Why do most Religions say that sex is bad?

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by tovenar

Originally posted by albertabound
This really confuses me. Sex is not a "desire", it is a necessary biological function.


Don't make the freshman's mistake of confusing your own culture with biology.

There exists a people of the Amazon who employ shamans to protect their communities. They believe that one of the requirements for becoming a shaman is to abstain from orgasm for a year. More progress is made, until the candidate develops what Westerners would call "psychic powers."

Interestingly, the possessors of strange powers in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism were all known for practicing abstinence. The folks who could miraculously heal others, or know what is taking place at a great distance, or even seem to levitate off the ground while in a state of ecstacy---all of them practiced sexual self-denial.

What could that possibly mean?

I do think there are two steps though for those "trapped" in a cultural taboo that doesn't match their true inner self. Very few people will go from sexually repressed by their culture to a shaman/mystic. Part of the process is actually understanding the underlying sexuality honestly, which requires actually exploring said sexuality.

I agree with you that the current culture is setup to lead people towards exploring it somewhat... but also repressing it... creating a very difficult situation for someone to truly understand their own sexuality and how to direct that energy where they want. There are also mystic traditions where sexual interactions are not abstained from... but directed and focused. Storing and expressing the energy in other manners like healing in a non-sexual interaction is the same thing, just different "methods" of directing the energy available.

From my vantage it seems to be more about directing the energy than just abstinence from releasing the energy via sexuality.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/6/6 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Sex is a basic human function. If an organization can control your sex life, they control YOU.
It's all about control. And about procreation. (big numbers of followers).

Outbreeding the enemy - ATS thread



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
If sex is so bad, as many overtly religious people will have us believe, and God is so perfect, why did 'he' make it so enjoyable?......Or is it another one of his 'tests'?


There is not one thing "bad" about sex! Nor is it taught to be "bad"

It is taught that there is a time and a place for it, and times and places in which one should avoid it....

He made it enjoyable, because it is a beautiful thing within its proper context and institution.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
There's a thread here on ATS titled, ''Sex without love breeds hatred''. I honestly believe that.
May be of some help.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by tovenar

Originally posted by albertabound
This really confuses me. Sex is not a "desire", it is a necessary biological function.


Don't make the freshman's mistake of confusing your own culture with biology.

There exists a people of the Amazon who employ shamans to protect their communities. They believe that one of the requirements for becoming a shaman is to abstain from orgasm for a year. More progress is made, until the candidate develops what Westerners would call "psychic powers."

Interestingly, the possessors of strange powers in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism were all known for practicing abstinence. The folks who could miraculously heal others, or know what is taking place at a great distance, or even seem to levitate off the ground while in a state of ecstacy---all of them practiced sexual self-denial.

What could that possibly mean?


I take it to mean that there is a lot more to be said for the power of BELIEVING something to be true, rather than abstinence being a lightning rod of sorts for psychic abilities. Maybe it's true, but those powers are not exclusive to abstinent people.




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I'm not saying that sexual repression is unique to the religious, however, there does seem to be a disproportionate amount of sexual hang up's amongst the overtly religious and a tendency to want to impose their sexual morals upon other's.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

see that reply (last post of page 1) for a partial response to your post. we can continue after you tell me your thoughts on that particular post.
edit on 6-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
As to the first part, since these laws are based upon integrety and respect of persons 'affected' by the "no sex outside of marriage taboo" I am uncertain how you determine the rightfulness or wrongfulness of this particular taboo, compared to say murder. Sex outside of marriage is and can be very injurous to parties other than yourself, so in effect all you can say with certainty is that within yourself you have yet to see any "harm" from breaking this particular taboo as opposed to other possible injurous taboos, like that of murder.

It can also NOT be injurious... while trying to remain in a relationship structure that doesn't work for you will be the injurious act (eventually when the truth finally comes to a head).

There are people who thrive by having a partner outside of marriage and it strengthens their marriage to their partner. I'm uncertain how you determine the rightfulness or wrongfulness of this taboo for someone else. Only you known for you... and if you are honest with your partner and they are honest back... it will go where you both truly and naturally are.


Originally posted by OpinionatedB
We see daily in America the injuries to children, to families, to communities, and society at large caused by the regular breaking of this particular taboo, one which some appear to believe my tax dollars should be paying for the indulgences of others where concerns this particular taboo.

You are blaming the cart for the horse. Will elaborate more in the next part.


Originally posted by OpinionatedB
That said, it is not my business nor my concern what others do, so long as they do not expect me to pay for it, no matter how round about that way might be. I however, have the higher intelligence to understand, some taboos, although may appear at first glance not to cause any "harm", just might in fact be the most harmful of all acts, to everyone, not only those involved.

You actually have made it your business because you are taking the outcome in a highly repressed culture versus in a culture which is more honest and open about this so that people can figure out what works best for them. You haven't experienced that personally as far as I can tell, so you can't see how in fact the taboo is what is creating the very thing you are upset at. You are paying for your own resistance to TRULY allowing others to figure out for themselves by exploring their feelings and thoughts honestly.

The issues are created by not being able to deal with or discuss them honestly and having no outlet (for those still allowing themselves to be constrained by someone *else's* preferences).

The problem is people who truly aren't monogamous marrying people who are monogamous because they believe it's what they are "supposed" to do/be.

It is truly no different from trying to force someone who IS monogamous to not be monogamous. You will get equally destructive outcomes that you are worried about.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/6/6 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I'll post when and how I want, whilst ensuring to remain within T&C, and certainly not in accordance with you or anyone else's wishes.

If you choose to reply then that is entirely up to you - I have no problem either way.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 


I am blaming the cart for the horse? How so? Permiscuity causes disease to spread through communities, bastard children to be born which cannot be supported by the majority birthing them, marriages break up causing injury to existing children and families....This is not addressing the emotional damage that can be done in the degredation and constant relationship hopping involved.

I am placing blame exactly where it belongs. This is a very potentially injurous act, causing not only harm to those doing it, but to the rest of society. Not everyone will have these same results, but the ones not having results such as seen in the sexually 'open' and 'free' countries such as America, are very few and far between, to say the least.

Again, it has nothing to do with being monogomous or not monogomous, and has a great deal to do with how such things affect society and living in a manner that is best for society. Life is more than only you, everything you do has the tendancy to effect a great deal many people.

In your society what is best for society is not taken into consideration, I do get that, but you also cannot knock those societies who do take what is best for all into consideration, rather than only what you percieve as best for you as an individual.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I'll post when and how I want, whilst ensuring to remain within T&C, and certainly not in accordance with you or anyone else's wishes.

If you choose to reply then that is entirely up to you - I have no problem either way.


I apologize if you perhaps misunderstood my intentions. I thought much of how I might reply to you was addressed in that post, and thought that if you missed that post you might find something there as answer, and anything that was not spoken in that post made by me, could be addressed specifically.

sorry I did not explain myself well, I was not ordering you or commanding you, simply trying to speak, just did not do a very good job.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


No problems - and I too apologise for the less than polite nature of my response to you - I can be a cantankerous old misery guts at times.
A more polite request for clarification would have been more appropriate.
edit on 6/6/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 

I can be a cantankerous old misery guts at times.


As can we all


you are certainly not alone! I too have my moments!



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
I am blaming the cart for the horse? How so? Permiscuity...

This is where you are missing it. You are so conditioned to go straight from non-monogamy to promiscuity, disease, and bastard children.

Just because a person isn't monogamous doesn't mean they are promiscuous, diseased, or having unwanted children. That is caused by people not being responsible regardless of their monogamy or non-monogamy. The same thing as if they were irresponsible with hazardous waste.


Originally posted by OpinionatedB
In your society what is best for society is not taken into consideration, I do get that, but you also cannot knock those societies who do take what is best for all into consideration, rather than only what you percieve as best for you as an individual.

So if you as a monogamous person lived in a culture which required you to have 3 wives because the balance of men to women is 1/3... you would do this even if it caused you emotional distress and discomfort and ultimately led to you resenting two of the wives and leaving them broken and shattered?

I'm absolutely taking what is best for society into consideration, though I understand why you can't see it yet.

You are making an *assumption* about what is best for society based on a very limited data set. You aren't looking at the bigger picture and thinking about this from the perspective of if YOU were the one trapped in a society with taboos that don't work for you how you would feel.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/6/6 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Exactly. Religions say that sex is great and people should do it all the time.

What religion doesn't want you to do is have indiscriminate sex that confuses bloodlines. Religion wants to be able to track who was born from whom, and who owns what property and all that stuff, because religion wants to be able to keep track of who is in the club and who isn't so it knows who is getting into Heaven and who needs to be killed.

Most "Western" religions are all about us versus them. We're right and they're wrong. So they set up very strict rules about sex so they can control it all.

edit on 6-6-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I'm not religious but "whoring" around is something i despise. It should be with someone you like and will spend the life with. Not one-night stand and hook up from a club. Those are disgusting.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
I am blaming the cart for the horse? How so? Permiscuity...

This is where you are missing it. You are so conditioned to go straight from non-monogamy to promiscuity, disease, and bastard children.

Just because a person isn't monogamous doesn't mean they are promiscuous, diseased, or having unwanted children. That is caused by people not being responsible. The same thing as if they were irresponsible with hazardous waste.


Originally posted by OpinionatedB
In your society what is best for society is not taken into consideration, I do get that, but you also cannot knock those societies who do take what is best for all into consideration, rather than only what you percieve as best for you as an individual.

So if you as a monogamous person lived in a culture which required you to have 3 wives because the balance of men to women is 1/3... you would do this even if it caused you emotional distress and discomfort and ultimately led to you resenting two of the wives and leaving them broken and shattered?

I'm absolutely taking what is best for society into consideration, though I understand why you can't see it yet.

You are making an *assumption* about what is best for society based on a very limited data set. You aren't looking at the bigger picture and thinking about this from the perspective of if YOU were the one trapped in a society with taboos that don't work for you how you would feel.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/6/6 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)


My 'limited date set" is from these countries which see sexual promiscuity as being permissable, and even a good thing. As I said before, not all will have these same results, not every women who has sex outside of marriage will give birth to 5 children fathered by 5 men, none of whom are willing to claim said children nor provide their needs, (etc) but laws are in place because very few in all actuality have anything close to resembling common sense.

It is common sense in your mind not to commit murder, yet, not everyone is blessed by self same common sense as yourself therefore the country in which you live has a law in place telling you this is bad and that this is an illegal act. This is in place for those not as blessed with common sense as you.

The same goes with religious laws, certain laws are in place to tell people that some things can have horrible and far reaching consequences to those involved parties as well as to society at large. I make the concious decision that some of these consequences can possibly effect me, using my rational mind, even if I do not want them to, and that these potential consequences to self and society are injurous enough to make the decision to follow the laws regarding.

Kind of like speeding, it is illegal to speed, you may think to yourself speeding is not in and of itself harmful, therefore will use common sense when speeding. But someday you may find out those laws against speeding were in place for a very good reason, (reaction time to unknowns ahead etc) and may accidently kill someone as a result of thinking you know best what the laws should be, or that the laws should not pertain to you because of what you percieve as a higher intelligence.

In the end, it is to each his own, and religious people do not come to your door telling you not to have sex with whomever you please. But at the same time it would be wrong of you to think that religious laws have no purpose, because they do. Not everyone has common sense, most do not know all the possibles of each and every act nor the intelligence to think every single possible through before they make a decision, and then be the only one to carry the affect of the consequence to bear.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 

Being non-monogamous doesn't immediately become whoring around and one night stands. That's merely an option.

There are non-monogamous people who have their marriage, and then they have additional close intimate partner(s) (as can their spouse). It's cool if that doesn't work for you... but non-monogamous loving respectful relationships are totally possible and out there. You probably work with people doing it right now who you think are great people... they simply don't say it out loud due to all the people around them who can't help but judge something they aren't emotionally and mentally equipped to understand yet.

It's not an on-off switch from monogamy to destructive hedonism... despite organized dogmatic religion's attempts to paint everything in black/white.

Being irresponsible is being irresponsible. Whether it's with a car or your penis and vagina. Responsible non-monogamy is entirely possible.

Namaste.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by albertabound
 


What religions say that sex is bad? Do you mean fornication?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
My 'limited date set" is from these countries which see sexual promiscuity...

"promiscuity"

I'm sorry but you are clearly not seeing what I'm communicating, because otherwise you wouldn't even think to use that word in reference to what I'm discussing with you. You will find yourself on the flip side of your perspective someday, and I'm confident this conversation will be there in the back of your mind.

I understand the reason for having cultural boundaries, but I also understand how those boundaries need to deal with different people without keeping them as mental and emotional children who can never think for themselves.

Thank you for your time.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/6/6 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join