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

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.

the question was>>>is fornicaton or "sex for the sake of sex" and evil thing or did the "church" make this....

well lets put it this way...the outcome of it can be pretty darn evil... and no the Chruch didnt make it up...like I said ..that idea existed before and still does with people that have no contact with churches.

I do not doubt for one moment that things were added to the bible. I think that the major idea behind sex as being a sin, was one more way to hold control over people. To be entirely honest that was one of the few things that is free in life, so if people began to "enjoy" it the church had to limit this. I figure that along the line somewhere the church came up with the idea that anything that felt good must be bad, or demonic in some fashion. Or it could have been since priest couldn't have sex why should people enjoy it

Also sorry Eyeofhorus I feel that you are a person of good insight and may hold many opinions that will hold great value because of your insight with, and with out the church. I am sincerely sorry and will enjoy seeing your response to this topic.

Originally posted by BaastetNoir


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.

It is all about the rules and moral fiber of the group that that particular person choses to belong to. If he wanted a more lenient view of the matter he would join a tribe that condones frivolous sexuality, if the person wants to settle down and get married, then he would chose the more straightlaced tribe.

Unfortunately if the person is born into the tribe, he/she really has no choice...oh well.



[edit on 4-6-2005 by Eyeofhorus]

Legal marriage invlves a courthouse not a church. Once the two parties enter into marraige, they are united through certain aspects of the state

The Bible states to also follow the rules of man (state) aswell as Gods.
That is because of times changing...back in the day it was the Church that recognized marriages.....that stae only did after the church had done so.

Personaly I believe one should wed in a church if possible....IMO.

The Trobriand Island people got along just fine even though fidelity was not considered important. If your partner slept with your friend you would have likely laughed about it instead of getting angry. Which view is more moral? Of course, when European sailors found out about this, they eagerly participated and brought to the island STD's. This ended their previous way of seeing and doing things.
In Christian marriage, when the father gives away the bride, he is literally handing ownership of her over to the groom. She is chattel, owned by the father up until then, and by the husband afterwards. And many churches still have wedding vows that contain 'I promise to submit and obey.' For the wife only, of course.
I hope my marriage is much more balanced and equal than that.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

...I hope my marriage is much more balanced and equal than that.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It is possible to have a moral relationship ouside of any organization, except the one formed by the union of male and female.

P.S. I like your signature, and I concur.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
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?

See this is what i am talking about, people make to many false claims not knowing whole truths. Kundalini does not say having sex raisies the Kundalini force, it says the sexual energies that arise from the body do when they are kept inside the body and not used sexually...

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The Trobriand Island people got along just fine even though fidelity was not considered important. If your partner slept with your friend you would have likely laughed about it instead of getting angry. Which view is more moral? Of course, when European sailors found out about this, they eagerly participated and brought to the island STD's. This ended their previous way of seeing and doing things.
In Christian marriage, when the father gives away the bride, he is literally handing ownership of her over to the groom. She is chattel, owned by the father up until then, and by the husband afterwards. And many churches still have wedding vows that contain 'I promise to submit and obey.' For the wife only, of course.
I hope my marriage is much more balanced and equal than that.

Blackgaurd, again you make only a half truthed statement. you say in "christian" marriage this was/is done but it was done in the Old testament that has nothing to do with christianity yet as it was written way before the New Testament. This is exactly what i mean about people making comments about things , yet they really are not factual comments...you have done it twice now...the other time with Kundalini...

Humbled, what's with the antagonism?

Intrepid, because in my original post here on this thread i wanted to know where people get off saying that the "roman church" made up that sex is a sin and where they get this info. to make these claims...then Blackgaurd goes and makes 2 statements as though they are facts and they are not. It'd be different if he said "i think", but he does'nt , istead he makes statements that are just half truths with no full facts behind them...it is sort of proving my point about my original question...why do so many people make statements as though they are fact when they clearly do not even have the full facts of the statements they are making. This is how mistruths and misinformation gets started, you know?

Originally posted by humbled_one

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

In Christian marriage, when the father gives away the bride, he is literally handing ownership of her over to the groom. She is chattel, owned by the father up until then, and by the husband afterwards. And many churches still have wedding vows that contain 'I promise to submit and obey.' For the wife only, of course.
I hope my marriage is much more balanced and equal than that.

Blackgaurd, again you make only a half truthed statement. you say in "christian" marriage this was/is done but it was done in the Old testament that has nothing to do with christianity yet as it was written way before the New Testament. This is exactly what i mean about people making comments about things , yet they really are not factual comments...you have done it twice now...the other time with Kundalini...

I will grant you the Kundalini one, I admit my ignorance and apologize, but as for the marriage post, I stand by it. If if was not accepted and adopted by Christians it would not continue to be a part of the ritual. Have you never been to a wedding where the father 'gives the bride away.'? If so, then I would guess you have not been to many weddings. And as for the second point about submitting and obeying, I can't recall one single Christian denomination that does not preach that very thing. It has been the subject of countless sermons I have attended in many different Christian churches.
Do you honestly feel that my points regarding wedding ceremonies are not factual? They are common in the Christian churches here.

Have you never been to a wedding where the father 'gives the bride away.'

Even if your comments are factual this is a poor reason or proof to back up your statements. This is just tradition....What about weddings where there is no father of the bride?

A fathers role in a marriage ceremony is tradition and is often very important....the father typically is the protector of his daughter...this
is to symbolize that the new "protector" is the groom or the husband.

Just like when a mayor gives the key to the city to some local hero....it is not really a key to the city...just tradition and symbolic whatever.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Originally posted by humbled_one

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

In Christian marriage, when the father gives away the bride, he is literally handing ownership of her over to the groom. She is chattel, owned by the father up until then, and by the husband afterwards. And many churches still have wedding vows that contain 'I promise to submit and obey.' For the wife only, of course.
I hope my marriage is much more balanced and equal than that.

Blackgaurd, again you make only a half truthed statement. you say in "christian" marriage this was/is done but it was done in the Old testament that has nothing to do with christianity yet as it was written way before the New Testament. This is exactly what i mean about people making comments about things , yet they really are not factual comments...you have done it twice now...the other time with Kundalini...

I will grant you the Kundalini one, I admit my ignorance and apologize, but as for the marriage post, I stand by it. If if was not accepted and adopted by Christians it would not continue to be a part of the ritual. Have you never been to a wedding where the father 'gives the bride away.'? If so, then I would guess you have not been to many weddings. And as for the second point about submitting and obeying, I can't recall one single Christian denomination that does not preach that very thing. It has been the subject of countless sermons I have attended in many different Christian churches.
Do you honestly feel that my points regarding wedding ceremonies are not factual? They are common in the Christian churches here.

Blackgaurd you are not reading what I wrote. You say that this is a "Christian" practice like they are the one's who made it up or the only one's that do it. What I pointed out is that it was going on in the Old Testament way before the Christians were doing it as the Christians did not even exist yet...also i think there is an element of respect with a Father giving away the bride in that he "approves" of the groom and the father is giving his blessings...
Still no one has come up with any answers to my original question yet, only opinions with no facts to back up that the "church" made sex for sake of sex a sin...

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

...I hope my marriage is much more balanced and equal than that.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It is possible to have a moral relationship ouside of any organization, except the one formed by the union of male and female.

P.S. I like your signature, and I concur.

And thank you for the compliment on my sig too, it is appreciated. I am lucky to have at least one supportive post, to balance the other critical ones out a bit. I only mentioned the perpetuation of the ownership transfer of the bride from the father to the groom as a means of pointing out that other cultures and traditions may not be perfect, but neither is Christianity's version. We all have a couple of warts, and of course I know that today everyone realizes that the bride is not chattel. But for some reason, the ritual lives on. It will not be a part of our union. In fact, I am getting more turned off of a church wedding every day. I'd rather wed outdoors in nature. And I asked my bride to make up her own vows, and if she minds if I do the same, and she concurred that would be a good idea. So, the people that really matter concur, and the ones that mind don't matter.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
... And many churches still have wedding vows that contain 'I promise to submit and obey.' For the wife only, of course.
I hope my marriage is much more balanced and equal than that.

true ... but they also promisse "till death do us part"... and the percentage of divorce amongst Christian couples is higher than ever...lol...

not that it is a funny subject...but ....

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
... And many churches still have wedding vows that contain 'I promise to submit and obey.' For the wife only, of course.
I hope my marriage is much more balanced and equal than that.

true ... but they also promisse "till death do us part"... and the percentage of divorce amongst Christian couples is higher than ever...lol...

not that it is a funny subject...but ....

How is it threads like this always turn into "christian" bashing? Where did i even ask anything about christian marriages anywhere, yet now that what some of you are talking about? Also i do not know either way, but where do you get your "facts" that divorce is higher then ever amongst "Christian" couples? I know for a "fact" that divorce is higher then ever amongst all couples who get married, not just "christian" couples, so why do you feel the need to single it out just to be "christians"?
Can anyone actually answer my original question that started this thread without feeling the need to bash Christians about topics i am not even asking about?

Alright i looked up the claim that "Christain" divorce rates are higher then ever, and it did say that divorce rates with Christians are higher then other faith groups but in the same sentence it says the same thing about "atheists" and "agnostics" being higher divorce rates then other faith groups. So why are you not pointing that fact out?
Anyway, none of this has anything to do with my original question...

Originally posted by humbled_one
Anyway, none of this has anything to do with my original question...

My first post in this thread answered your question.

I for now think it had to do with not sleeping around i.e.: Sexual relationships with your females sister and so on due to possible mental retardation and the other - sexual diseases at that time.

Dallas

I really did not read through this thread to know if someone already brought this point up, so ignore it if you want as I am sure most of you will.

The church did not make this up, at least in the direct sense. It was the culture that made this up. A culture that had motives.

Even today, in the world of sex first, relationship later, we all will know what I am talking about. When you get close to someone, it has to, on some level bother you to hear about past sexual experiences.

"Hey honey, I screwed my ex on that park bench right over there"

Who in the world feels comfortable hearing that? Most likely, you would feel jealousy as well. This is just the way humans are. We are jealous. Though it may not bother us if we are unpure, everyone is bothered to a degree that their loved ones have a past. Even if they dont realize it or think that way.

Also, children. What kind of contrception do you think a common person had 2000 years ago? I am going to bet none. It is no secret that you are unpure if you have a child out of marraige.

If you explore these types of human emotional issues, you can nearly 100% of the time come to a similar church doctrine, belief, or tradition. The difference between a christian, and a non christian in this sense is that the christian believes the church created these emotions, and non christians believe these emotions created the church.