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.

 

The Jesus taboo: Sex.

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Wait...what? Your entire post makes great sense....except for this statement at the opening.
"Sex of course isn't an instinct"??


It isn't, instincts are fixed, inherent behaviours...sex, in practice, has to be learnt...


Instinct

1. Natural inward impulse; unconscious, involuntary, or unreasoning prompting to any mode of action, whether bodily, or mental, without a distinct apprehension of the end or object to be accomplished. An instinct is a propensity prior to experience, and independent of instructions. (Paley) An instinct is a blind tendency to some mode of action, independent of any consideration, on the part of the agent, of the end to which the action leads. (Whately) An instinct is an agent which performs blindly and ignorantly a work of intelligence and knowledge. (Sir W. Hamilton) By a divine instinct, men's minds mistrust Ensuing dangers. (Shak)

2. (Science: zoology) Specif, the natural, unreasoning, impulse by which an animal is guided to the performance of any action, without of improvement in the method. The resemblance between what originally was a habit, and an instinct becomes so close as not to be distinguished. (Darwin)

3. A natural aptitude or knack; a predilection; as, an instinct for order; to be modest by instinct.


www.biology-online.org...

In the above context, if sex were an instinct, a biological compulsion then it would be reasonable to accept, in defence, the rapists plee that they 'couldn't help it'.

The sex drive, or libido, unlike an instinct, is dependent on factors that occur, for the most part, after birth...


Libido refers to a person's sex drive or desire for sexual activity. The desire for sex is an aspect of a person's sexuality, but varies enormously from one person to another, and it also varies depending on circumstances at a particular time. Sex drive has usually biological, psychological, and social components. Biologically, levels of hormones such as testosterone are believed to affect sex drive; social factors, such as work and family, also have an impact; as do internal psychological factors, like personality and stress. Sex drive may be affected by medical conditions, medications, lifestyle and relationship issues. A person who has extremely frequent or a suddenly increased sex drive may be experiencing hypersexuality, but there is no measure of what is a healthy level for sex. Asexual people may lack any sexual desires.

A person may have a desire for sex but not have the opportunity to act on that desire, or may on personal, moral or religious reasons refrain from acting on the urge. Psychologically, a person's urge can be repressed or sublimated. On the other hand, a person can engage in sexual activity without an actual desire for it. Males reach the peak of their sex drive in their teens, while women reach it in their thirties.[1][2][3]


en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore, sexual expression while perhaps being attached to the altruistic instinct, or the need to bond with others of the same species, is not an inherent expression and therefore not an instinct. We do not need to have sex, we want to have sex. Nothing forces us, on a bio-chemical level in either direction, and more importantly, unless shown sex, we do not inherently know how to do it, it is dependent upon stimulus. Sex is almost entirely dependent upon examples set, and that applies to almost any mammalian group animals. We ofcourse live in a world where we are constantly assailed with sexual imagery and sexuality, so it is difficult to imagine a world without that stimulus, but if that stimulus is removed, or if two opposite sex children were kept in isolation from such imagery and examples, it is unlikely that they would ever consider sex, though they would, most likely, be physically intimate.

edit on 3-6-2012 by Biliverdin because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


No, you should really read it. It would clear up some of your misconceptions about the cognitive mind. Some things cannot be summarized, they need to be read AND understood.


'If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.'
Albert Einstein

I would rather not go to the trouble of reading it, only to find that I was replacing one set of misconceptions with another....Thanks anyway.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Sex is a desire of the flesh. All desires of the flesh have the same outcome. It does not matter what the desire is the flesh can never be satisfied. Jesus overcame the desires of the flesh, knowing the outcome was not fulfillment but an emptiness that would only be satisfied by chasing down the desire.

The problem is fulfillment of the flesh is an illusion. There is no way to fulfill the desires of the flesh; this is why Jesus says that if you even look at a woman in lust you have already committed adultery with your heart.

Man's logic look but don't touch. But what is the path that this leads to?

You look because a women is beautiful and looking satisfies the eyes. But are they satisfied, or do they want to look some more? So a look becomes a stare. Are you satisfied now? The stare becomes a desire? The desire becomes a flirt. The flirt becomes a touch. The touch becomes adultery.

But never are you satisfied. You will never find satisfaction in the flesh. For the satisfaction of the flesh is temporary and returns even greater than before.

Why would Jesus take this empty path?

If you do not believe in the God's one and only son you stand condemned already. What did you think this meant?

You can believe in men and go down a path that leads to death or you can believe in the words that Jesus spoke and take the narrow path that lead to life.

edit on 31-5-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)


Sex is not some mythical, majical desire, nor is it made of flesh..

Sex is an instinct. It is found in all living things, from the smallest microbial lifeforms to the largest mamals. the instinct to procriate with the healthiest, best looking, most powerful partners. it is mostly chemical and hormone based.

Sex, or the want for it is not a sin. it is a natural thing. Animals do it all the time and they do not have to be married, though some animals mate for life. I do not think there is anything in the ten commandments that says there should be no unmarried sex. "there shall be no adultery", means don't do someone elses wife, if your married, don't do someone else..

No rules that say don't have sex, sex is wrong, sex is evil.

Theese beliefs are from the bible, not the commandments. God wrote the commandments, men wrote the bible.
If god wanted no sex, he waould have made another commandment.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Ironclad
 


Instints are "desires of the flesh".



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What has that got to do with anything?

reply to post by Biliverdin
 

Yes, it is. Sex is an instinct.
Even infants experience sexual arousal. It is a basic instinct, and every normal human has sexual urges and desires. To say it is a purely learned behavior is ridiculous. I'm sorry, but no way. Can one survive without it? Sure. But one still has a biological, hormone-related, hardwired and undeniable chemistry that all human beings share.

Learning how to be a "good" or "desirable" sexual partner is learned. So are table manners. Eating is an instinct. So is sex. Table manners are NOT an instinct.

www.cs.indiana.edu...

Port's Instinct List
(April 9, 2000)

SUSTENANCE
1. eat and drink; seek food and water
2. seek sweet and fatty (nutritious) foods
3. avoid eating smelly or bitter things
4. be cautious about novel foods
5. seek better resources than presently available
6. seek neighborhoods that are green and flowery

SEX
7. be interested in girls or boys (usually of opposite sex)
8. seek sexual contact and excitement; "do the deed" - but in private and
not with your children or parents
9. love children and the cute (female more than male)
10. compete for resources (wealth, fame, etc.)
11. pair up; find longterm partners (female more than male)
12. compete for the best (and, for males, the most) partners (eg, show off, dress up)
13. be aggressive, use force to gain advantage (male more than female)


DEFENSE
...
SOCIALITY
....
KNOW/LEARN
...
TALK

www.brocku.ca...

List of Human Instincts.-- Waiving, then, the question of the order of appearance, we find the generally recognised instincts in man to be as follows: Fear, anger, shyness, curiosity, affection, sexual love, jealousy and envy, rivalry, sociability, sympathy, modesty ( ?), play, imitation, constructiveness, secretiveness, and acquisitiveness.


www.wanterfall.com...

Instinctive Wanting

In addition to learned wanting, we also have – whether we like it or not – some instinctive desires. There are various definitions for instinct, but they are all along the lines of an innate urge, tendency, behaviour or response which is typical of the species under consideration. From the point of view of the Wanterfall model, instinctive wanting is neither more nor less important than any other sort of wanting. But there are some differences in the way in which it presents.

A learned desire is usually no surprise to us, though it may sink into the mind to the extent that we become less aware of it over time. However, instinctive desires seem to have permeated all levels of the mind before we become aware of them. They can, therefore, easily take us by surprise – and sometimes seem quite overwhelming.....

For the purposes of these notes, I am going to suggest that the main human instincts are self-preservation, sex, family and society.


No benevolent God would create a being with innate and undeniable unconscious NEEDS only to then order it to be ignored, repressed, vilified, and denied, let alone condemn the healthful and appropriate practice of it. Absurd.
edit on 3-6-2012 by wildtimes because: activate color

edit on 3-6-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





No benevolent God would create a being with innate and undeniable unconscious NEEDS only to then order it to be ignored, repressed, vilified, and denied, let alone condemn the healthful and appropriate practice of it. Absurd.



I don't think he orders it ignored, only to be respected for what it was created for.

For those who want to serve others without the concerns of family , they are to rise above that natural instinct.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WhisperingWinds
 


Works for me. But the Roman Catholic Church (claiming to be the one true faith) orders it to be ignored. Big diff, no?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by WhisperingWinds
 


Works for me. But the Roman Catholic Church (claiming to be the one true faith) orders it to be ignored. Big diff, no?


I don't think they order it to be ignored, but if you are choosing to serve God without family, they ask that you rise above the temptations, and not "feed" that part of yourself, including masturbation.

I can understand your concerns with the repression, and I see the validity in your points,and I have questions myself. But at the same time , I can see where feeding sexual urges can also lead to wanting more.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


To the OP... Jesus was not like an average human who chased after wealth and women.

Jesus was no glutton, he did not hoard up wealth, he did not act to impress others.... he knew that his mission was from God.

What set him apart from the other people living in his time was the fact that he was focused on God and not the material world around him.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You don't believe its possible God provided him with one of the greatest blessings there is?

That being a mate...

I find it almost implausible to believe otherwise


edit on 3-6-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


Your loss, not mine



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Possibly. Thanks for pointing him out to me either way, I have been reading some of his essays online and he has a truly brilliant mind, however, I have not seen any evidence that he and I disagree on any fundamental points, and he seems to be quite clear that, at this point in time, we cannot explain the whole, though he does believe that eventually we will be able to. He is obviously far more intelligent than I am, and has a far deeper understanding of the technicalities, but other than that it is only terminology that seperates from what I am saying and what he is. While I use the term 'sapience' he uses the 'Bhodisavatta Mind'...same underlying principles though. I don't know whether you misunderstood his premise in the book that you cite or whether his perspective has changed in the 28 years since that book was published, but certainly his more recent work seems to suggest that while he is able to theorise possible explanations, that overall, we still do not know enough to fully comprehend being human. He's a great philisophical mind though.

On a slight side note, I came across this book review by Flanaghan, the review is by him, not the book...I do think that I will try and get hold of this book, sounds as though it is right up my street...

www.duke.edu...




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

All the sources that you have cited have used a disambiguation of the term ‘instinct’ based upon Freudian principles. Saying something is an instinct does not mean it is an instinct. While the term is somewhat flexible, it applies primarily to behaviours that are at least partially preprogrammed from birth, that are innate and largely inflexible. That is, behaviours which we are compelled to perform. We are not compelled to have sex, as I have already pointed out, sex is something that humans, particularly, want to do. No compulsion, unless, there is an accompanying mental malfunction, otherwise, every human being is equipped with the ability to use their intelligence to judge when or whether sexual activity is appropriate, therefore, it is not an instinct by definition. All the links that you supply are rather limited in perspective, and somewhat naively based upon outdated Freudian perceptions of instincts.

Infants do not become sexually aroused. Infant males frequently have partial-erections, but this is caused by pressure, from either the anal cavity being filled, or the flow of urine into the urethra, both of which can place pressure on the prostate causing a reflex. It is a purely physiological response. Similarly, both male and female infants may respond to the stimulation of the genitals, again, it is a physiological response to stimulus, not an instinctive one. As I have stated before, we learn about sex through observation and experimentation, part of that obviously involves touching ourselves and finding out what feels nice. We are highly sensual beings. Infants are not bound by the norms and values which society will later impose on them, so will explore what is pleasurable unabashedly, but that does not make their behaviour sexually motivated. Ask any uninitiated child where a baby comes from and not one will tell you it comes out of the mother’s vagina, or that it was conceived by a penis ejaculating into a vagina. As far as any child is concerned, the genitals are for urinating, and it does not cross their mind that they could have any other purpose. For those animals that are driven by a sexual instinct, they are pre-programmed with sexual knowledge, and most of those animals will begin, instinctively, ‘humping’ other group or family members in direct response to signals, both internal and from the environment. They don’t need anything explained, or shown to them, because it is instinct. And because it is instinctive, both parties are driven by the same, or corresponding signals. We choose our partners, and when, and how to have sex. The ability to choose and instinct seldom go together.

Nor do we at puberty, suddenly know how to have sex. We know that we enjoy sensory pleasure, and if properly approached and educated, we will derive the greatest sensory pleasure from sex, but we would not, if kept in isolation and not taught that the penis can be inserted into the vagina, necessarily reach that conclusion on our own, though through trial and error we may work it out, being, as we are, highly intelligent and highly inquisitive. But, that is because we are sensual and derive pleasure from our sensuality, not because sex is an instinct. Hormones serve the purpose of making our bodies ready for reproduction, again this is a physiological process, not an instinctive one and more particularly, in terms of instinctive behaviour, not an environmentally driven one. We may find certain people more attractive, and that attraction may result in sexual arousal, but we can control that arousal, which again, demonstrates that it is not instinct because we have a choice of whether to act on that attraction and arousal. Those operating by instinct do not.

In short, Freud, and other psychologists misused the term instinct and applied it to drives. Continuing with that disambiguation does not make it true. If you can use your intelligence to make a decision about something and it’s situational appropriateness then it is not an instinct. Very few human behaviours in fact can be called instinctive, because of the very fact, consistently, that we are capable of taking the decision to ignore them or over-ride them and instead employ rationale. That is one of the things that has made us so very, very successful.

That said, I do believe that as sensual beings, physical intimacy, or the need for physical intimacy is highly important to our well-being, both emotionally and physically. Encouraging sensuality from birth and tactile stimulation has been proven to improve brain development and intelligence, and those children that receive physical affection are more likely to grow up to be confident and well balanced adults. While sexual intimacy is perfectly healthy, or can be, it is not the be all and end all of physical intimacy, and it is entirely possible to have a healthy sensual relationship with others without it even entering one’s mind. It is important in general, but with sexuality in particular, not to judge others by one’s own standards. Some people do not like sex, some like it more than others, for some it is painful or even impossible, but that does not mean that they cannot enjoy their sensuality in other ways. One way another, it is not an instinct, and sexuality can be entirely controlled if one chooses.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by WhisperingWinds
 


Works for me. But the Roman Catholic Church (claiming to be the one true faith) orders it to be ignored. Big diff, no?


Like most of their rules they invent them. Nowhere in the Bible does it say men are to be celebate. In fact it says the opposite. Find a wife, be fruitful and multiply, and its better to marry than to burn with lust, etc.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You don't believe its possible God provided him with one of the greatest blessings there is?

That being a mate...

I find it almost implausible to believe otherwise


edit on 3-6-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)


Not one wife, His Father provided His Son with millions. Every saved person who ever lived. We are the bride od Christ, He is the bridegroom.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


Nice essay.
One can choose not to eat, also, and die of anorexia. You dismiss the sources provided as though you are superior to them; they are current (or very recent) publications from academic institututions.

You have provided no sources to back up your own claims, nor your credentials.

I am not simply spewing "antiquated Freudian psychology." FYI, I am a credentialed expert in these matters, and have been honored to present such materials at national conferences dealing with the human brain, human development, and human behavior in its many contexts. I keep up with the current scientific research, and I am not one to bow down to long paragraphs of un-supported hypotheses.

Sex is as instinctive for us as it is for flies and birds and elephants. You have not, and will not, convince me otherwise. Any "drive" or "impulse" can be overriden with enough concentration. But your 'theory' suggests that the amygdala is an organ that has no effect on human behavior, and that is simply not true.

I am uninterested in being drawn in to a one-sided debate; you have offered nothing but a semantic discussion of what human beings are. You seem to be inferring that autonomous functions of the organs, such as seeing, heartbeat, breathing, swallowing, etc. are "instincts". Not so. They are part of the machine that keeps us alive and require no thought at all. We do not feel the "need" or "drive" to beat our hearts. That is the biological function of our bodies.

An instinct is a built-in response -- such as fight or flight; we can learn to control it, but we cannot simply "turn it off". It will still be there.

Sex is an innate drive that is present from birth in all normally-developed human beings, just as it is in other mammals. Because we have "will-power" to deny that instinct, that drive, does not mean it is not there.

You do not say whether or not you are a parent (let alone what other authority you have to make these broad-brush and unsubstantiated claims), either. I have given birth to two healthy, normal children. I have worked with dozens of newborns, infants, toddlers, children and youth. I know that when I was about to give birth, I was compelled to "clean", to "nest" and "prepare a place" for my coming child. THAT IS AN INSTINCT. Was I able to choose not to engage in "nesting" behavior? Yes. Would I have known how to do it without being "taught"?

Absolutely. A child does know that stimulation of the genitals is pleasurable. Every human being at some point discovers those sensations. A young child will not understand the genital response until they do reach puberty, and that is appropriate and has to do with BRAIN DEVELOPMENT stages. But every pubescent human experiences those hormones that drive us to be sexually active, and even the most sheltered and artificially "repressed" human beings, given the opportunity with a member of the other gender, WILL figure out how it works. It is a natural and normal as inserting food into the mouth rather than the ear. No amount of talking changes that.

Your arguments are empty.
End of chat.
edit on 4-6-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You don't believe its possible God provided him with one of the greatest blessings there is?

That being a mate...

I find it almost implausible to believe otherwise


edit on 3-6-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)


Not one wife, His Father provided His Son with millions. Every saved person who ever lived. We are the bride od Christ, He is the bridegroom.


That is SOOOO not what i meant... or close to the same




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   


Sex is an innate drive that is present from birth in all normally-developed human beings, just as it is in other mammals. Because we have "will-power" to deny that instinct, that drive, does not mean it is not there.
reply to post by wildtimes
 


From birth?

I think you are stretching it by saying small babies have an innate sexual drive. They may feel pleasure at touch, but I hardly think that qualifies as "sexual drive".




Your arguments are empty. End of chat.


I thought she presented some very good information.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
to all the Christians, serious question, was Mary implanted by a fetus or sperm. Is Christ half human no human.

Thanks

P



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
to all the Christians, serious question, was Mary implanted by a fetus or sperm. Is Christ half human no human.

Thanks

P


1. Neither, the Holy Spirit.

2. 100% Man. And 100% Son of God as well.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join