Why do most Religions say that sex is bad?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

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

Originally posted by The Old American
Religions don't teach that sex is bad. They teach that sexual immorality is bad. Engaging in sex for pleasure only, instead of for procreation, is a sin (according to religion), because sex was created for one reason: to propagate the species.

/TOA


That's B.S. read the Song of Solomon sometime. Also ponder why God gave women the female orgasm.

/facepalm




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules
I think 1984 explains it the best, get rid of the sex drive and people become angry war mongering freaks. It s all about control, emotional control and population control. The ruling class has always sought after population control.


Warriors like sex.
edit on 113030p://bWednesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Warriors like sex.
edit on 113030p://bWednesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



So do religious people
(contrary to popular belief!)
edit on 6-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 

BTW in none of my discussions with you am I trying to support the OP's assertions that religions say sex is bad. Only that the different cultural taboos aren't as fixed as the religions try to convince their followers they are.

Perhaps YOU need the taboo to stay in line and be responsible but I've got no unwanted children (none in fact), disease, or shattered homes on my resume and a small string of lovely people who I'm still friends with or even close with where we brighten each other's lives and even help each other progress spiritually.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by albertabound
 


I don't think we can attach an agenda to religion as a whole. While certainly it does seem than many major religions are in the business of controlling people's behavior fear is only one mechanism that helps this control function.

It's also not so much that sex is bad as it is the context of the sex is important within many religions. For instance the church I was raised in taught abstinence only, sex before marriage was wrong but once you got married sex, as long as it was with your spouse, was okay. There are even fringe fundamentalist groups who think that once your married sex and procreation are basically required of you by God.

Now personally I think it's a ridiculous notion that a God who has no gender and no sexuality would have to set rules for what human beings can and can't do in the bedroom. Maybe it would make sense if we were talking about Zeus, but then he's the kinda god who had no problem with getting a little action on the side



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 

BTW in none of my discussions with you am I trying to support the OP's assertions that religions say sex is bad. Only that the different cultural taboos aren't as fixed as the religions try to convince their followers they are.

Perhaps YOU need the taboo to stay in line and be responsible but I've got no unwanted children (none in fact), disease, or shattered homes on my resume and a small string of lovely people who I'm still friends with or even close with where we brighten each other's lives and even help each other progress spiritually.

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



while I am very happy for you that you are one of the exceedingly few in this world, I know the taboo, and used my rational mind to learn why that taboo might be in place, and decided I prefer to avoid any such possible complications. I do not need the taboo to be responsible, but the taboo helped me to reason out why it might be in place, and gave me the opportunity to decide in rational manner whether or not any of the known possibles were risks I was willing to take, and gave the opportunity to consider currently unknown risks as well.

I am good with living sex free (currently) and after marriage I will happily indulge in all the joys of sex, but that will be the right person, the right time and the right institution for myself.

That is all I was trying to convey. And I do not begrudge you your choices either. We all make choices, if we are all take sole responsibility in them this is all we can truly expect of one another.

It was a pleasure speaking to you.
edit on 6-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Nothing in the Bible says "sex is bad".
The Biblical emphasis is that "fidelity is good", and the distinction is between what happens within marriage and what happens outside marriage (adultery and fornication).
Admittedly the church picked up some "sex is bad, total abstinence is good" attitudes in the early days and never quite shook them off.
But these attitudes are non-Biblical, and I think their historical origin is that they were imported from the kind of the "body is bad" philosophies which were around at the time.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by albertabound
 

i can only speak from my own personal beliefs, but it isn't that sex is bad, it's just that one must be careful.

alot of damage can be done in a 10 minute act of passion. lets say the girl gets pregnant, then the couple breaks up and the child is left in a broken home with an uphill battle, or two young teens have sex a few times fall in love because of it, then get their hearts broken.

after all, eating is more biologically necessary than sex, but most would agree it is unhealthy (or even wrong) to go around eating everything you see all the time. it would lead to obesity and theft.

sexual acts aren't essentially wrong, but they tend to be misused and cause harm.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Usually people who rally against sex of any kind or specific kinds are hiding their own sexuality.

We see it many, many times where people who rally against homosexuality actually turn out to be gay themselves.

Catholic Priests rally against homosexuality and "Deviant" sex but in many cases are practiing these types of behaviours themselves.

Show me someone passionately homophobe, and I can say that sooner or later there will be a scandal involving them and a member of the same sex. Watch out for headlines re Rick Santorum as an example.

Larry Craig was another example. Rampantly homophobic, but got caught performing sexual acts in public with other men.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Nothing in the Bible says "sex is bad".


Incorrect, there are several references in The Bible to homosexuality being "immoral", and several references to sex not being used for pleasure alone.

Personally, I don't think we should be using a 2,000 year old collection of myths and bedtime stories as a basis for a major worldwide religion.

Just as a disclaimer, I am HEAVILY in favor of gay rights.
edit on 6-6-2012 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by albertabound
 


I don't think we can attach an agenda to religion as a whole. While certainly it does seem than many major religions are in the business of controlling people's behavior fear is only one mechanism that helps this control function.

It's also not so much that sex is bad as it is the context of the sex is important within many religions. For instance the church I was raised in taught abstinence only, sex before marriage was wrong but once you got married sex, as long as it was with your spouse, was okay. There are even fringe fundamentalist groups who think that once your married sex and procreation are basically required of you by God.

Now personally I think it's a ridiculous notion that a God who has no gender and no sexuality would have to set rules for what human beings can and can't do in the bedroom. Maybe it would make sense if we were talking about Zeus, but then he's the kinda god who had no problem with getting a little action on the side


So you are all for having teens and pre teens having babies and social diseases all over the place eeh?
Oh!, and instead of dropping the youngsters, babies off at mom's or gran ma's they can come by your place to live.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by albertabound
This really confuses me. Sex is not a "desire", it is a necessary biological function. There is a theory that celibacy, or at the very least, forced sexual limitation, causes Neurosis (can't find the link, will post later). This would definitely explain why there is so much Pedophilia in the Catholic Church. It would explain what would drive someone to commit a suicide bombing, light themselves on fire, etc. And the evidence isn't just in religious radicals - people who commit cruel, extreme crimes are, 9 times out of 10, sexually frustrated.

I know a few girls who some would refer to as "sluts", and they are the most open minded, kind people I know. Come on, people, anybody who has had sex (with someone you care about (does NOT have to be a relationship, it can be a friend, too) is one of the best, if not the best feelings on Earth). And the people who judge them are those who limit themselves sexually for the sake of not going to "hell" and other wise tales; they are the most judgmental people I have ever known, and there are a lot of them. And, I'm sorry, but most of them are religious, either full time or causally. I thought one of the fundamental aspects of Religion was not to judge others? Hmm.

Personally I think the agenda behind Religion is simple: scare people into not enjoying their lives. Keep them afraid of punishment from some above force, that may or may not exist, so they are always obedient and desirable, until we don't need them anymore.

What are your thoughts?


I come from the opposite spectrum of the OP, explained below.

The OP is loaded with disinformation.

"And the evidence isn't just in religious radicals - people who commit cruel, extreme crimes are, 9 times out of 10, sexually frustrated."

What evidence? You did not cite any evidence (for anything actually) and i have never heard that mentioned by anyone in serious, well thought out reporting. They may be less likely to be involved with someone in a steady, intimate relationship but even then i seriously doubt evidence proves this and, of course, you give no evidence. If there is some relationship there i have not seen one. In fact the overwhelming majority of criminals are sexually active and not celibate. Basically i am saying there is zero evidence that supports this contention.

"There is a theory that celibacy, or at the very least, forced sexual limitation, causes Neurosis (can't find the link, will post later). This would definitely explain why there is so much Pedophilia in the Catholic Church."

Reports and data I have seen on this actually shows celibate priests abusing at no different rate than anyone else and I have even read reports stating it is less common and studies actually seem to support the later. Unless you can show otherwise...Three seconds of google searching will show you this so i dont think posting links is necessary for this since all internet connection have google or another search engine. Do you search links? The reporting is so lopsided but then, my own estimate is over 90% of sexual abuse is not reported in the news or if it is it is a small story.

"I know a few girls who some would refer to as "sluts", and they are the most open minded, kind people I know. Come on, people, anybody who has had sex (with someone you care about (does NOT have to be a relationship, it can be a friend, too) is one of the best, if not the best feelings on Earth). And the people who judge them are those who limit themselves sexually for the sake of not going to "hell" and other wise tales; they are the most judgmental people I have ever known, and there are a lot of them. And, I'm sorry, but most of them are religious, either full time or causally. I thought one of the fundamental aspects of Religion was not to judge others? Hmm."

More misconceptions, but these are also common misconceptions. First of all, women are or can be no more "sluts" than men are or can be, so i dont think the distinction here is necessary, it is biased and wonder why you included it at all. Are you saying non-religious people dont think like that as well? Because i have seen numerous instances where they do...no religion necessary. For the record , I am not religious but i do have spiritual tendencies.

I think sex is so overrated that it is comical, the OP seems to think sex is the answer to everything.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 



Incorrect, there are several references in The Bible to homosexuality being "immoral", and several references to sex not being used for pleasure alone.

you sir are actually mistaken, or perhaps more misguided. homosexuality is considered a perversion of the natural order of things by christians and furthermore it only accounts for a portion of what can be considered sex.

there are no references in the bible that i know of which declare sex to be only about reproduction and i challenge you to provide these "several references" you speak of.

i have more gay friends than straight friends fyi. i don't judge them and i think if they want to get married it's fine by me but i don't think it's right.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
while I am very happy for you that you are one of the exceedingly few in this world, I know the taboo, and used my rational mind to learn why that taboo might be in place, and decided I prefer to avoid any such possible complications. I do not need the taboo to be responsible, but the taboo helped me to reason out why it might be in place, and gave me the opportunity to decide in rational manner whether or not any of the known possibles were risks I was willing to take, and gave the opportunity to consider currently unknown risks as well.

I am good with living sex free (currently) and after marriage I will happily indulge in all the joys of sex, but that will be the right person, the right time and the right institution for myself.

That is all I was trying to convey. And I do not begrudge you your choices either. We all make choices, if we are all take sole responsibility in them this is all we can truly expect of one another.

It was a pleasure speaking to you.

You may have uncovered the semantic bridge in our discussion.

The way you approached the taboo is actually spot on in my eyes.

I wish to remove it from being treated as a taboo, to where it's treated like choosing to go rock climbing without gear. Most people probably shouldn't do it (and won't in practice, especially not for very long). But a religion developing a taboo against free form rock climbing because of the potential negative outcomes (for those with families, etc) is something most of us I think would consider absurd. I know some may wish to treat them differently and that's fine... I can come up with another more applicable comparison if they wish.


It is good that different groups have different boundaries that everyone within the group agrees to, it goes off the rails for me when those boundaries are taught to people that they are firm rules to be obeyed as opposed to guidelines to learn from for more responsible behavior. We don't teach kids that you NEVER cross the street despite it being intensely dangerous... only that they understand what is involved and provide supervision until they are ready to handle it themselves. Taboos treated as rules never let the "kid" grow up.

You are one of the other exceptions who sees the taboo for what it really is... so we're both sides of the same coin I guess, haha.

And to share similarly... I'm starting to trend towards a marriage stage of life and would most likely be a purely monogamous relationship. But the door will still be open if the right person comes along that both me and my partner feel good about integrating into the intimate side of our lives as well as the friendly part. If it never happens, no worries.

Namaste and pleasure talking with you as well. /salute
edit on 2012/6/6 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 


Compare it to helmet laws, then.

Some bikers are against any kind of mandatory helmet law. And yet the odds are HIGH that not wearing one will cripple you for life, and cause you to be a drain on your family and society, even though you may personally eventually overcome the damage of the head injury.

Many states are repealing their helmet laws, for the sake of personal freedom. But only for riders above a certain age. The rationale is that a young rider may not fully grasp the risks of helmetless riding.

The same with bans (religious laws?) against extramarital sex. The danger to individuals and society as a whole was judged to outweigh the value of the freedom of saying "do whatever you want."

You could argue that the freedom of the few, the elite, is more valuable than avoiding pain for the weakest members of the group. You could say that the strongest need their freedom, even if we fail to protect the weak. But then, a community is trying to help as many of its members as possible, not just the elites who enjoy danger and fully understand the risks.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 

I appreciate the complexity of things like helmet laws and seatbelt laws.

The moment you get on a motorcyle or in a car even if you do wear a helmet or seatbelt, you still can wind up in that state. I wasn't even driving and was wearing my seatbelt and almost died and became a drain for a little while waiting for all the broken bones to heal.

We allow ourselves to drive motorcycles and cars knowing full well the potential danger. It's just a matter of deciding where we want to draw the cutoff line on *mandating* safety.

I believe the mandatory requirement of safety is actually harming it more than helping it because it creates a false sense of security in the individual... as well as creates a mindset in parents that they don't need to *really* teach their kids why wearing a seatbelt or helmet is smarter because "they have to do it anyways because it's the law".

If nobody else was responsible for the safety of yourself or your children... you take the responsibility much more seriously. If you don't... someone else around you who cares will. We have a wonderful safety net of education. People lived in exceedingly dangerous areas of the world for tens of thousands of years facing dangers more present than we do today... and they did it without laws. They did it by taking the responsibility of educating themselves and those they care about.

It's not an easy stance for most people to accept or see because we're so used to the way our culture does it... but just like our judicial system destroys justice... our safety *laws* actually harm safety in the long run despite the initial boost we see.

We're addicted to the boost of a momentary increase in safety like drug addicts and can't see the long term harm we are causing to our collective psyche and culture.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 

Engaging in sex for pleasure only, instead of for procreation, is a sin (according to religion), because sex was created for one reason: to propagate the species.

And as far as I'm aware, that's only a Catholic innovation, and not applicable to anything in the bible itself - other than by very creative interpretation, anyway.

Not sure where other faiths fall on the matter, offhand.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
no they don't.

I'm Catholic and I have like 10 aunts and 10 uncles with loads of cousins. My Preacher at church has 7 kids himself.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by albertabound
 

What religion says sex is bad? I assume this is a bash Christianity thread though.


What made you make that jump so quickly? So.... any negative comment about religion could only possibly be about your religion. How egocentric.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Religions don't teach that sex is bad. They teach that sexual immorality is bad. Engaging in sex for pleasure only, instead of for procreation, is a sin (according to religion), because sex was created for one reason: to propagate the species.

/TOA


Id have no problem with attempting to procreate every time I had sex if we all lived for 1,000 years and food and resources were bountiful. Sure, sex, and more offspring cuz were in heaven. That works.
edit on 6-6-2012 by LightWarrior11 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join