Why Does God Hate Sex?

[Kenny]

I think you are mixing socialism with communism/Marxism, there is a big difference.

There is... but many similarities.

 

[Kenny]

What baggage do public schools come with?

Fads, bullying, clicks, fights, troubled students that make it impossible for interested students to learn, having to learn at a slower pace because of the group when you could advance faster, kindergarten students throwing chairs at other students , (these are just a few of what the public teachers that I personally know that have mentioned to me of what they deal with)

just to name a few

 

[Trailblazer]

And no one is arguing any differently. The whole point of the thread is to find out why god hates sex outside the context of the missionary position within marriage.

As *sigh* I said in my OP

Sorry, I did not have time to read your entire OP.
I was never a Christian, so I did not know about the "missionary position " being the only way...
This sounds rather "limited..."
I never did missionary in all my 33 years of marriage.

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..​

Yup. and the question is, why has god constructed this "proper context" in the first place? Why does he hate these other forms of sexual expression? Why does he find semen so disgusting that if a man emits it he will be unclean until evening?

According to my beliefs, the Laws that are in the Bible have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. These OT Laws are ancient Laws... How can anyone think that they still apply to modern-day society? God sends new Messengers in every age to update the social teachings and Laws and establish a new religion. People are still following the Laws of the older religions because they have rejected the "new" Messenger of God and His teachings and Laws.

Why is sensuality so bad?

It is not bad, in its proper context, which is marriage.

What is so wrong with bestiality that' it's worthy of death?

It is probably not a good idea but it is not worthy of death... Again, these are ancient Laws that no longer apply to modern-day society.

Why is looking at someone with lust, adultery?

It is not a good idea but it is not the same as adultery...

Or divorcing one's wife, except for sexual immorality, and marrying another, adultery?

It is not adultery...

I'm not looking for answers to these questions, and probably wouldn't read them anyway. I'm merely putting them out here for your consideration of god's unreasonable hatred of sex related activities.

Why post the questions if you are not going to read the answers?

 

[Trailblazer]

As do I, which is why I find those Christian denominations that now accept homosexuality, as being hypocritical..

They are hypocritical, but they are just trying to go with the flow of traffic... Because Christianity is already losing many of its adherents they cannot afford to lose any more.

 

[Skwim]

Why post the questions if you are not going to read the answers?

As I said at the end of the post "I'm merely putting them out here for your consideration of god's unreasonable hatred of sex related activities." You say that some of these "are ancient Laws that no longer apply to modern-day society," but that isn't the message the Bible is sending. The Bible doesn't qualify any of these "laws" as outmoded in any respect, which indicates they are still alive and well.

.

 

[Gulo]

Really? You think humans cannot control their impulses? How pathetic! People are looking for excuses to feed their own weaknesses. Weak people should not breed more weak people.
Look around you......who are the ones with all the damaged kids?

Following God's laws is never a bad idea.....giving in to human fallibility is never a good idea.

"Go forth and multiply."?

The writers of the OT forgot to mention that one could multiply by 0, 1, 2...or even just through winning of hearts and minds. Without this mention, we have peoples trying to overpopulate.

 

[sojourner]

You say that some of these "are ancient Laws that no longer apply to modern-day society," but that isn't the message the Bible is sending. The Bible doesn't qualify any of these "laws" as outmoded in any respect, which indicates they are still alive and well.

This doesn’t make any sense. No document is going to post laws that are out of date.

They weren’t out of date when they were written. Additionally, it’s not like the Bible has been updated since the canon closed.

The Bible is a repository, not a living document.

 

[Skwim]

This doesn’t make any sense. No document is going to post laws that are out of date.

Well, quite a few Christian denominations and even some people here think the Bible does just that.

Additionally, it’s not like the Bible has been updated since the canon closed.

The printed page certainly has. Simply look at all the different versions that have been published in the last 75 years. And on top of this we have a myriad of interpretations designed to conform to specific theologies. However, for whatever reason, all of them seem to pretty much retain the same hatred god shows toward certain sexual activities. It's as if these Biblical scholars who have been assembling their new versions of the Bible kind of like god's hatred of sex.

.

 

[Trailblazer]

As I said at the end of the post "I'm merely putting them out here for your consideration of god's unreasonable hatred of sex related activities." You say that some of these "are ancient Laws that no longer apply to modern-day society," but that isn't the message the Bible is sending. The Bible doesn't qualify any of these "laws" as outmoded in any respect, which indicates they are still alive and well.

Of course the Bible is not going to qualify any of those Laws as outmoded because they were not outmoded when the Bible was written. The OT of the Bible was written and intended to apply to a given age in history (called a religious dispensation), and humanity was supposed to follow the OT of the Bible until the NT of the Bible was written... Then we were supposed to follow what was written in the NT because the NT superseded the OT since it came after the OT...

Then the Qur'an was revealed and we were supposed to follow what was written in the Qur'an because the Qur'an superseded the NT since it came after the NT...

Then the Writings of Baha’u’llah were revealed and we were supposed to follow what was written in the Writings of Baha’u’llah because the Writings of Baha’u’llah superseded the Qur’an since they came after the Qur’an...

This is called Progressive Revelation

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

The obvious reason why these Laws in the OT and the NT are alive and well is because the followers of the religions associated with the OT and NT have kept them alive and well, and nobody else seems to question them. That does not mean that they are alive and well in the eyes of God.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I disagree...

Sex cannot be "used" improperly?

Tell that to the 3 year old that was used for sex.

That is not sex, and it's about time everybody figured that out. Rape is not sex, either. Both are forms of violence, as is any non-consensual action taken against, and harming, another person. Stop labelling things that are not sex as if they were. Cutting off somebody's head isn't just another form of "cosmetic surgery" and nobody would ever call it such.

Tell that to the one who contracted a venereal disease.

Or caught a cold, or tuberculosis, or any of thousands of other infectious diseases, caught through innocuous and well-meaning contacts between innocent humans. If those things aren't in "God's plan," then those things should not exist, if everything that exists depends on God's creative nature.

 

[Deeje]

What if I told you that, based on both our interaction on this site and posts I have read of yours in various threads, I might seriously contemplate (within my opinion on the matter) lumping you into the category "weak people?" The difference between us being that I would always continue to recognize that such could be only my opinion, and that "weak people" may be something different for just about everyone - if a person entertains such a concept at all.

Hopefully I defined what I was referring to as "weakness". It was in the moral sense, if you read my post. It was referring to those who basically have the morals of alley cats, who produce children as an annoying side-effect of their unbridled sex lives, but who have no idea how to raise them. They fail to become responsible adults because they have never seen a living example of one. These children then go on to perpetuate that appalling cycle, and as a result we have generations of whole communities where police visits, drug raids and alcohol fuelled domestic violence are just part of everyday life. Should this be anyone's " normal"?

You, on the other hand, seem (by this comment) to feel that there is some objective reason to consider people "weak." Can you enlighten me as to where you came by such knowledge?

Observation and history. Have you not noticed this in your own country.....it's not confined to any one nation.....immorality is a global trend and its consequences don't seem to benefit anyone IMO. Even those who are educated and wealthy are suffering the consequences of their immoral choices. STD's are rampant, but not spoken about much....what's the point? There is no promotion of self-control anymore.....people want it all, and they want it now!....and to hell with the consequences.

Humanity suffers from many kinds of weakness.....but moral weakness is the most damaging to society in general. It kills families which form the foundations of any society. Isn't that becoming more obvious every day?

History repeats because humans fail to learn the lessons. The mighty Roman Empire was not conquered by a more powerful enemy....but fell due to its own moral collapse.

Who is paying attention?

 

[Kenny]

That is not sex, and it's about time everybody figured that out. Rape is not sex, either. Both are forms of violence, as is any non-consensual action taken against, and harming, another person. Stop labelling things that are not sex as if they were. Cutting off somebody's head isn't just another form of "cosmetic surgery" and nobody would ever call it such.

Yes... it is sex... as we said "improper sex".`

sexm- free dictionary.co,

n.1.
a. Sexual activity, especially sexual intercourse:

You can't redefine words for your convenience

Or caught a cold, or tuberculosis, or any of thousands of other infectious diseases, caught through innocuous and well-meaning contacts between innocent humans. If those things aren't in "God's plan," then those things should not exist, if everything that exists depends on God's creative nature.

This sounds like I was correct.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes... it is sex... as we said "improper sex".`

sexm- free dictionary.co,

n.1.
a. Sexual activity, especially sexual intercourse:

You can't redefine words for your convenience

Pure sophistry, drawing connections of your own convenience, for the purpose of confusion. And by the way, look up "intercourse," which essentially means communication or dealing between person. In exactly that way, I would not call theft "commerce," although it is yet another way of exchanging goods.

Theft is a violent act that resembles commerce, in that goods change hands, but it is non-consensual, and therefore it is never called trade, commerce, dealing, negotiating or any other word pertaining to such activities. And likewise, non-consensual activity looking a lot like sex is much more accurately described by calling it what it is -- molestation, personal violence, violation, rape, abuse...the list could go on.

Like I said, chopping somebody's arm off with a machete is not "surgery."

Or caught a cold, or tuberculosis, or any of thousands of other infectious diseases, caught through innocuous and well-meaning contacts between innocent humans. If those things aren't in "God's plan," then those things should not exist, if everything that exists depends on God's creative nature.

This sounds like I was correct.

Really? Are you reading correctly, 'cause I can't see how at all.

 

[Kenny]

Pure sophistry, drawing connections of your own convenience, for the purpose of confusion. And by the way, look up "intercourse," which essentially means communication or dealing between person. In exactly that way, I would not call theft "commerce," although it is yet another way of exchanging goods.

Theft is a violent act that resembles commerce, in that goods change hands, but it is non-consensual, and therefore it is never called trade, commerce, dealing, negotiating or any other word pertaining to such activities. And likewise, non-consensual activity looking a lot like sex is much more accurately described by calling it what it is -- molestation, personal violence, violation, rape, abuse...the list could go on.

Like I said, chopping somebody's arm off with a machete is not "surgery."

Really? Are you reading correctly, 'cause I can't see how at all.

Ummm.;.. no. Interestingly, you don't want to call fetus a baby because you want to be "exact".

Intercourse - Merriam-Webster
: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person

Still fits for the rape of a three year old... a "wrong" type of sex.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ummm.;.. no. Interestingly, you don't want to call fetus a baby because you want to be "exact".

Intercourse - Merriam-Webster
: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person

Still fits for the rape of a three year old... a "wrong" type of sex.

Ken, it is a frivolous exercise to play so much with words. Like statistics, or better, like Humpty Dumpty, you can make them mean whatever you want. I am a person with a deep love of language, a deep love of literature, poetry and added to that, science. Meaning is what's important to me, not wordplay.

You can, if you like...and many people do...try to rename fertilized egg, blastocyst, zygote or foetus "baby," but then what's the point of those other words? If you think you can haul any of those things out of the womb, start feeding them and dandle them on your knee, then be my guest and call them "baby." But the truth is, those early tries at making humans are -- quite a bit more than half the time -- naturally ditched (let's call it "aborted") with no human intervention at all. I will leave the question of "who's" intervention up to you, but I live in a world in which my words describe the reality that I know.

And if you really like to think of the genital abuse of a young child as "sex," please be my guest. For me, it will remain abuse, violence, rape, and many other malignant words. It will just not be sex. I can guarantee you this -- from having been there -- the victims of such transgressions will NOT perceive it as "sex." And therefore, I will never dignify it with that label.

 

[whirlingmerc]

.

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..

.

As Elizabeth Eliot once said... think of a wide river going through a narrow pass... the rivver is not less exciting because of the constraints, in fact it is more excepting with the rapids

God has constraints in part to help children be born and grow up in a more stable place
God also uses marriage as what John Piper calls 'a temporary parable of permanence' as it points
to the marriage supper of the lamb which lasts forever

A great deal of mental anguish happens when people are treated shallowly
and not to mention the over a billion inconenient preborns who were aborted

but Jesus sums it up
"because immorality is increased most people's love will grow cold"
interesting how that works

 

[Kenny]

Ken, it is a frivolous exercise to play so much with words. Like statistics, or better, like Humpty Dumpty, you can make them mean whatever you want. I am a person with a deep love of language, a deep love of literature, poetry and added to that, science. Meaning is what's important to me, not wordplay.

You can, if you like...and many people do...try to rename fertilized egg, blastocyst, zygote or foetus "baby," but then what's the point of those other words? If you think you can haul any of those things out of the womb, start feeding them and dandle them on your knee, then be my guest and call them "baby." But the truth is, those early tries at making humans are -- quite a bit more than half the time -- naturally ditched (let's call it "aborted") with no human intervention at all. I will leave the question of "who's" intervention up to you, but I live in a world in which my words describe the reality that I know.

And if you really like to think of the genital abuse of a young child as "sex," please be my guest. For me, it will remain abuse, violence, rape, and many other malignant words. It will just not be sex. I can guarantee you this -- from having been there -- the victims of such transgressions will NOT perceive it as "sex." And therefore, I will never dignify it with that label.

Ok... I'l stop quoting the dictionaries.

 

[sojourner]

Well, quite a few Christian denominations and even some people here think the Bible does just that.


The printed page certainly has. Simply look at all the different versions that have been published in the last 75 years. And on top of this we have a myriad of interpretations designed to conform to specific theologies. However, for whatever reason, all of them seem to pretty much retain the same hatred god shows toward certain sexual activities. It's as if these Biblical scholars who have been assembling their new versions of the Bible kind of like god's hatred of sex.

.

The problem is that some believe all information in the Bible to be equally relevant at all times. Interpretations are another matter. It is the interpretations and exegetical treatment that informs the relevancy, not the information proper.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok... I'l stop quoting the dictionaries.

Ken, dictionaries are fine, just as statistics are fine...just be sure to use them in the pursuit of knowledge and truth, not obfuscation and confusion and justification.

Edward Albee, a great American playwright, wrote a play call "American Dream," in which the character "Mommy" says to the characters "Daddy:"

“I have a right to live off of you because I married you, and because I used to let you get on top of me and bump your uglies; and I have a right to all your money when you die.”

Do you know what? I think Daddy may have been having sex, but clearly Mommy was not!

Or perhaps you might be more interested in something Oscar Wilde said: “Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.”

See what I mean? Words can be great fun, but if we really want to communicate, we have to be careful how we use, and not abuse, them.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

Jesus wasn't political, nor was he a social activist.
If you believe the Gospels then what He did in healing
was to demonstrate who He was.
As an aside - someone on the ABC in Australia made
a comment that none killed more people than Ghandi.
He was writing a book. I couldn't find anything on it,
but given the bias of the Internet that's not unusual.
I think this author might have referred to the period of
Ghandis govt when he had that back to traditional life
style thing - and people simply starved in their millions.
Don't know.