Sexuality and Religion

Originally posted by gfs4731
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: for�ni�ca�tion
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.

There is a fallacy in your argument.

The english word fornication in the bible, comes from the latin word fornicationi.
The latin word fornicationi means "to have sex with prostitutes"
The english word means "to have sex out of wedlock"

fornicationi = fornication.
"sex with prostitutes" != "sex out of wedlock"

Make sense yet?

Edit:

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.

Taking the whole in context, he is teaching them the nature of sin.
Lust is something "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.

Once you are married, you should not defile your bed. Your desires should be curbed by "the expression of love" with your wife.

Sex through love is good. Sex through sin is not good.

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.

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the first part.

I'll take the first part a step or two past how you describe.
Lets say you have sex with a girl you do not love, get her pregnant, and marry her because it is the "right thing to do". Let's say you never "learn" to love her. You then begin to hate the life you living. This hate turns to anger, which you take out on her and the child. The child grows up not knowing the meaning of "love", all she learns is anger and hate. How can this child learn how to love God, if her first teachers cannot love each other?

Is this the will of God?

Sorry, regardless of centuries of "religious teachings" I don't buy it, and I hold firm to my belief those verses do not discuss "sex out of wedlock", but rather "sexual immorality".












[edit on 27-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Wow look at all the confusion.

The ancient truths of sex in relation to religion are now being revealed to the masses:

Peep it:


www.gnosis-usa.com...


www.gnosis-usa.com...


www.gnosis-usa.com...







[edit on 28-7-2004 by Tamahu]

Originally posted by Quest
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?

There is no doubt that the church sought more control by subjugating women, ensuring male domination of the priest-class. And taken in to context with all the other biblical stipulations against women, it is clear that the writers were bent on masculine dominance. Of course, that is a mere earmark of all religions - control. Then considering that many early church mothers' writings were suppressed, the conclusion is virtually obvious; at an early time in xtianity, the influence of females on the church was viruliently repressed. Because sex is ubiquitous in human relations, the behavior was an easy target and tool to use for controlling people.

BTW, it is the legalistic nonsense used in proselytization by xtians that led me to question, then ultimately reject, the tenets of the world's most popular religion. Now it appears that xtianity is attempting to hold the Christ (Moshiach) hostage! Keep your damned hands off Yeshua!!!

So the christian god gives you this powerful chemical urge to be predisposed to a certain activity and tells you not to pertake!?! Sounds like an itch you're not allowed to scratch, if you ask me.

So God tells us not to have sex before marriage.

if you define "marriage" as a ritual performed by an official of a church, it has
only become prevelent in the last centuary or so. if you broaden it to include
" civil ceremonies" the last couple centuries. common law however has been
quite prevelent through out history and still is . IMO this practice is by far
the most important and lasting ( although not always) as it is two individuals
dedicating themselves to each other without the intervention of others.

marg6043, you don't know anything about the "real" meaning of sex! Sex is a benifit for ONLY a married husband and wife. PERIOD! Anything else is abuse of not only our bodies given to us by god, but it can create reprocussions for untold others as well. Too many people think of sex as a casual thing nowadays and that is truly sad. SEX SHOULD BE ONLY FOR A HUSBAND AND WIFE... PERIOD!

.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Tamahu]

When I first read the post I thought it concerned sexuality and religion, now it seems to be about sexuality and christianity, Im going to try to bring it back a bit.
In most religions sex IS only acceptable for married men and women, of course in some religions a man may have many wives and procreate with all of them. In some religions sex is only meant to be pleasurable for the man, this is enforced in one religion by removing the womans clitoris so that she is not stimulated by the activity, and in another religion by covering the womans face during intercourse.
Alternatly, before the native americans were westernized a woman could choose a man to live with her in her home, they would be considered a couple, but if the woman decided that she no longer wanted that man as a partner he must leave the home, and the children, and they were both free to choose other partners.
My personal beliefs about sex and religion is that religion makes sex far too complicated. I believe that we all have a concience and can decide weather or not its fair to ourselves and our prospective partner to engage in an act as personal as sexual intercourse. I dont think that we can let a book that was written 2000 years ago dictate our actions today either, humans and society has changed, our choices have changed as our priorities have changed, I think all we have to do is listen to that little inner voice of ours and we will be alright.

Alternatly, before the native americans were westernized a woman could choose a man to live with her in her home, they would be considered a couple, but if the woman decided that she no longer wanted that man as a partner he must leave the home

i think you will also find a tradition similar to this at the root of the Arthur,Lancelot,Guinevere, legends.

Originally posted by sublime4372

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....

right. sex should have no place in religon, so being a homosexual shouldn't really matter now should it?

.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Tamahu]

As far as homosexuality is concerned; it has nothing to do with belief. Whether you believe an anthroporphic god on a cloud somewhere accepts homosexuality or not; has no bearing on reality. What really 'matters' is the FACTS. Homosexual relations(whether of the body, mind or soul) cause the Kundalini to descend. To become enlightened we must eliminate the egos. To fully eliminate the egos, the Kundalini Serpents have to ASCEND. When they descend, the ego or the "me" is strengthened. When egos are present, suffering is inevitable(trust me; I have first hand experience of this).

I do not agree my freind. Homosexuality does not hinder ones ability to reach enlightenment, nor does it affect ones Kundalini. To act in a agressive hetrosexual behaviour is to act with ego, but ego is somewhat universal, in that ego is inherent in most aspects of life. To speak with such confidence is an act of ego, is it not Tamahu ? To declare that Homsexuality hinders Nibbana is an act of ego, is it not Tamahu ?

Deep

I just finished reading the book "Adam, Eve and the Serpent by Elaine Pagels. It is a very interesting book, especially the parts dealing with Augustine and his anti sexual feelings and his doctrine of original sin. I recommend it to anyone interested in the way Augustinian theology affected the church and how it still influences society even today.

Originally posted by Bleys
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 agree. We are completely desensitized to violence. The fact that violence is far more acceptable than sex (and by extention love) freightens me when I think about the future of this world. Religions often seem to see war and violence as a good thing (or in their earlier forms at least) while sex is still taboo. This doesn't mean I think we should all be having sex with anyone and everyone, just that we need to look at our priorities.

Throughout history various religions have taken various views of sexuality. Some religions have used sex as a sacrement employing temple prostitutes. The proper role of sexuality in our lives may be dictated by religion, but a study of how enduring societies have conducted themselves is more convincing.

Societies which place a high value on the family and its preservation have been the ones to flourish into what we call civilization. I do not believe that America currently has these values and I believe that we have placed a higher value on individual satisfaction over family strength. History is replete with the stories of the failure of societies with such values.

[edit on 04/8/3 by GradyPhilpott]

[edit on 04/8/3 by GradyPhilpott]