Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

is fornication or "sex for the sake of sex" an evil thing or did the "church" make this up?...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
This is a topic that really bothers me as I was told that only the church made up the notion that sex for the sake of sex was wrong and that the Bible does not say much about it. However I started reading the bible and it does say alot about being sexually immoral and it being wrong, etc. Actually it seems that most religious texts say being sexually immoral is wrong. I did read where the early Roman church made certain things up about taking wives and then not being able to take wives and things like that, but where are people getting their info. that the Bible does not really talk about sexual immorality? It does. It seems the Old testament does not talk as much about it, but the New Testament talks a lot about it...Why are there people that say sexual immorality was something made up by the roman church, where is the proof of this? again it is all over the New Testament that sexual immoraity is wrong/sin.
I feel that possibly it is sin in that it seems to be just a self gratifing thing and about the material/flesh and has nothing to do with spirituality or progressing spiritually...

[edit on 4-6-2005 by humbled_one]




posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_one
This is a topic that really bothers me as I was told that only the church made up the notion that sex for the sake of sex was wrong ...


I should not think so. I'm afraid that I do not have references to hand, but it is fairly obvious that in a society that does not own slave women, such activity is socially destructive. Do we choose to remain faithful to the girl of our dreams because the church tells us so? Surely, rather, we know instinctively that we *want* to remain faithful to her.

I would imagine such behaviour is selected by evolution to a quite remarkable degree; other behaviour reduces appreciably the chance of offspring surviving.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Actually "fornication" is not sex for the sake of sex but sex outside of wedlock. It is one of the few things that the Church did not make up. They didn't have civil unions, paperwork and all, that we have today. The man would go to the house of his prospective mates father and lead a procession though town with his wife, to his house. This would indicate to the community that they were wed.

Disclaimer: My religious days are a couple of decades behind me, so I may be mistaken.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
If the curch wasn't there to begin with, and a man and a woman hook-up, it seems to be a completely natural process. What did man ever do before the idea of marraige and the church came around? Obvoiously everyone went to hell for having pre-marital relations, right? Or is the concept of hell and heaven just as flawed as the logic of the church?

If what you say is true then I am surely going to hell...but sinning has never feelt soooooo goooood.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Intrepid, I think "adultry" is what you are talking about, like cheating on your wife or husband. I think fornication is simply the act of sex when you are not yet married to someone. Also the bible talks about the sexually immoral...
Eye of Horus, you should take the possiblity of where your sould goes after you die more as a serious matter. I used to joke like that to but something happened to me and now all I think about is where my soul will go after i die...it's something everyone should take more seriously, especially in the times we are living in...



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
If the curch wasn't there to begin with, and a man and a woman hook-up, it seems to be a completely natural process. What did man ever do before the idea of marraige and the church came around? Obvoiously everyone went to hell for having pre-marital relations, right? Or is the concept of hell and heaven just as flawed as the logic of the church?

If what you say is true then I am surely going to hell...but sinning has never feelt soooooo goooood.


I love how you manage to change nearly ever topic that you post on to the idea that the church is wrong, and that heaven and hell do not exist. By the way, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_one
Intrepid, I think "adultry" is what you are talking about, like cheating on your wife or husband. I think fornication is simply the act of sex when you are not yet married to someone..


Bingo. However, both acts are looked down upon in the scriptures.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by humbled_one
Intrepid, I think "adultry" is what you are talking about, like cheating on your wife or husband. I think fornication is simply the act of sex when you are not yet married to someone..


Bingo. However, both acts are looked down upon in the scriptures.


I think that this could be due to the fact that the church still wanted involvement in marriages. Cause seriously the only reason back in those days to get married was to have sex and then children. In this day in age the only reason to get married is cause of Taxes (if I remember correctly) I dunno it's hard for me to describe now but I am pretty sure it has something to do with control over marriages. I know thsi sounds random but I will try to eleborate when the idea comes to me in a more decipherable way.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Final

I love how you manage to change nearly ever topic that you post on to the idea that the church is wrong, and that heaven and hell do not exist. By the way, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.


Ha, for someone that claims to be a "genius" your perception of time seems warped because it seems to begin at the birth of christ. Believe it or not, people did exist before your "savior" poked his head into the picture. As a cathloc myself, I used what I would consider genius-like intelligence, questioned my belief in the church system, not of god.

The truth of the matter is I got sick and tired of hearing the church tell me what was right and what was wrong. The teschings being an insult to my inteligence as well as spiritual nature, I was ready to leave the church.

BFD dude, why shoudl you care so much. Are yousauing that because your god id so great, I shouldn't have the right to say what I want to say, and believe what I want to believe? I believe that's facism.

It is my personal philosophy and opinion, this is why it is reflected in a majority of my posts.

I just love how you christians turn every thread into a "you don't accept god therefore you are obviously less inteligent than I am." theread or the notorious, "My superior knowledge of somebody's second-hand information of God, and Jesus; make me superior in all ways." discussion.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, huh...remember that the next time you do your rosary, or when you are in church reciting your ritual-like prayers. Or when you quote the bible to somebody, or when you seem to want to interject your views of god into a discussion forum, and disrupt the flow of ideas...

Call mensa and steven hawking...we've got another genius on our hands.

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Eyeofhorus]

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Eyeofhorus]

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Eyeofhorus]



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
You two chill and take your bile elsewhere. You will NOT ruin this thread.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
There is a simple rule: YOU SHOULD TRY BEFORE YOU BUY


If my parents had followed the dogma of the church I would not have a lovely sister couse my parents had sex before they got married (OUCH)

and I have to agree with the eyeofhorus


[edit on 4-6-2005 by frozen_snowman]



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
The question posed was whether the church came up with the idea of fornication, not whether one should engage in it or not.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
On the condition that the lovers are consenting adults and no one is harmed or coerced into it, I feel there is nothing evil about making love. On the contrary, I think it is a very good thing, especially if the intention of the lovers is to give their partner as much pleasure as they are able. Not all faiths see it as evil. The Kundalini force is a spiritual concept that teaches sex can raise one's consciousness. That would mean that people are not quite so bad as many churches say we are. Imagine that, people being inherently good, the naked human body being beautiful, and sexually satisfying ones partner is a good thing.
Sounds crazy, huh?



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
like someone said before fornication is the therm used to describe marriage outside of weddlock... sex for the sake of sex will get you nothing and you'll get bored ... believe me ..been there, donne that.

The problem is that before you could call it eveil, you should take a look and realise what exactly what can fornication or sex for the sake of sex offer you ?? a couple of "good" minutes... and in some sad cases a LIFE-TIME of regret ... That The Church didn make up ...



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
the question was>>>is fornicaton or "sex for the sake of sex" and evil thing or did the "church" make this....



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I am truely sorry Eye that you can jump to conclusions so quickly. The last time I went to church was April 2004 for my grandfathers funeral ( If you count this as going to church). I also hold my own take on the church but I still consider myself a Catholic. Also about the genius thing, my I.Q. was 153 when I was 13, based off a test that was made for test takers of the age of at least 18. So I feel ( as well as my friends and family) that I did pretty well. Also I would like to point out the fact that your post was edited three times, for spelling errors.... I think not. Your only way to answer me back was to deface your old beliefs, not to put yours into view. I am extrememly sorry Intrepid for answering back, this will be my first and only conflict with him on this thread. Also I was concieved out of wedlock, so in reality I wouldn't be here if the church controlled my parents values. This should be example enough on my beliefs within my own church.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Well my original question is this, why do so many say that it was the Roman church that made it look like sex is a sin? I still hear people say it today and I even got to believing it but then i went and started reading the bible and all over the New Testament it talks about fornication, sexual immorality, etc. being very sinful to the point of it saying those of that way will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Are people saying that the Roman Church added that stuff to the Bible? I doubt that as it is all over the place in the New Testament...personally I do feel that sex for the sake of sex is of the material nature and does keep us away from progressing spiritually...



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I'll try to bite my tonge, but if you ask a question that involes making a moral decision, religion and belief are usually the first reactionary measure. Sorry I acted like an ass.


But seriously, let's look at the instituation of marraige. Legal marraige invlves a courthouse not a church. Once the two parties enter into marraige, they are united through certain aspects of the state. The couple can now use marriage status on all tax documaents, and official forms, if the contracy is broken, by adultery, the party that didn't break the contract, has the ability to seek legal recourse.

In the church, adultery means you are going to hell, or committing a sin. This is an act against god. But who makes these rules, and who interepererted the bible to make these rules? It is the the church, or the institute on behalf of God. Anymore a divorce in the church really means nothing, and if you wanted you could marry and divorce as many people as you want.

In the more dovout sects of the moromon religion, multiple parteners are encouraged, adn polygamy is practiced on a narrow scale. The religion does not condemn this behavior. But usually the union is permanent.

For all the people that BELIEVE in one of these organizations, or more than one, only if they are involved in it or chose to be invilved, do the rules apply. Even then the rules have loopholes, and are subject to change and interperetation. So why was this question even proposed, when the answer is right here. Was it to instigate a relgious discussion?

Please do not ask me to give a moral response, and then rip on me for my gnostic views. If my religious beliefs offend you, I am sorry, but I should have jus as much right as the next person to say what I believe, and base it on my philosophical/spiritual belief.

Spelling errors aren't a sin...get over it



[edit on 4-6-2005 by Eyeofhorus]



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
If the curch wasn't there to begin with, and a man and a woman hook-up, it seems to be a completely natural process.


sorry but wrong... even nowadays in many distant tribes around the world, with no connection to any church except for their own rituals and beliefs, a man has to have permission of the tribe leader to "hook-up"/marry a woman... and if its is found that they "hooked-up" without permission they are in serious trouble.

now there are also tribes that allow "hookin-up" with no strings attach during "reproduction rituals".

even before christian based Churches came up, there were SERIOUSLY SEVERE LAWS agaisnt sex outside the wedd lock... and if you dont believe me search the web or libraries for Tribal Societies, or Society in Ancient Civilizations ... things like ... youll find out im not making anything up to defend any church.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_one
This is a topic that really bothers me as I was told that only the church made up the notion that sex for the sake of sex was wrong and that the Bible does not say much about it.


The bible has many verses that refer to the sexual act, and fornication.



However I started reading the bible and it does say alot about being sexually immoral and it being wrong, etc. Actually it seems that most religious texts say being sexually immoral is wrong.


Remember that one of the things that the ancient people in the bible wanted to control was the passions, desires and gratification of the sexual act.

Because it was the only time that man would lose their head.




I did read where the early Roman church made certain things up about taking wives and then not being able to take wives and things like that,


Yes the bible seems confusing if you are looking for guidances in a time of need.




but where are people getting their info. that the Bible does not really talk about sexual immorality? It does. It seems the Old testament does not talk as much about it, but the New Testament talks a lot about it...Why are there people that say sexual immorality was something made up by the roman church, where is the proof of this?



Well, that is another sign as the mentality of the bible redactors, some of them had some sexual issues with men and women alike.





again it is all over the New Testament that sexual immoraity is wrong/sin.
I feel that possibly it is sin in that it seems to be just a self gratifing thing and about the material/flesh and has nothing to do with spirituality or progressing spiritually...


Not the sexual act is not immoral or a sin if you take in consideration that we humans are the only spieces that can actually perform the act every day and have gratification in the process.

If you meet the right person it can be spiritual and special, but is still gratificacion.



[edit on 4-6-2005 by marg6043]





new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join