No sin in sex

For most of history, sex was viewed as a divine gift from the gods. Even in Christian literature, god commanded Abraham and his offspring to populate the world with their seed. To fulfill god’s directive Abraham had many wives and concubine lovers, as did his sons Jacob and Isaac. Only in the west, did sex have a falling out and become a thing of shame. The misunderstanding came in the misinterpretations of biblical accounts/stories about such places as Sodom and Gomorra. Sodom and Gomorra remain illusive to biblical historians, who only agree that it was probably located in the southern edge of the Dead Sea, in the land of Canaan. The land of Canaan was a godless place where the inhabitants fornicated with multiple “earthly” type deities of no spiritual value. Sex was never the issue concerning sin, but human sacrificing to appease mortal gods, idols, and superstitions, was a sin.

Sex, that three-digit dirty little word that we love and hate is what existence is about. Physical matter as well as spiritual matter has a common denominator called creation. Humans, animals, insects and plant life pollinate each other to keep species thriving. Sex is a mechanism of nature, of ecology and with a cosmic never-ending purpose that is no accident of natural selection. Humans are the result of an orgasm; in essence, we are fundamentally an orgasm in the flesh. Love is at the root of our creation. Pure love is a byproduct of orgasm and is what binds those that share the experience. Love by itself does not create a strong bound as it does when mixed with sex. We love our friends, our parents, our siblings and our children, but the bond between lovers is the strongest bond there is. The attachment with our children, who come into our lives because of sex, and sometimes love, is also strong. Sex is what humans do best, not by fluke of nature but by purposeful design by higher powers than we. Humans did not create sex nor have we created the urges, desires, and the lust, the intrinsic elements of sex.

Of all the creatures on Earth, only man has taken the burden upon himself to feel guilt concerning the most natural and essential thing "created" in the universe, sex. Sex was not meant to be a twisted Jekyll and Hide conflagration of ecstasy and damnation. Adam and Eve were not expelled from the Garden of Eden because of sex. Sex was never a concern in the Garden of Eden (heaven). God told Adam and Eve to enjoy all the fruits of the garden except for the Tree of Knowledge. The search for knowledge (forbidden fruit) was the downfall of Adam and Eve, not sex! Why is “certain” knowledge part of the forbidden fruit? Because such knowledge is key to understanding what this life is “really” about and would spoil the fun and the purpose of this temporary existence if it were known. Had Adam and Eve spent more time enjoying the bounty of the magical garden provided them rather than second-guessing the gifts given them and craving those not given to them, they might have avoided the envy trap, which ultimately caused them to be ejected from paradise.

So relax and make love—not war with your neighbor and yourself.

Only in the west, did sex have a falling out and become a thing of shame.

Maybe you're onto something here, sleeper... but be careful lest you draw attention to yourself, though.

There was that Christian Arius guy back in Alexandria, around 318 AD. He had a strange following, considering he kinda resembled Ichabod Crane... 700 dedicated virgins who were "inflamed" with passion.

The contemporary Catholic view (without much mention of virgins):

An heresiarch, born about A.D.ú died 336.

www.newadvent.org...

A colourful character, no doubt. Here's a bit from a book I'm currently reading...

from God Against the Gods by Jonathon Kircsh (Viking Compass [2004]) pg. 157:

He wrote a book of theology with the cheerful title Thalia- "Happy Thoughts." He reduced his teachings to simple phrases that his followers chalked on the wall as graffiti or chanted out loud at public gatherings. He even set them to catchy tunes so that they could be sung like work songs or drinking songs. That's why his church in a suburb of Alexandrea was always filled with attentive and enthusiastic parishoners, not only ardent women but also schoolchildren, sailors and stevedores who chanted his ditties as they worked on the docks of the busy ports.

The fact that Arius was capable of inspiring such ardor in ordinairy mem, women and children only served to deepen the distrust and sharpen the suspicions of the higher clergy, who regarded him as a dangerous rabble-rouser.

Arius finally got the heretical stamp because he taught that Jesus was the Son of God and not God Himself. It caused a sensation and got the theologians in a tizzy...

pg. 161:

One faction insisted on characterizing God and Jesus as homoousion, a Greek word that can be translated into plain English as "made of the same stuff, that is, God the Father and God the Son were actually one and the same divinity. The other faction insisted on characterizing them as homoiousion, that is, "made of similar stuff", that is, God the Father could and should be distinguished from God the Son. The two words are spelled the same in Greek with the exception of a tiny letter, an iota...

Which goes to show how silly the PTB could be in Alexandria at the time.

On the other hand, there were sects that didn't espouse sex at all.

Priscillian - No carnal pleasure a-tall. Heretic. First Christian to be executed. That'd teach him.

And then there the ones who went way over to the other side:

Carpocrates - Everything, all the time

They viewed all forms of sexuality as pure and sacred, and though they are denounced as sexual extremists, they were probably more restrained than what is told, since abstinence, monogamy and child-raising were certainly thought to be just as pure and acceptable as any other form of sexuality. It is only because they likewise gave their benediction and encouragement to obscure forms of sexual expression that they were ultimately denounced.

www.antinopolis.org...

Geez... some Christians really got funky!

Do as you will, and let others do as they will…shall be the whole of the law.

Result: Heretic. Not cool to be a follower of Carpocrates.

Marcion

Marcion in his youth professed to lead a life of chastity and asceticism, but, in spite of his professions, fell into sin with a young maiden. In consequence his father, the bishop, cast him out of the Church.

www.newadvent.org...

No sex for Marcionites... not even between married couples. The word is 'rigorist'.

Marcion didn't believe in the Old Testament and only wanted Paul to speak for Christians. Maybe he liked the thing on the 'road to Damascus'. Whatever... the result was 'heretic!'

The upshot for all of this is... watch out what you preach, you might get the heretic stamp too.

Then there's current thought, from The Family:

Sexually bound denominations within Christianity still defend their obsession with excessive prudery and their extreme, sex-negative attitudes by pointing out that God Himself endorsed this great human cover-up when He made humans their first set of clothes from animal skins. Men like Saint Gregory of Nyssa and Saint Maximos the Confessor championed the case for covering up, teaching that these "garments of skin" (chitones) represented the animal-like nature that humanity took on as a result of the Fall, which included an acquired animal-like sexuality. What cure did they recommend for this awful animal affliction that could have been so easily avoided had God only created humans sexless? Virginity, of course! They argued that virginity was the original immortal incorruptible state of humankind and that we should all strive to stay virgins

www.thefamily.org...

If you haven't heard of The Family, you ain't been listening.

Some of the most sexually repressive times and regimes in history are also marked by much Scripture illiteracy, either through repression, rejection or misrepresentation of the Word of God. Repressive and sex-negative church teachings soon made the Bible virtually a banned book to be locked away from the laity who might "misinterpret" certain Scriptures-in other words, who may realize while reading the Bible that something was wrong with Christendom. Davies explains:

Hmmm...

Sexual accounts in the Bible were twisted to fit the new non-sexual image of holiness. The mechanics of how Mary was impregnated by God and yet remained a virgin was most challenging for anti-sexualists to resolve. One popular explanation was that God or the Archangel Gabriel impregnated the Blessed Mary through her ear or windpipe using a special vapor (Taylor, 1970: 62). Some early paintings show the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, descending with great speed carrying God's sperm in its bill. In one early carving, the semen came from God's mouth and entered a tube which led under Mary's skirts.

Oy... this is too steamy. I gotta go take a cold shower. My apologies to all those who are similarly afflicted.

Read that last link through, though, because The Family agrees with you, sleeper.

[edit on 5/1/10 by masqua]

reply to post by masqua


Interesting stuff there masqua!

Sexuality certainly has a way of making people crazy just ask Freud.

We should all be able to agree, especially those who are believers in God that God is the creator of "everything", which includes sex organs and the devilish desires that go with them. lol

People may point out that we are here to rise above animalistic cravings such as sex. That is their opinion and their prerogative if they wish to suffocate god's gift.

Sex was "create" for us to be enjoyed by us. Perversion and abuse is a human flaw that falls in the "hate" category, not the sex category. Sex itself is flawless and is of the divine.

reply to post by sleeper


Indeed.

If sex would be sinful, celibacy would be the cure; but as we can observe it is quite contrary; people which are living in strict celibacy often develop twisted ways to express their supressed sexuality, as can be observed in religious ways of thinking that promote celibacy.

Sex isn't for bad, but lust is: Too much sugar may be harmful as well, as it is with sex.

Sex is the most natural thing as the OP points out. As we can observe from animals, they do not lust for sex, they only do it for reproductive purposes. They do not lust for it, but some people do and that can be dangerous.

-v

Originally posted by v01i0
As we can observe from animals, they do not lust for sex, they only do it for reproductive purposes.

Bonobos have sex for reasons other than reproduction. And do so often.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Okay sorry. I should've been more precise and mention the 'simple animals'. I think we are apes too, although clothed

-v

Originally posted by sleeper
Even in Christian literature, ...

So relax and make love—not war with your neighbor and yourself.

Please do not refer to one portion of Christian text and throw out the rest. That kind of selective hearing is a highly inaccurate representation of the Word of God. The sacred union between husband and wife (per Genesis) is sanctioned sex. All others (in Genesis and throughout the whole rest of the Bible) is not.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by saint4God]

I think sex becomes a sin when you use it to hurt others or yourself. Some examples would be Pedophilia,rape, sex slavery, etc.

Sex as an act is not sinful in and of itself. Nobody ever said it was, including Western Civilization. You can't show me a condemnation and refutation of Sex as sinful, simply as an act of reproduction. Anyone who argues that the reproductive act is "sinful" probably also has problems with eating and breathing.

There's just no logical argument for opposing reproduction.

What is considered "sinful" is the abuse of the act of Sex for purposes that have nothing to do with reproduction. And this sort of "sinful sex" has been opposed for thousands of years in most cultures, long before Western Civilization ever came into being. The West didn't invent anything when it comes to Sex, except perhaps new ways of degrading women and children.

There are several reasons that certain sexual acts came to be viewed as disgusting and perverse and "sinful," dating back tens of centuries.

First and foremost, The Spread of Disease. In ancient times, primitive cultures had no idea of the existence of bacterial and viral disease. They certainly suffered from such diseases, but they had no notion of how these illnesses were contracted and spread, except for a few vague associations:

• Eating rotting and uncooked food often led to illness.
• Drinking stagnant water often led to illness.
• Living in close proximity to sewage often led to illness.
• Having sex with multiple partners often led to illness.

They KNEW that these activities produced disease and death. No question about it. Accordingly, they developed practices and traditions and communal LAWS to prevent disease:

• Cooking food before eating it drastically reduced disease.
• Drinking fresh, flowing water drastically reduced disease.
• Creating distance between sewage and living quarters drastically reduced disease.
• Restricting sex to one partner drastically reduced disease.

And this is how you see the birth of whole cultures of disease-related LAWS, which were eventually incorporated into their respective RELIGIONS.

Early Judaism, in particular, took all of these disease-related laws VERY seriously. Most of their 613 commandments from God have to do with clean food, clean living, and not sticking your penis into too many vaginas or anuses.

THAT is how Judaism came to regard many aspects of Sex as "sinful" — not the act itself, but the abuses of the act. That's where the story of Sodom and Gommora originated, undoubtedly — it was the story of a moral and sexual cesspool that God utterly destroyed.

This is what happens, in Jewish folklore, when communities of human beings stick too many penises into too many vaginas and anuses — God wipes out the community.

And, certainly, you see where they might get such ideas.

Take HIV/AIDS, for example — the practice of anal sex provides all of the conditions necessary for the communication of this disease: The walls of the rectum are very thin and prone to damage which produces the free-flow of blood; and the penis is a perfect syringe for injecting HIV/AIDS directly into the bloodstream.

Hence, when HIV/AIDS first broke out in the West, it started in the male gay communities. That's where the disease survived and thrived.

In a primitive culture, this would no doubt be construed as God's Wrath on homosexual behavior. Like it or not, right or wrong, the fact remained that the gay men started dropping off like flies, and a lot of people righteously pointed to God's wrath.

Not to limit this to HIV/AIDS and gay sex, the sexual act can and does spread a godawful array of diseases to men and women, both straight and homosexual alike, and particularly in instances of multiple partners.

In ancient times, the answer was simple: Make laws against homosexuality and promiscuous sex, and make laws about monogamy and one-partner marriage. Cultures that followed such laws SURVIVED LONGER.

Aside from the spread of disease, many of our earliest sex laws also had to do with human territoriality and property ownership. Thou shalt not tap the booty of thy neighbor's wife is kind of a no-brainer, don't you think? When you commit adultery, you're not only exposing a married couple to your diseases, you're also going to get your ass killed when the husband or wife finds out.

Cultures with strong laws against adultery SURVIVED LONGER, because their citizens weren't chasing each other out the bedroom window with pitchforks.

At any rate, Western Civilization didn't invent such morality laws; in fact, Western Civilization has done everything it can to circumvent morality laws and morality in general.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity

That's where the story of Sodom and Gommora originated, undoubtedly — it was the story of a moral and sexual cesspool that God utterly destroyed.

Tell me more how it originated.

I challenge you to find a single verse supporting the idea that Sodom and Gomoorah were destroyed because of "sexual sins".

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
I challenge you to find a single verse supporting the idea that Sodom and Gomoorah were destroyed because of "sexual sins".

Have you ever even read the story? Do you understand the meaning of people "knowing" other people in the story? Knowing someone, as it was used in Genesis, equates to having sex with him or her.

Try re-reading the story of Sodom and Gomorra, keeping in mind what "knowing" means.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


The Western Christian interpretation of the Sodom and Gamorrah story is that God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah because they were filled with sexual deviants. According to Muslim and Jewish sources, God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah because they were filled with inhospitable people.

In the story, the one righteous person in the cities, Lot is hospitable. He welcomes the angels into his home and allows them to eat and wash up. The people of Sodom on the other hand were extremely inhospitable. There sin was not sexual perversion, but rather a desire to harm the angels in one of the worst ways imaginable rather than extending hospitality.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


So, no verses?

Now see Doc Velocity.... hotpinkurinalmint is close to the truth.

Actually he is right on the money.

But I still need verses from the Bible itself supporting your theory.

I have verses from the Bible that goes against your theory.

I'm waiting.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Deaf Alien]

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
So, no verses?

The verses in Genesis aren't particularly revealing, but verses from elsewhere in the Bible shed more light in reference to Sodom and Gomorra.

I take from this site, which is rather useful in any analysis of Sodom & Gomorra:

Analysis of Sodom & Gomorra: Why Did God Smite Sodom & Gomorra?

Jude, Verse 7: Jude disagreed with Jesus and Ezekeiel; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations of this passage in Jude describe the sin as: fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust. It looks as if the translators were unclear of the meaning of the verse in its original Greek, and simply selected their favorite sin to attack. The original Greek is transliterated as: "sarkos heteras." This can be translated as "other flesh". Ironically, our English word "heterosexual" comes from "heteras."

A likely interpretation is that the author of Jude 4 criticized the men of Sodom for wanting to engage in sexual activities with angels. Angels are described in the Bible as a species of created beings who were different from humans. The sin of the people of Sodom would be that of bestiality. Another possibility is that the "other flesh" refers to cannibalism, which was a practice associated with early Canaanite culture.
On the other hand there are some passages which might imply that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality:

Jeremiah 49:18: Some conservative theologians have interpreted this verse as criticizing the inhabitants of Jerusalem for their sexual sins, and implying that they were like the men of Sodom.

Ezekeiel 16:50: Although the preceding verse describes Sodom's sins as pride, laziness, insensitivity to the needs of the poor, and haughtiness, verse 50 refers to the citizens of Sodom as having "committed abomination." The Hebrew word "to'ebah," translated here as "abomination," was used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) to refer to various condemned behaviors, such as Hebrews and Egyptians eating together, Hebrews eating lobster, shrimp, or snakes, sacrificing an animal in the temple which had a blemish, women wearing men's clothing (e.g. pants), a man remarrying his former wife, etc. It was also used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to condemn same-sex activity between two males. It is not known which "abomination(s)" occurred in Sodom, but it could conceivably have been gay sex.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 1/6/2010 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


I knew you'd bring up Jude 7. We can discuss that later.

Let's see what Jesus had to say, shall we?

Matthew 10:11-15 (King James Version)

And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.

And when ye come into an house, salute it.

And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

No mention of sexual sins.

Luke 17:26-30 (King James Version)

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Ok, still no mention of sexual acts.

Other verses:

Isaiah 1:10-11

Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

Read whole Isaiah 1.

Where are the sexual sins?


More to come.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Hey! In your quote:

Jeremiah 49:18: Some conservative theologians have interpreted this verse as criticizing the inhabitants of Jerusalem for their sexual sins, and implying that they were like the men of Sodom.

At least they admitted they interpreted that verse!

Ezekiel 16:49-50

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

The sins are listed here. No mention of sexual sins.

Sex is awesome and I indulge in it regularly with my girlfriend. The more sex, the better IMHO. It's one of the many ways we express our love and desire for one another.

If some people want to call it a sin, then that's cool with me. I'm more than happy to be seen as a sinner within their eyes because at the end of the day, it's me who is living a happy and fulfilled life - and one that is full of love...

If people wish to waste countless hours arguing about what was said in some old fairytales by some geezers who clearly weren't getting enough... then your clearly not getting enough sex either!

Viva Sex!

IRM

reply to post by InfaRedMan

The more sex, the better IMHO.

In your humble opinion??? It's a FACT!

Even Christians know this.

The sad fact is that they are so afraid of god's punishment that they keep sex to a minimum. I can tell you horror stories I've heard about some of those people.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
No mention of sexual sins... Ok, still no mention of sexual acts... Where are the sexual sins?

So, in your "interpretation" of Sodom and Gomorra, the absence of passages about sex specifically means that sex — or perversion — played no part in the destruction of those cities.

In your argument, the absence of evidence equates to evidence, yes? Just as you claim my argument is based on a lack of evidence.

So, we're even, back to Square One... Why DID God smite Sodom and Gomorra? Neither of us has answered the question.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 1/6/2010 by Doc Velocity]