
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 11:59:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

That's because you view it from a selfish, short term, human viewpoint, ignoring the record of history.

Just out of interest, do you view taking advantage of a member of the opposite, or even the same sex, who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol so that they perform sexual acts they wouldn"t have done if sober as rape?

God does.

Why?

Because if they are under the influence of something mind altering, which includes alcohol, they are not in a fit state to give realistic consent.

God knows that extra-marital sex produced children outside of the family structure, which is not ideal.

He knows that extramarital sex produces.

He knows that anal sex produces a variety of health risks, not the least of which is the inevitable faecal incontinence later in life.

Homosexuality in all it's forms simply goes against the purpose for which sex was designed.

"Swinging" in all it's forms also threatens the stability of the family arrangement.

Apart from that most, if not all, forms of immorality at some time or another involve lying, which is the first sinful act ever committed, and that is why Christ described liars as children of Satan, the father of the lie. Lying is possibly the worst sin possible in God's eyes because without the first we would not be in the mess we are currently in.

Oral sex, between man and wife is a contentious issue in most faiths and is not mentioned at all in scripture, but in any other situation it is obviously a part of fornication.

In fact fornication can also involve acts that can all too easily lead to sexual, activity, as well as every form of sex you can think of that is not shared between a willing, married, man and woman.

The simplest answer, which I tend to leave until last, is that anything God advises against, and especially warns against can be guaranteed to have unfortunate consequences for either the ones performing it, or society in general.

God only wants what is best for the entirety of humanity. Individuals are only as important as their contribution to society.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:00:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 10:31:12 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:24:19 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin.

Um. No. All the Abrahamic religions do but that's largely because they get it all from the same source. Check out pre-Christianity Greece and Rome for some reasonable contrast.

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

Rape isn't sex. It's domination.

Rape is an act usually committed BY dominating another to achieve sex

Or by getting them to drunk to object.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:01:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 11:09:21 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Why do people want to jusify their perversions?

Same reasons you want to justify your perversion of the truth about God and Chrit.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:02:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 4:53:41 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

They're concerned with it because they're not having it.

I think you'd be surprised if you knew how much of it they are getting, especially catholics.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 2:12:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

Your list seems to be basically Catholic in nature so I'll give you a Catholic answer. It is a little philosophical in nature (I won't go into scripture for support). The Church teaches that the purpose of sex is two-fold; it is procreative and unitive. It is obvious that the species is continued through sex and we know that sex results in chemicals in the brain that help create a bond between the pair.

Since sex was designed by God and these two things occur as a result of sex, then they are there by God's design. Thus both effects must be honoured when having sex.

Rape (as you noted) is obviously wrong because it is not unitive in nature. Pre-marital sex likewise is wrong because the promise to be together thereafter is not yet in place. This becomes not unitive in nature, but selfish. Additionally, children may result from the sex and if the father then chooses not to get married the child pays the price.

Oral and anal sex deny the procreative nature of sex and that is why they are sinful.

Hope that explains it.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 9:36:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 2:12:53 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:16:27 PM, drpiek wrote:
I prefer to hear responses from people who actually agree that sex is or can be sinful.

Most religions mention sexual immorality as a sin. Orgies, Homosexuality, Adultery, are called out in the bible. I have heard priest and christian suggest pre-marital sex, oral sex, anal sex, swapping, and any other kinky type of sex to be a sin. None of this makes any sense. Why would a woman who is a swinger who likes it in the rear be offending god by doing so?

The only sex that seems sinful to me is rape.

Your list seems to be basically Catholic in nature so I'll give you a Catholic answer. It is a little philosophical in nature (I won't go into scripture for support). The Church teaches that the purpose of sex is two-fold; it is procreative and unitive. It is obvious that the species is continued through sex and we know that sex results in chemicals in the brain that help create a bond between the pair.

Since sex was designed by God and these two things occur as a result of sex, then they are there by God's design. Thus both effects must be honoured when having sex.

Rape (as you noted) is obviously wrong because it is not unitive in nature. Pre-marital sex likewise is wrong because the promise to be together thereafter is not yet in place. This becomes not unitive in nature, but selfish. Additionally, children may result from the sex and if the father then chooses not to get married the child pays the price.

Oral and anal sex deny the procreative nature of sex and that is why they are sinful.

Hope that explains it.

Actually that list is amongst the few things that Catholicism get anything like right, in teaching but very wrong in practice, since most don't follow it, especially the clergy.

Though oral sex is not mentioned in scripture, you could be right about the lack of procreative ability being a reason, if in fact God does disapprove. Many faiths, and people in those faiths believe it is wrong, but not all, and scripture appears to leave that one to a persona decision between a married couple.

However, another reason so many religions are so concerned about sex could be that it is a great motivating force for many things, from selling cars and other goods, right on through to pornography and rape.