Why Does God Hate Sex?

[PruePhillip]

I didn't advocate destroying all old versions. They can remain, but introduce a new version without contradictions, decrying slavery, saying homosexuality's ok, stoning children for joking isn't good, etc., etc.

Then it would be respected as the "bible" anymore. Just another contemporary liberal text.
ps the bible is quite clear about homosexuality, as it is about adultery, jealousy, envy, pride, personal philosophies etc..

 

[Kenny]

You are free to accept or reject whatever you please. If you don't believe in the Bible...that is your prerogative. I don't see anyone forcing you to do anything against your will...do you?



Oh, it is indeed an inconvenient truth.....most people think it, but it is incredibly non-PC to say it. But lets face the reality.....children learn what they live. It is a rare thing for children raised by those with weak or non-existent morals to hold any moral values in any area of life.

Its not OK for drug addicted parents to raise their children (often born drug addicted themselves) with such an appalling example and not expect them to turn out the same way. What do we mean when we speak of "weakness"? We are talking about people with no self-control....those who just go with their urges and inconveniently produce children who never know what a father is...what a real family is...what it means to even have values, let alone live them. Do you see merit in perpetuating this ridiculous cycle of dead end lives which are a drain on society and add no value to the lives of others? Do you see any merit in allowing weak-minded individuals to impact on the lives of others who just want to be able to walk the streets at night in safety?
Is that too much to hope for? Has society worked out a way to cope with their increasing numbers? Is the situation ever going to get better...if so, tell us how.




Just a race of people with some moral values would be nice...its all God ever wanted. He endowed humans with a moral sense and a conscience.....we seem to have lost both. Has it made the world a better place?

I see God's direct intervention to be the only real solution. I believe it will come, ready or not, and fix this mess caused by those who reject his moral laws and most of his other laws as well. You may reject that idea, but it makes no difference to my beliefs.

If not for the work of the Cross!!! And the word of God taking root into the hearts of people.

I find this video, though acted, to hold many truths.

 

[Altfish]

Then it would be respected as the "bible" anymore. Just another contemporary liberal text.
ps the bible is quite clear about homosexuality, as it is about adultery, jealousy, envy, pride, personal philosophies etc..

'Liberal' !!!! Abolishing slavery is a liberal matter

I thought Jesus was a socialist who cared for the poor and hungry. When did Christians become capitalists!!

 

[Kenny]

I just don't see it as reason enough for god to ALSO declare it an abominable sin that will keep them out of heaven, and whom he will "surely put to death." Thing is, If I was god and worried enough about the consequential diseases that could occur from homosexual relations that I felt it necessary to scare people from sharing their mutual affection, I'd simply eradicate the diseases. But maybe the Christian god just hasn't seen the light.

that would be like saying "I got a stomach ache for eating too much, if God would simple eliminate stomach aches".

 

[Kenny]

'Liberal' !!!! Abolishing slavery is a liberal matter

I thought Jesus was a socialist who cared for the poor and hungry. When did Christians become capitalists!!

Yes, he cared for the poor and hungry... but a socialist? He also said "you have poor always" so "don't complain that she broke a costly alabaster box and used it on me instead of selling it and giving it to the poor" (modern version)

 

[sealchan]

.

Excerpted from an interesting blog by Steve Mason in the Huffington Post

"Sex is funny in that you can live without it, but not without paying a mental/physical price. It’s a simple pleasure that grows all out of proportion when it’s denied. If Mother Nature were allowed to have her way, this would be a far better place. And who’s behind all the brouhaha? God? Actually, it’s religion.

In order to run a successful religion, you need to follow just one rule: Have more members coming in than going out. One way to achieve this is by gaining control of their sex lives. Try to think of a religion that doesn’t have anything to say about sex. Get a grip on that one single, chemically driven aspect of life and you will have a stranglehold on your flock. The more they try to avoid it, the more they’re going to be drawn to it, and the more they’re going to feel like sinners, and the more they’re going to need you to save them. Tell people sucking lemons is evil and they won’t suck lemons and they won’t need you. Tell people sex is evil and you’ll have them stuck in a revolving door.

Now here’s the rub and the real reason I get so provoked by people who have been bamboozled into believing that copulation without at least 50 strings attached is anything but normal human behavior. The truth is that violence seems to be inversely proportional to the availability of sex. Remember generations of coaches who told the team to avoid love so they’d be full of hate for the big game? Look at riots in the street and what do you see? Mostly young, testosterone-filled males throwing bricks. Look at guys flying planes into buildings. Would they do it if it weren’t for the 79 virgins? And why do you suppose there’s such a premium on virgins? The male’s lack of experience leads to a lack of confidence, and that, in turn, leads to a raging fury against experience and confidence — so let’s find someone with neither. The weird part is that so many terrorists truly believe America is swimming in sex. If they only knew that it gets so much attention only because there’s so little action.

British comedian Eddie Izzard does a very funny and very insightful routine that involves God laying down the laws of mating. The dogs are told to do it doggie-style. The dogs go away happy. The cats are also told to do it doggie-style. The cats aren’t really happy about that, but when are cats really happy about anything? The salmon are told about swimming upstream, struggling over dams and crashing into rocks only to die at the end. Bummer. And finally, the humans are told they can do it pretty much anyway they like — as long as they feel guilty. So I get comments from obviously guilty readers telling me how scary sex really is and providing laundry lists of things that can go wrong while rolling in the hay. That God ever invented sex in the first place was clearly a mistake, so they create caveats that will at least make it as unpleasant as possible.

However, if anything, it’s a lack of sex that can be deadly. The British Medical Journal reported on a long-term study of nearly 1,000 men between the ages of 45 and 59. In our culture of scary sex, it’s perhaps not too surprising that the findings have not received the attention they deserve. You see, the data showed that the amount of sexual activity enjoyed by a man is directly proportional to both his health and longevity. Men who reported twice as much sex were half as likely to die prematurely.
source

​

Thoughts?

Mine is a question. If god's attitude toward sex is truly not a concoction of religious leaders, but his very own, then what is his problem with it? According to the Bible god doesn't like prostitutes, homosexuality, bestiality, consensual adultery (all adultery is bad), marrying a divorced woman, premarital sex, lust, sensuality, semen, etc. etc..

.

Sex is a God given appetite and like all appetites it should be controlled through a diet of satisfaction. The fact that many religions speak against masturbation seems to me like shooting ones self in the foot and utterly failing to have common sense. The fear of sex I imagine is a man's fear of a women who might then rule over him and that is a deep fear in a patriarchal society. That fear has also strongly guided the hand of the authors of Genesis as they drew from local stories and put the role of women into some comically limited contexts.

I think that since sex is a biologically intimate act, that two partners should have mutual trust and a willingness to follow through with any results thereof. But since there are ways to avoid pregnancy and disease, I think that while sex should most commonly occur in marriage, it need not be entirely exclusive to marriage. God's will can act in ways that take impregnation out of wedlock and produce one of the worlds most famous people...His Son!

 

[PruePhillip]

'Liberal' !!!! Abolishing slavery is a liberal matter

I thought Jesus was a socialist who cared for the poor and hungry. When did Christians become capitalists!!

Jesus never gave a cent/farthing/kopec/mina to the poor.
He spoke of the "poor in spirit."
Those attracted to the Gospel were poor, middle class or rich.
Some rich loved Jesus, some poor were too proud.
Rich included the Centurion, Levi, Paul, Martha and Mary, Nicodemus,
some Pharisees and perhaps John and James (who had a business.)
Not sure what you think "Capitalist" is, but the bible praises effort, study
and business.
Not sure what you think "socialist" means, but in its Marxist variant it
would have been despised for its materialistic, atheistic and power hungry
nature.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, he cared for the poor and hungry... but a socialist? He also said "you have poor always" so "don't complain that she broke a costly alabaster box and used it on me instead of selling it and giving it to the poor" (modern version)

I reckon the cost of that alabaster would have been about $65,000.
These two women weren't poor.

 

[Altfish]

Yes, he cared for the poor and hungry... but a socialist? He also said "you have poor always" so "don't complain that she broke a costly alabaster box and used it on me instead of selling it and giving it to the poor" (modern version)

Jesus never gave a cent/farthing/kopec/mina to the poor.
He spoke of the "poor in spirit."
Those attracted to the Gospel were poor, middle class or rich.
Some rich loved Jesus, some poor were too proud.
Rich included the Centurion, Levi, Paul, Martha and Mary, Nicodemus,
some Pharisees and perhaps John and James (who had a business.)
Not sure what you think "Capitalist" is, but the bible praises effort, study
and business.
Not sure what you think "socialist" means, but in its Marxist variant it
would have been despised for its materialistic, atheistic and power hungry
nature.

What about the 'eye of a needle' story/parable?
Socialism isn't Marxism - socialism is left of centre, Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Healthcare for all, safety nets for those struggling, fair taxes for. It doesn't stop capitalism, just the greedy and selfish side of capitalism.

Anyway, you've taught me something JC was a capitalist who hates socialism and gave nothing to the poor and needy.

How come he is seen as such a good example, Ghandi was a much better person.

 

[Kenny]

Jesus never gave a cent/farthing/kopec/mina to the poor.

Agreeing with almost everything, but don't you think that he fulfilled God's commandment to not forget the poor?

 

[Kenny]

What about the 'eye of a needle' story/parable?
Socialism isn't Marxism - socialism is left of centre, Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Healthcare for all, safety nets for those struggling, fair taxes for. It doesn't stop capitalism, just the greedy and selfish side of capitalism.

Anyway, you've taught me something JC was a capitalist who hates socialism and gave nothing to the poor and needy.

How come he is seen as such a good example, Ghandi was a much better person.

Nice way to twist everything. Is that customary for you? Or just happen to be a one time error.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus in the Gospels, or Jesus in Revelation's message to the seven churches?

So the messages are different?
Interesting..........

 

[Sanzbir]

Here's a thought, is advocating for moderation the same thing as hating a thing??

If you bring up the health risks of obesity and promote eating in moderation, no one makes the absurd claim that you "hate food". But if you bring up the idea of sexuality in moderation, oh then you hate sex.

consensual adultery (all adultery is bad)

Well, from an social evolutionary perspective, if you think all adultery isn't bad, then why has almost every human society decided, often independent of one another, that adultery is bad?? If you want to make the claim that adultery isn't bad, you need to address that question in some manner.

I think we tend to forget, now that we have safer sex technology, how terrible STDs were in past eras. If you caught syphillis you got to watch your genitals and face rot off your body as you went gradually insane. If you cheated on your partner you risked exposing both yourself and your partner to flesh-rotting insanity. Of course, before we understood disease we had no true idea of this risk.

Thus every culture has evolved to create a stigma against adultery. Because if everyone is paired off into groups of sexual partners, many sexually transmitted diseases can't spread except through infidelity. It's almost a quarantine system.

A tribe that has a social stigma against adultery can weather an STD outbreak, whereas a single person with an STD can wipe out an entire tribe that does not have such a stigma. Thus basic "survival of the fittest" has favored societies in which adultery is stigmatized. The societies that failed to stigmatize it died. For this same reason cultures were able to come up with some means of basic, rudimentary, hygiene without having the slightest understanding of germ theory.

If you don't think adultery is a bad thing, you must give your alternative explanation for why almost every human society disagrees with you, and why they each developed that same idea independent of one another.

 

[Altfish]

Nice way to twist everything. Is that customary for you? Or just happen to be a one time error.

Not sure what you are on about??

 

[Ponder This]

Hmm, according to Genesis 1:28, God says, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it." It sounds like a mandate to have a lot of sex. Don't be satisfied until the entire Earth is populated.

Should we be having less sex now that the Earth is starting to fill up?

 

[Thinking Homer]

Hmm, according to Genesis 1:28, God says, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it." It sounds like a mandate to have a lot of sex. Don't be satisfied until the entire Earth is populated.

Should we be having less sex now that the Earth is starting to fill up?

Lol.. I used that verse earlier just to make the distinction that God does allow sex (God does not hate sex according to the Judeo-Christian worldview), but there are moral boundaries around it. There is no problem in having sex as long as it is done in moderation...

Leaving religion aside, overpopulation is a real issue and I strongly advocate on using contraceptives to reduce unwanted pregnancies and potential abortions.

 

[Kenny]

Not sure what you are on about??

The comment I made was that Jesus wasn't a "socialist". I didn't say he wasn't interested in helping the poor so I don't understand where you were coming from

 

[Altfish]

The comment I made was that Jesus wasn't a "socialist". I didn't say he wasn't interested in helping the poor so I don't understand where you were coming from

To me, socialism is about helping the less well off, by fair taxing, free healthcare for all, free education, etc.
From what I was taught about Jesus at school, I'd have said that Jesus was a socialist.

 

[Skwim]

that would be like saying "I got a stomach ache for eating too much, if God would simple eliminate stomach aches".

Fine, people would realize that having homosexual sex is detrimental to their health and would hopefully discontinue it, but on top of this looming outcome god sees fit to add to their misery by keeping people from heaven and having them killed. It's like throwing gasoline on a burning house.

.

 

[Kenny]

To me, socialism is about helping the less well off, by fair taxing, free healthcare for all, free education, etc.
From what I was taught about Jesus at school, I'd have said that Jesus was a socialist.

OK... Yes, that is socialism. Not sure what they taught you about Jesus as I am no privy to that info.

Compassion does the same thing but isn't socialism because it isn't done by taxing... Without obligation (taxing) Zacchaeous gave half his money to the poor. Jesus didn't require him to give more nor did he say "do it next year".

The commandment is simply "don't forget the poor".

The problem with taxes, IMO, is that those who have more simply say "I've already paid my taxes so forget the poor" which isn't what Jesus said.