Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests When did sex become wrong?

holycowsvtpaul, we are completely aware of your disdain for for christanity and jesus christ specifically but what we don't know is wth this has to do with sex. what you want to prove is a whole other thread.

for anyone who wants to dismiss the rules of living set forth in the christan bible because of their disbelief in the bible this debate is over. there is nothing more to be said to you. screw whom ever you want whenever you want with impunity.

for those simply wanting to place blame look no further as i am here for you too. you can blame, george w bush, ronald reagan, republicans, concervatives, christanity, the bible, all organized religion, the wealthy, men, americans, california, the red states, the blue states, the media, the press, talk radio, the pope, all popes, mother teresa(sp?), prohibition, antiprostitution laws, drug laws, the u.n. and the kama sutra.

now that we have settled that...

for those of us who want to discuss the original question:

Originally posted by neelnug:

---

When did sex become evil, wrong, secretive, terrible, etc etc etc.

---

sex came under suspicion the moment there were enough humans to have differing opinions on what is right and wrong. over the years majority opinion has teetered toward one side or the other but there has always been basically two sides. currently you are seeing a slight wobble back towards "less open", for lack of a better phrase right now, since the janet jackson breast exposure at superbowl half time. religion, regarless of validity or authenticity, has alot to do with it. the bible in its various iterations promotes a happy active sex life between a husband and wife and abstinence when one is not married. the bible goes even further and tells of sex acts one should not engage in. people who follow the bible's teachings clearly fall in the "less open" view, but not all of them are prudes as american pop culture would have us believe. on the other side of the table we have people who think that an orgasm is by far not the worst thing one person and do to or give another and should be engaged in whenever two consenting people of appropriate age agree.

Originally posted by neelnug:

---

1)Why is everyone intent on shielding young people from it? 2)Why does the church make it sacred and evil if committed (yea like a crime) before marriage?

---

1)there are alot of reasons. many young people simply aren't emotionally ready for a sexual relationship. as adults we know what we are getting ourselves into, or we should anyways, whereas a teen simlply doesn't most of the time. the way we are teaching young people definately leaves something to be desired. alot of improvement is needed and it is the job of parents to do this teaching including but not limited to when, why, where, how, safety practices including abstinence, emotional consequences and physical consequences. and don't forget about sexual predators ranging from rapists, child molestors, and people looking to put another notch on the belt at any cost. as a parent it is your duty to protect your child and this is one of those areas. unfortunately there is a right way to protect young people as well as a wrong way.

2)sacred or a sin depends on the context. its kinda like racing being bad on the street but ok on the track. the commandments set forth rules to be followed and this is how masturbation comes into the evil camp. example, is it your wife or your neighbors wife you are thinking of? is there a medical reason for it like artificial insemination? religion puts forth a clearly defined set of rules by which we must live our lives. if you choose not to accept these rules then you can make up your own. you are always free to choose whatever you want. just remember there are consequences both good and bad for everything.

I find it interesting that many posters have dismissed holycowSVTpaul's posts without stating why.

People use evidence to build faith.

Why do you draw a distinction between faith in the spiritual and faith in the scientific?

A couple of thoughts: First, I think that it is typical yet shallow thinking for anyone to assume that just because one does not accept Christianity, organized religion, or embraces agnosticism or atheism that it means they are automatically void of any morality and integrity in life. My rejection of Christianity does not mean I advocate promiscuity. I think I laid out previously my code of conduct stating I personally choose "right" and "wrong" based upon the consequences of my actions and choices. I teach my children consequences, not belief in an "infalliable Bible".

Also, do not interpret my rejection for Christianity as disdain either. I accept diversity and I look at life and religion now with a more anthropological outlook. Hence, I can glean personal truths from Buddhists, Confusionists, Plato, Socrates or where ever. I can also cherry pick and reject what I determine not of any use.

Also, I want to take issue with the definition of "Faith". Faith in it's simplest form is nothing but mere belief. Admittedly faith does imply action. You believe something, exercise that faith and you are set into motion. Faith is NOT knowledge. They are on opposite sides of the spectrum. If you have knowledge, you do not have faith. If you have faith, you do not have knowlege---You have belief. I also accept that religious or not, there are many things we take on faith. I flip on a light switch, I believe it will turn on a light. That it has happened before is an example of an intellect-based faith. I turned it on in the past and the light came on so I believe it will do so again. An example of a faith-based intellect is where one discerns truth by feelings. Although I won't totally discredit personal intuition and good vibes, to say you believe based upon feelings only is an inferior standard in determining truth.

If you want to learn calculus, you believe you can first. You then are put into action and do the homework. At the end of the semester you have "learned" Calculus. Do you know just have faith in the subject or do you "know" the mechanics of the science? That's how faith works--Nothing mystical about it.

If faith is true, it must jive with the "facts". To believe in something facts nothwithstanding, that is an example of an emotional based faith-based intellect.

How this again, all relates to sexuality is because people inerrantly believe in an infailliable Bible. The fact that the Bible is no final appeal to authority is evidence by the many sects of Christianity out there. If the Bible were God's law, we should be stoning people for adultery. No wait, Jesus suddenly became more accepting.

And again, I repudate the thinking that without religion, there would be no morality. More genocide has been done in the name of religion than any other one cause.

how valid the bible is in not the question. go start another thread for that. the question is how does it effect how sex is view in todays society. how and why you reject the bible has nothing to do with that.