It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sexuality and Religion

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I'd like to thank DontTreadOnMe for getting me thinking about this.

Sexuality plays a wide range of roles in different religions. In many it is tied to marriage, even being sinful if done outside of wedlock.

I think it is repressive of human nature but so are a lot of parts of varrious religions.

I think sex, the act of sex, can be a bad thing. But when based on love, trust, and joy there is nothing wrong with it regardless of marriage status. I think sex can be for pleasure and reproduction and not neccessarily at the same time. I know a lot of religion look at sexual women as "whores" or other derogitory things, but I think a sexually secure and strong woman is a good thing. I fail to see why this is so looked down upon by so many religions.

Perhaps this is a method of control by men or the church? Perhaps this is how one deals with those who are not mentally of sexually healthy and would engage in sex outside of the above three stipulations?

Most of all, why do women, who find this repressive and oppressive stay with these religions? I know faith can be a very binding thing, but if there are other out there who you'd consider more moral and understanding of humans nature, how can investigating this be a bad thing? If God, Jesus, Allah, Mohamed, whoever are based on understanding, love, and good things for people, I don't think learning to be healthy and natural about all aspects of yourself is bad.

Rememeber when you reply, I am talking about mature, loving, trusting, sex. not rampant sexual activity.




posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest

Most of all, why do women, who find this repressive and oppressive stay with these religions? I know faith can be a very binding thing, but if there are other out there who you'd consider more moral and understanding of humans nature, how can investigating this be a bad thing? If God, Jesus, Allah, Mohamed, whoever are based on understanding, love, and good things for people, I don't think learning to be healthy and natural about all aspects of yourself is bad.

Rememeber when you reply, I am talking about mature, loving, trusting, sex. not rampant sexual activity.



I have wondered this myself many times, why so many women would be drawn to a religion that basicaly claims that they are the cause of all the problems of the world and regulates them to a status about the same as a slave or farm animal.


I am for rampant sexual activity though



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
There are a lot of inaccuracies when people think about others religions and their sexual behavior. One example of this would be the stigma associated with Christians by the Romans. The Romans thought that Christians would hold secret gatherings and all sit around a candle. Then they would let an animal loose, and when it knocked the candle over they would engage in group orgies! Totally untrue of course.

Sorry for going off topic.

Anyhow, women have always been plagued with the double standard in any religion. Yes, its a way to control women because for a long time women were though of as sexually rampant creatures that needed to be "tamed" in order to control their strong sexual desire. Any woman engaging in sex that was not married, or married for that matter, was seen as "consorting with the devil" because of the stigma that was put upon sex as being evil.

I guess I dont understand whats so wrong with rampant sexual behavior. If someone wants to thats their option, and this behavior should not be branded as being "sluts" or "whores" just because someone enjoys something that is a totally natural process. Its enjoyed throughout the animal kingdom, so why not us?



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   


I know a lot of religion look at sexual women as "whores" or other derogitory things, but I think a sexually secure and strong woman is a good thing. I fail to see why this is so looked down upon by so many religions.


the bible tells you that sex is between husband and wife..people let sex permiate everything they do. people need to think past their genitalia. women are free to be as sexual as they want, with their husbands..the same applies to men..free as ya want...with YOUR WIFE..

the bible is clear about their stance on sex. and personally, there is nothing wrong with it. if people lived like that, you wouldnt have the teen pregnancy, aids, or the rest of "benefits" of sex.

but that wont happen, society in general wants "happiness" now. noone wants to wait. its all about instant gratification. noone plans on long term happiness.




Most of all, why do women, who find this repressive and oppressive stay with these religions? I know faith can be a very binding thing, but if there are other out there who you'd consider more moral and understanding of humans nature, how can investigating this be a bad thing?



the men dont? temptation is everywhere. you want to investigate? read the bible. thats what religon is based on. you cant interprit it wrongly. i think you meant to say "expierement" instead of "investigate".


i guess my point is this: ITS JUST SEX PEOPLE !!. IT HAS NO PLACE IN RELIGION. RELIGON IS SPIRITUAL GODLINESS. GOD DOESNT ACCEPT HOMOSEXUALS......PERIOD...NO GAY PRIESTS...IT CONTRADICTS EVERY PRINCIPAL THE CHURCH TEACHES....

and dont tell me about the molesting priests. terrible misktakes and gross negligance has occured in the catholic church. it needs fixed. but the people who did that are in the minority of the population. dont villify to whole religion based on that......
....



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Ican not speak for all the Christians here, but the ones that consider the Bible as truth,should agree that fornication(sex outside of marriage) is wrong.

I Corinthians 6:9-10 and 13(towards the end)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived neither fornicators,nor idolaters,nor adulteres,nor effeminate,nor abusers of themselves with mankind,Nor thieves,nor covetous,nor drunkards, nor revilers,nor extortioners shall inherit the knigdom of God.
Now the body is not for fornication,but for the Lord,and the Lord for the body.

So God tells us not to have sex before marriage. I am not sure where people came up with the idea that sex is wrong, or that you should only do it for procreation.

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all,and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulteres God will judge.

Some churches may have twisted some scripture(not sure wich though) to make sex a sin, but God designed it for married people to enjoy and satisfy eachother with. Heck the Son Of Solomon is a very graphic love letter of a husband and wife.

Sex is on alot of peoples minds all the time, and the Lord knows that. I believe this is why He had the apostle Paul write that it was better to marry than to burn. Burn as in repressing your bodys feelings. If it was ok just to go and find a partner, he would have said to fornicate,which would be in contrary to the word. this is why he said to marry.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sublime4372
i guess my point is this: ITS JUST SEX PEOPLE !!. IT HAS NO PLACE IN RELIGION. RELIGON IS SPIRITUAL GODLINESS.


It's too bad that religious organizations seem so preoccupied with it then.

Most religions today still believe that even monogamous sex (and the human body) is a dirty, evil act that should only be utilized to create offspring. This kind of thinking is so unhealthy. The sight of woman's breast creates shock and outrage, but the nightly pictures from the war are fine.

I have no use for any form of worship that dictates how I should think or act. Especially Christian religions who go an ad naseum about "free agency." For a religion that preaches about free agency, there sure seem to have alot of dos and don'ts. IMO religion is completely about control.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sublime4372

i guess my point is this: ... GOD DOESNT ACCEPT HOMOSEXUALS......PERIOD...NO GAY PRIESTS...IT CONTRADICTS EVERY PRINCIPAL THE CHURCH TEACHES....



Plz stop trying to make this about homosexuals. You did that in the mother thread of this one, and i came here to actually discuss DontTreadonme's point, not talk about gay men and women. There are enough of those threads already.

I agree with gfs4731. Sex is not a "bad" thing according to the bible. The ppl of the religion make it a "bad" thing, but i believe God made sex to be a pleasureable thing between two ppl that love each other very deeply. Thats what marrage is saying, right?

---pineapple



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Supposedly god created man and then created woman to be his companion.

The true is that the only reason man and woman are in earth is to reproduce and keep on the continuity of the species, that we have feelings and enjoy this act of creation is something natural and part of the way our human body is made, is made to feel and give pleasure.

Religion knowingly took away a natural thing as reproduction and turned in to something sinful God did not have anything to do with this but men in search of a way to control what they could not understand and to keep people under that control.

God have nothing to gain from sexuality but the church does and so the leaders in the past that decided that sex and sexuality was wrong. And because women is the vessel in with man gets pleasure and also procreations is carry until full term, women was blame for the evils of the world and the fall of man.

People enjoy your sexuality and remember is a natural thing and your body was make for it.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Well, whatever religion may say, sex is an itegeral part of society and no matter the holy figure denouncing or condoning sexual behaviour, at the end of the day, it is simply relative to ones own beliefs. I'm still a virgin myself ( only 21 ! ), but chose not to whore around with women. I would rather experience it with someone I trust and love when the time comes. But thats simply my view and I cannot say otherwise for others.

My culture (Punjabi) keeps sexuality very closeted, its was common for out parents to turn the telivision off if a kissing scene came up
. The doctrine I was raised in also teaches to surpress sexual behaviour and not to let it consume out souls, like other cardinal vices, it is meant to be controlled.

Deep



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   
but is it a sin lets say a married couple had sex with each other before they were married, but only with eachother because they knew they were going to get married, is that a sin? Do you have to be given the title "Married" by the court? or can it be given through your emotions towards each other, like the bonding between two people? does anyone know?



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Do you have to be given the title "Married" by the court? or can it be given through your emotions towards each other, like the bonding between two people? does anyone know?


If you're going to a court for marriage, then it's not a marriage in the eyes of most religions, so it doesn't count, you're still sinning.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I can still not believe that a person has to ask permission to their church before engaging in any sexual relationships I am just amazed.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Maybe I missed something. I didn't grow up in a church, and after my wife had the boy, we quit going for a long time. The Lord convicted and my wife to goback, adn we have been back since 98. i have never read anything in the Bible, and heard any sermon stating the sex is a dirty thing and you can only do it for pro creation. I posted a verse about the marriage bed being undefiled.

What religon teaches that is a bad,dirty thing?: and why?
I am really courious(sp)

I can guess a t least 1 but i dont understand where they get it from.

Once you are married it seems like God whants you to enjoy eachother.

thanx for any input



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfs4731
Ican not speak for all the Christians here, but the ones that consider the Bible as truth,should agree that fornication(sex outside of marriage) is wrong.

I Corinthians 6:9-10 and 13(towards the end)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived neither fornicators,nor idolaters,nor adulteres,nor effeminate,nor abusers of themselves with mankind,Nor thieves,nor covetous,nor drunkards, nor revilers,nor extortioners shall inherit the knigdom of God.
Now the body is not for fornication,but for the Lord,and the Lord for the body.

So God tells us not to have sex before marriage. I am not sure where people came up with the idea that sex is wrong, or that you should only do it for procreation.


I just thought I would point out that the truth is not found out of context.

You are aware you left out verse 11, 12, and part of 13. It is easy to see why you left these verses out, as they change the meanings of the words you quote. With the changed meaning, the words you quote no longer support your view. Anyone can read the words in context and decide for themselves, but many people will just take your word for it. I wish for people to understand the Bible, not to be lead around blindly by those who claim to understand.

I bolded the text that was left out.

1 Corinthians 6:9-13 (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.
Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.


.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Dude, what was out of contex?

he was talking to Christians telling them not to continue doing the sinfull thing they did before acceptin christ. Those things we wrong! You actually made it more clear(thankyou).

I am willing to listen to what you have to say about it, because i read a lot of your posts, and you know a lot of the truth

But I do not see how I misled anyone in what the scriptures say conscerning(SP) this matter. There is no way the Bible condones forinacatian

[edit on 26-7-2004 by gfs4731]



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   
ORIGINAL SIN? IT WASN'T SEX!

The old testament tells that as long as Adam & Eve obeyed and stayed at a servitude level, all things would be provided for them. there was certain knowledge they were not to try and obtain. Those forbidden forms of knowledge are symbolized in the story as as two trees, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. The "Tree of Knowledge" well ever notice how throughout the bible the word "knowing" is used for sexual activity; and Adam "knew" his wife Eve and begat....man was not originally meant to procreate (I can hear you saying, "oh no the bible says"....I KNOW what the current version of the bible says)! The "Tree Of Life" represents the spiritual side. Human kind was also not meant to achieve the spirituality of his creator, the immortality of reincarnation of the spirit:

And the lord said, Look, the man has become as one of us, knowing good from evil: and now, what if he put forth his hand, and takes also from the Tree Of Life, and eats, and lives forever?"

"that" said...Sex just for the sake of "sex" with someone you don't love...is damaging. The are energy bonds between two people that have sex, that are connected for many months, effecting each other in ways you never know....

It's sorta of an idiotic assumption that the creators would condemn sex....after all, if it was a bad thing....it wouldn't of been made to be pleasurable. don't ya think?



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
i was asking if not having the title of married by the church, but being as one person is really that different. As it says in the bible marraige is the combining of two people and becoming one... doesn't that mean you don't have to go through the ceremony to be married, rather just love eachother unconditionally, and be one with eachother?



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The Bible does not give us the generaly accepted universal definition of marriage, but just one relative and topical instead. I think sex between two commited partners seems fair and right, but this is soley my view and does not mean its right.

Deep



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfs4731
Dude, what was out of contex?

he was talking to Christians telling them not to continue doing the sinfull thing they did before acceptin christ. Those things we wrong! You actually made it more clear(thankyou).

I am willing to listen to what you have to say about it, because i read a lot of your posts, and you know a lot of the truth

But I do not see how I misled anyone in what the scriptures say conscerning(SP) this matter. There is no way the Bible condones forinacatian

[edit on 26-7-2004 by gfs4731]


I do not believe you intentionally misled anyone. I believe you were "spitting out" that which you were taught.

This boils down to the "beauty of language".
You read the word "fornicate" and understand it to mean what you were taught it means "Sex outside of wedlock". If you were look in Websters you would see this definition (after looking up the term fornication). But also in Websters it has "the history" for the word.

From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: fornicate
Pronunciation: 'for-n&-"kAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -cated; -cating
Etymology: Late Latin fornicatus, past participle of fornicare to have intercourse with prostitutes, from Latin fornic-, fornix arch, vault, brothel
intransitive senses : to commit fornication
transitive senses : to commit fornication with


See that little bit of language history there?
Let's add to that a little.


1Cor 6:13 from Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 AD

esca ventri et venter escis Deus autem et hunc et haec destruet corpus autem non fornicationi sed Domino et Dominus corpori


Now, I don't expect you to understand all the words here. But one word is obvious.

When you put together these two things I just told you about, it is apparent that in 405 AD this meant one thing.

Now, I will allow that the lesson behind these words mean more than just sex with prostitutes. Perhaps some other English translations are more accurate when they say "sexual immorality" in the place of "fornication".

Immorality, or more precisely morality, is related to the principles of right and wrong.

When I read this passage in context I wonder if it is supposed to mean this why does it say that?

In particular: 1Cr 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. ...

Why say these words if they detract from or confuse the meaning?

The act of sex is a natural thing. Pleasure from sex is a natural thing. Both of these must be true lest God would have made us differently.

It is not the act of sex that is sinful. It is "the motivation" that leads to the act. In terms many people understand this would be lust. (or greed, or envy, or gluttony) All these things have a basis in pride. Sex should have its basis in love (God's will) not pride.

While I do not deny that "the motivation derived from pride" is common outside of marriage, these same "motivations" can exist inside of marriage as well.

I do not believe these passages you quoted warned against sex out of wedlock, but rather a more general lesson of "right and wrong".

Read the verses again, and consider what I said.

.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Ok, I just want to get this right. The Bible,the dictonary, and the lawbooks in some of the states that came up in my search, and even the link that you gave here

www.m-w.com...
One entry found for fornication.


Main Entry: fornication
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other -- compare ADULTERY

that states fornication is sex between two unmarried people are all wrong? Sorry, I just dont buy it myself.




In particular: 1Cr 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. ...




Why say these words if they detract from or confuse the meaning?


The apostal Paul is dealing with carnal christians here. Taking the whole scripture in contex, he is telling them that yea you are saved by grace and not under the law,but these thing are wrong and not good for you. this is what the flesh wants, and i will not let the flesh have power over me.

I do not and never have thought sex was a wicked or vile thing. Again God says the marriage bed is undefiled. You are to enjoy your wife or husband in a sexual nature. Thats is why God gave us those fellings and desires.

Look at it from this prospective. If I had sex at 15 or 16 and in God's eyes I was made 1 with that girl.In Gods eyes we would be married. Now If I choose not to married this girl and had became as 1 with someone else that would be adultry in God's eyes. I believe the Bible when it says Every sin that a man does is with out the body:but he that comits fornication sinneth against his own body.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join