Religion and Sex

In his Word our Creator—Jehovah God tells us to “flee from fornication.” (1 Corinthians 6:18) The Greek word translated “fornication” is not restricted to sexual intercourse but includes a variety of lewd acts. In the original Hebrew, the word for “intercourse” included other acts besides normal man/woman intercourse. (Genesis 19:5)
The Bible exhorts Christians to flee not only from fornication itself but also from all forms of unclean conduct that could lead to it (Colossians 3:5). Sex out side of marriage is nothing more than the “temporary enjoyment of sin.” (Hebrews 11:25) It can cause lasting physical, emotional, and spiritual harm. King David’s sexual sin endangered his friendship with God and nearly led to his spiritual ruin. (Psalm 51) And while David recovered spiritually, he suffered the consequences of his sin for the rest of his life.
Sexual desires can be particularly strong during “the bloom of youth.” (1 Corinthians 7:36) In fact, teenagers may experience sudden sexual arousal for no seeming reason. But this is not something wicked. It is a normal part of the development of the reproductive system.
It is also true that Jehovah designed sexual relations to be pleasurable. This was in harmony with his original purpose for humans to populate the earth. (Genesis 1:28) Nevertheless, God never intended for us to misuse our procreative powers. “Each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor,” says the Bible. (1 Thessalonians 4:4) To act upon every sexual desire would be, in a sense, as foolish as hitting someone each time you felt anger.
Sexual relations are a gift from God, a gift that is to be enjoyed at the appropriate time—when one is married. A person engaging in premarital sex is abusing the gift that God has provided.
Learn to control sexual feelings. Remember that “Jehovah himself will not hold back anything good from those walking in faultlessness.” (Psalm 84:11)
Exercising self-control may not be easy but as it leaves one with a clean conscience and a good relationship with Jehovah, free to focus on the more important things, with no guilt or remorse for past actions.”—Psalm 16:11.

http://OnlinePharmacyUSA.US Acyclovir USA Online Pharmacy US

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ google search

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ google search

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ earth google

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ earth google

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ love poem

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ love poem

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ phone numbers

I've been in the ministry for 25 years and for most of that time I thought that preaching rightousness and the need to live a Godly life was effectively dealing with such evils as the raping and molesting of children. But the reality is that all too often offenders sit in the pews and even stand in the pulpit feeling justified and clean. Jude 4 (niv) states that they are using the grace of God as a license to commit immorality! This is not referring to a sinning believer who makes an honest confession and turns away from their sin with a sense of true brokeness. This verse is talking about someone who takes the beautiful grace of God and uses it to excuse this filthy ,damaging and criminal behavior!
I fear that unless we as believers wake up and start taking a stand to root this evil out of the church, that we are on the brink of disaster. I fear that we will become a church without morals, faith or the power of God. If we cannot find the heart and conviction to deal with this sin then we are little more than a hollow religion. My wife and I both grew up in church attended christian schools and graduated from Bible colege...never once did we hear a message that addressed the issue of sexual abuse in the church! Let's remember what God said in IIChron. 7:14 "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and heal their land." We can pray for God to heal our land till we're blue in the face, but until we turn from our wicked ways don't expect God to answer! visit our website
http://speakingtruthinlove.org
Dale

I've been in the ministry for 25 years and for most of that time I thought that preaching rightousness and the need to live a Godly life was effectively dealing with such evils as the raping and molesting of children. But the reality is that all too often offenders sit in the pews and even stand in the pulpit feeling justified and clean. Jude 4 (niv) states that they are using the grace of God as a license to commit immorality! This is not referring to a sinning believer who makes an honest confession and turns away from their sin with a sense of true brokeness. This verse is talking about someone who takes the beautiful grace of God and uses it to excuse this filthy ,damaging and criminal behavior!
I fear that unless we as believers wake up and start taking a stand to root this evil out of the church, that we are on the brink of disaster. I fear that we will become a church without morals, faith or the power of God. If we cannot find the heart and conviction to deal with this sin then we are little more than a hollow religion. My wife and I both grew up in church attended christian schools and graduated from Bible colege...never once did we hear a message that addressed the issue of sexual abuse in the church! Let's remember what God said in IIChron. 7:14 "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and heal their land." We can pray for God to heal our land till we're blue in the face, but until we turn from our wicked ways don't expect God to answer! visit our website
http://speakingtruthinlove.org
Dale

It’s not about plain sex which only serve the purpose, like you eat when you feel hungry.

It’s about sexual rights upon each other. YOU CAN EAT, BUT CAN'T STEEL......STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELA.

Does every body know the difference?
I guess yes?

But is every single soul who become in control is JUST & FARE??? How could we make sure?????

How could we prevail justice and fareness?
THE ANSWER IS, ONLY BY FOLLOWING & "IMPLEMENTING" FARE AND JUST RULES "IN SEXUAL RELATIONS AS WELL".

I can understand that my comments will hurt the DEVILS (SEX PROMOTERS IN GENERAL MEDIA AND WESTERN SOCIETY, TRADERS, PERVERTS & HIDDEN SUPPORTERS (RULERS IN THE WHOLE WEST) FOR THERE OWN CRIMINAL INTENSIONS).

FOR THEM EVERY THING GOES AND OKAY UNTIL THERE DAUGHTER IS SAFE ! (ONLY in front of there eyes....)

My beloved is mine and I am his, by night on my bed I sought him whom I love

But I found him not, in his absence I console myself with the fact that we belong to each other

In comparison to all others, there is none with his voice or with his touch

The taste of his lips is better than any wine; his love is like no other

My heart loves him as strong as flames of fire that many waters cannot quench

I will love him, I will be faithful to him, and we will know enduring love for a lifetime

As long as we live and have our being in a world of duality we will encounter opposites such as good and bad. Sex itself is neither good nor bad...it just is what it is.

Sex serves a purpose until it is no longer needed.

May Allah guide us all to the right path, Ameen!

Mut'a initially was allowed for very very short period in the beginning of Islam when people were newly reverting. To have open lawful relation and not the secret, lying, manipulated hidden one (adultery & fornication). But later VERY SOON FORBIDDEN CLEARLY as mentioned in on record Sahi Hadiths.

In Shia sect it is still accepted by very small number of "Mujtahidins".

It is important to mention that how Shia sect came into being and what is the difference between main stream Muslims and Shia Muslims.

Shia sect was founded by Abdullah bin Saba (a Jewish convert hypocrite). ( Like Molis in Christianity).

His points of propagations were:

1- Only Hazrat Ali (r.a) was the rightful Caliph and Imam of Muslim Ummah and not the first 3 Caliphs. Because he was the direct descendent of Prophets Family. There Grandfather was same and he married to Prophets daughter. And variously quoted hadith, "Prophet (PBUH) said, I'm Knowledge and Ali (r.a) is gate to the knowledge".
2- The Imamat and Chilapht will only be transferred to Prophets Family as in case of previous prophets.

Due to his evil propagation against teachings of Islam, first he was expelled from the city by the Governor of Baghdad, and then expelled form Basra. And then he hides and settled in the city of Kofa and made it his center of activities.

Clearly he was propagating against the teachings of Islam and Prophet (PBUH). EVEN HAZRAT ALI (r.a) HIMSELF WHEN HE BECAME CALIPH ORDERED HIS DEATH, BECAUSE HE WAS CREATING "FITNA" AMONG MUSLIMS.

But main stream Muslims always respected Shia’s because the foundation and BASIC RELIGION IS SAME THAT IS BASED ON “QUR’AN AND SUNNAH ONLY”.

AS EVERY MUSLIM KNOWS :
–i- Ijtahad, -ii- Fiqah –iii- Tafseer -iv- Fatwa –v- Sharia (Islamic Law) etc ARE NOT RELIGION.
THEY ARE ONLY EXPLATIONS AND ELOBORATIONS. AND AT ANY TIME IF PROVEN CONTRADICTING TO RELIGION CAN BECOME NULL AND VOID.

The main stream Muslims always refuted Shia’s by quoting following:

- If previous 3 Caliph’s were not right then Hazrat Ali (r.a.) had never taken “Baat” on them (Voted in their favor himself, even after few days in case of first Caliph). As ALL Prophets and even rightful disciples or people never bowed in front of falsehood or lie. Hazrat Ali’s (r.a.) baat it self is proving MAIN SHIA BELIEVE WRONG. Because after Prophet (PBUH) Shia’s believes in Ali (r.a.).
- In the absence of Prophet (PBUH), Hazrat Abu Bakar (r.a) first Caliph use to take the place of Imamat in Namaz (prayer). Once somebody else tried but Prophet (PBUH) stopped the person and according to Sahi Hadith said after me Abu Bakar (r.a.) is the only rightful person for Amamat.
- Prophet (PBUH) also said about second Caliph- Sahi Hadith, “I’m the seal of Prophet’s, none after me will be coming, but if there could any, it would be Omer (r.a)”.

SURLY Abdullah Bin Saba (the Jew convert) was a HYPOCRATE who introduced Shia Sect among Muslims and also introduced and continued so many other forbidden practices in Shia’s like Mut’a.

Mut'a initially was allowed for very very short period in the beginning of Islam when people were newly reverting. To have open lawful relation and not the secret, lying, manipulated hidden one (adultery & fornication). But later VERY SOON FORBIDDEN CLEARLY as mentioned in on record Sahi Hadiths.

In Shia sect it is still accepted by very small number of "Mujtahidins".

It is important to mention that how Shia sect came into being and what is the difference between main stream Muslims and Shia Muslims.

Shia sect was founded by Abdullah bin Saba (a Jewish convert hypocrite). ( Like Molis in Christianity).

His points of propagations were:

1- Only Hazrat Ali (r.a) was the rightful Caliph and Imam of Muslim Ummah and not the first 3 Caliphs. Because he was the direct descendent of Prophets Family. There Grandfather was same and he married to Prophets daughter. And variously quoted hadith, "Prophet (PBUH) said, I'm Knowledge and Ali (r.a) is gate to the knowledge".
2- The Imamat and Chilapht will only be transferred to Prophets Family as in case of previous prophets.

Due to his evil propagation against teachings of Islam, first he was expelled from the city by the Governor of Baghdad, and then expelled form Basra. And then he hides and settled in the city of Kofa and made it his center of activities.

Clearly he was propagating against the teachings of Islam and Prophet (PBUH). EVEN HAZRAT ALI (r.a) HIMSELF WHEN HE BECAME CALIPH ORDERED HIS DEATH, BECAUSE HE WAS CREATING "FITNA" AMONG MUSLIMS.

But main stream Muslims always respected Shia’s because the foundation and BASIC RELIGION IS SAME THAT IS BASED ON “QUR’AN AND SUNNAH ONLY”.

AS EVERY MUSLIM KNOWS :
–i- Ijtahad, -ii- Fiqah –iii- Tafseer -iv- Fatwa –v- Sharia (Islamic Law) etc ARE NOT RELIGION.
THEY ARE ONLY EXPLATIONS AND ELOBORATIONS. AND AT ANY TIME IF PROVEN CONTRADICTING TO RELIGION CAN BECOME NULL AND VOID.

The main stream Muslims always refuted Shia’s by quoting following:

- If previous 3 Caliph’s were not right then Hazrat Ali (r.a.) had never taken “Baat” on them (Voted in their favor himself, even after few days in case of first Caliph). As ALL Prophets and even rightful disciples or people never bowed in front of falsehood or lie. Hazrat Ali’s (r.a.) baat it self is proving MAIN SHIA BELIEVE WRONG. Because after Prophet (PBUH) Shia’s believes in Ali (r.a.).
- In the absence of Prophet (PBUH), Hazrat Abu Bakar (r.a) first Caliph use to take the place of Imamat in Namaz (prayer). Once somebody else tried but Prophet (PBUH) stopped the person and according to Sahi Hadith said after me Abu Bakar (r.a.) is the only rightful person for Amamat.
- Prophet (PBUH) also said about second Caliph- Sahi Hadith, “I’m the seal of Prophet’s, none after me will be coming, but if there could any, it would be Omer (r.a)”.

SURLY Abdullah Bin Saba (the Jew convert) was a HYPOCRATE who introduced Shia Sect among Muslims and also introduced and continued so many other forbidden practices in Shia’s like Mut’a.

Mut'a initially was allowed for very very short period in the beginning of Islam when people were newly reverting. To have open lawful relation and not the secret, lying, manipulated hidden one (adultery & fornication). But later VERY SOON FORBIDDEN CLEARLY as mentioned in on record Sahi Hadiths.

In Shia sect it is still accepted by very small number of "Mujtahidins".

It is important to mention that how Shia sect came into being and what is the difference between main stream Muslims and Shia Muslims.

Shia sect was founded by Abdullah bin Saba (a Jewish convert hypocrite). ( Like Molis in Christianity).

His points of propagations were:

1- Only Hazrat Ali (r.a) was the rightful Caliph and Imam of Muslim Ummah and not the first 3 Caliphs. Because he was the direct descendent of Prophets Family. There Grandfather was same and he married to Prophets daughter. And variously quoted hadith, "Prophet (PBUH) said, I'm Knowledge and Ali (r.a) is gate to the knowledge".
2- The Imamat and Chilapht will only be transferred to Prophets Family as in case of previous prophets.

Due to his evil propagation against teachings of Islam, first he was expelled from the city by the Governor of Baghdad, and then expelled form Basra. And then he hides and settled in the city of Kofa and made it his center of activities.

Clearly he was propagating against the teachings of Islam and Prophet (PBUH). EVEN HAZRAT ALI (r.a) HIMSELF WHEN HE BECAME CALIPH ORDERED HIS DEATH, BECAUSE HE WAS CREATING "FITNA" AMONG MUSLIMS.

But main stream Muslims always respected Shia’s because the foundation and BASIC RELIGION IS SAME THAT IS BASED ON “QUR’AN AND SUNNAH ONLY”.

AS EVERY MUSLIM KNOWS :
–i- Ijtahad, -ii- Fiqah –iii- Tafseer -iv- Fatwa –v- Sharia (Islamic Law) etc ARE NOT RELIGION.
THEY ARE ONLY EXPLATIONS AND ELOBORATIONS. AND AT ANY TIME IF PROVEN CONTRADICTING TO RELIGION CAN BECOME NULL AND VOID.

The main stream Muslims always refuted Shia’s by quoting following:

- If previous 3 Caliph’s were not right then Hazrat Ali (r.a.) had never taken “Baat” on them (Voted in their favor himself, even after few days in case of first Caliph). As ALL Prophets and even rightful disciples or people never bowed in front of falsehood or lie. Hazrat Ali’s (r.a.) baat it self is proving MAIN SHIA BELIEVE WRONG. Because after Prophet (PBUH) Shia’s believes in Ali (r.a.).
- In the absence of Prophet (PBUH), Hazrat Abu Bakar (r.a) first Caliph use to take the place of Imamat in Namaz (prayer). Once somebody else tried but Prophet (PBUH) stopped the person and according to Sahi Hadith said after me Abu Bakar (r.a.) is the only rightful person for Amamat.
- Prophet (PBUH) also said about second Caliph- Sahi Hadith, “I’m the seal of Prophet’s, none after me will be coming, but if there could any, it would be Omer (r.a)”.

SURLY Abdullah Bin Saba (the Jew convert) was a HYPOCRATE who introduced Shia Sect among Muslims and also introduced and continued so many other forbidden practices in Shia’s like Mut’a.

Without prescription pharmacy http://rxwithoutprescription.com/

mrs ahmed must be quite the radiant one

Mrs. Merriot-
Thank you for your research and your enthusiasm. I find it remarkably hypocritical that those who would demand that children be taught about how to have (safe) sex, would complain that,as a society, and not a dictatorship- we cannot also give children the tools and self- esteem necessary and teach them how NOT to have sex!

If people dont want a social more shoved down the throat of children, that includes their own!

And offering only one possibility to a child or young person is the same as telling them this is what all of society accepts as normal- when ALL of society does not- yet ALL of society pays the price-

INDOCTRINATION IS INDOCTRINATION

Your figures speak for themselves.
There is nothing wrong with offering a child a CHOICE-
and abstinece is the best choice for young people.

Not everyone in America comes from a well educated confortable middle class background where such "accidents" as unplanned pregancies and STD's and even AIDS can be absorbed into their health plans and bank accounts.

Most of the young people you are speaking about are in poverty loops- and decisions need to be made that take them into account and how this affects their lives.

As you noted, prison stats, fatherless homes, lack of education opportunity, health care...

But the reactionary response seems to be from those who are only worried about how this will affect their own freedom, without caring about how this affects the freedoms of the most vulnerable memebers of our society.

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from social responsibility to all people.
And teaching irresponsible sexual "freedom" to young people is an abdication of our duties as adults to teach our children well.

God bless you

Free prescription FedEx overnight shipping pills

Trust God making sex such fun. Most even pronounce His name during this act. Is there a message in this? I mean if we abstained we would be extinct. So, why provide such an act for pro-creation and load it with sooo much pleasure and then punish us for even contemplating it!

Its like opening the box of lollies to a child and asking him not to touch it. Such a cruel act.

I say have it and enjoy it between loving couples. And no cheating please, we are British!
They say it also increases endomorphines which puts a smile on the face with a rosy cheek. Trust God making it also good for us. Like eating chocolate and not getting fat.

Have fun 3x/day.

To ALL you atheists,
PLEASE read the following letter sent to Senator Obama--on the individual and societal devastation -particularly to blacks since we accepted the liberal godless view that human sexuality that one can choose to engage in with any sexual partner or many partners, male or female, with NO boundaries as long as it makes me feel good-which has permeated our T.V., movies, C.D's and culture--read the devastation --we have MILLIONS dead/injured from this godless version--maybe it's time to return to the mutual monogamous IDEAL of traditional MARRIAGE_-it worked for MOST societies for over 4000 years-here is the letter:

have been blessed for the last 8 years to direct youth to the healthy, responsible MORAL directive of abstinence education-which has only been funded under Title V since 1996-- which is now being attacked by SIECUS and others who want to continue the FAILED low expectation of comprehensive sex-ed which is LARGLEY how to continue the HARMFUL behavior of sexual behavior, -as long as they use condoms.
I have done much research as a nurse practitioner and an abstinence educator for the last 8 years, and was honored to write a chapter in a social ethics text which details the HIGH disparities in social ills like rates of poverty, rates of STD‘s, abortion rates, as well as the devastation to youth in fatherless homes-with increased rates of criminal behavior, drug and alcohol abuse, school drop out rates, and other devastation like emotional rates of depression and suicide rates, I hope you agree that directing ALL American youth to the HIGH expectation of abstinence education is the conservative IDEAL that would greatly reduce all of these ills --teaching ALL youth to abstain from not only drugs, alcohol and smoking, but especially sexual activity as there are MANY more negative consequences related to that ONE behavioral choice!
I believe it is time for ALL citizens who believe these statistics are UNACCEPTABLE, and begin to intervene to see how we can GREATLY reduce the rates of these sad statistics particularly for blacks and minorities which suffer with higher rates as a percentage of the population:

Sadly, blacks have higher rates as a percentage of the population-13%--of ALL of these social ills, BUT other statistics from the CDC state that they engage in these behaviors in higher rates--THUS more devastation. But, we have seen GREAT reductions-25% in teen pregnancy, and related 30% drop in child poverty, since we began funding Title V abstinence education in 1997,-BUT have not seen that GREAT news in the media-! Also, if we KNOW that so many social ills are linked to ONE behavior-- why wouldn't we invest MANY more dollars to be spent for that healthy, responsible directives?


Blacks account for 12-13% of the U.S. population--yet they have higher numbers as a percentage of their race in ALL of the following social ills:

POVERTY-The #1 group trapped in poverty are single female -headed
households--NO marriage--blacks have a 70% out--of-wedlock birth rate--THUS MORE POVERTY--CHOOSING to engage in sex before marriage is the causal factor!

STD's --Blacks have higher numbers of ALL STD's -not just HIV/AIDS--which in
some areas they account for 50% of the new cases--but also for Herpes,
Chlamydia, Gonorrhea..and others,.-we KNOW that STD's are LARGELY spread by CHOICES to engage in sex outside of MARRIAGE!

CRIME--WE KNOW that blacks have higher rates of criminal behavior AND on
more black victims--we also know that 70% of the men in prison came from
homes with NO fathers--NO marriage--thus NO positive role model--people
CHOOSING to engage in sex outside of MARRIAGE-and then abandon their
responsibility!

ABORTION--We know that since 1973-Roe v. Wade that 45 million unborn babies
have been KILLED in legal abortion--BUT 1/3rd of those-15 million-- were
black and Planned Parenthood-et.al. sets up more inner city abortion clinics
targeting blacks--that is GENOCIDE ! that citizens SADLY ignore!

*******My research from the CDC states that black youth engage in sex at younger ages and with more partners than their peers--THUS-more of ALL of these devastating numbers!




NOW for the solution--conservatives have funded and want to expand abstinence until MARRIAGE funding so that ALL youth will understand the consequences of that behavior -teach them how NOT to get STD's -or end up in poverty as a single mom or have to CHOOSE to KILL her baby in abortion. Also we would like to teach young men-why they need to exercise self-control and wait, and commit to the mom in MARRIAGE-that it is healthy for the child to grow up with a father and a mother and have a better chance of NOT engaging in criminal behavior and other negative behaviors!

I have a tape of some politicians from C-Span who say it is "unrealistic" to teach some youth abstinence--isn't that soft bigotry of LOW expectation--that blacks CANNOT
be taught self-control like their white peers-- I believe that IT IS RACIST to not teach
them the HIGH standard of abstinence AND we have studies which state black
youth do abstain after this healthy, responsible, MORAL directive of abstinence
education!


SO--I hope we will begin to challenge those who say they want less poverty, less crime, less STD's, less abortion -to join with conservatives and DEMAND abstinence education for ALL youth--so that we can GREATLY reduce these sad statistics-especially for blacks!

I also want to include the devastation from emotional effects of pre-marital sex like
increased rates of depression and suicide, loss of self-esteem and MANY
other emotional crisis that we spend MILLIONS on counseling!

***I am personally volunteering to come anywhere in the U.S. to show you a summary of the 2 hour presentation that we give to our students, and I KNOW that you will agree that ALL American youth are entitled to this HEALTHY, RESPONSBLE, MORAL directive, instead of the irresponsible, unhealthy, 30 year-old failed directive of “Just use your condom education“ which has as described in Chapter 3 of our Catholic Social Ethics text has HARMED so many!

Lastly, I am sending you correspondence with the Dep. Sec of O.P.A. and many other state and federal authorities concerning Title X federally-funded family planning clinics which are NOT reporting under-aged statutory rape victims, and are instead handing them condoms/birth control with OUR tax dollars allowing these ILLEGAL relationships to be subsidized--this is a CRIME and these are victims of crime and should be reported so that their rapist partners can be jailed--PLEASE read the letters and imagine if this was your child that did not get reported--PLEASE assemble a Senate panel to examine this policy and put an end to under-aged minors not being protected.



I PRAY that you will prayerfully consider looking at the UNBELIEVABLE individual and societal costs to enabling our youth to continue to engage in the one behavioral CHOICE that causes all of these social ills--AND challenge them with the FACTS and with the solution--which is to direct ALL American youth to the healthy, responsible, directive of abstinence until MARRIAGE! I hope that after reading the correspondence on the issue of Title X clinics handing condoms/birth control to under-aged minors, that you agree that under-aged minors who visit clinics should be reported and their ILLEGAL relationships ended - and the rapist partner should be put in jail and you will cut off funding for Title X if these violations continue.
I know you are busy, but IF you read this material, I think as you head into this presidential race, you can use this information to inform ALL Americans that you are the PRO-LIFE, PRO-ABSTINENCE and PRO-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE candidate--and that these conservative ideals are the solution to greatly reduce poverty, rates of STD’s and many other social ills, that intact families with concerned mothers and fathers make healthy societies. I will PRAY for you and your family daily!

GOD BLESS-US-EVERYONE!

Ret. Major Laura Merriott
-a PROUD abstinence educator
814 835-0249
5235 Wolf Rd. Erie, Pa. 16505

I would be honored for you to call me @ 814 835-0249 so that I may mail you and/or I would be glad to show you a presentation of how to direct youth to this HEALTHY, RESPONSIBLE, MORAL directive!

I strongly advise cohabitation before marriage. If I had lived with my first husband before we married, I could have saved myself a lot of money and pain (both physical and emotional) by simply moving out instead of the hassle and expense of divorcing the s-o-b.
It's important to know if you can actually llive cheek-by-jowl with another person before legally binding yourself to them. And it's important to know if you are capable of physically satisfying each other.

Of course, if you re-look at the statistics with a stricter use of the word 'Christian' (weeding out the liberals, those who call themselves evangelicals but only attend church on Christmas and Easter, and other 'non-committed' sorts) those stats change VERY SIGNIFICANTLY. There's a clear distinction between the divorce rates of Bible believer, regular church attenders (true-believers, let's call'em) and the surrounding culture.

"C S Lewis, a deeply committed Christian, made the best case for divorce in certain circumstances, assuring serious Christians that Jesus is a God of compassion and mercy who forgives human beings."

If you have ever been to a Christian wedding, you know that marriage is a big deal. You have the priest or minister standing with the couple reading from the Bible and praying. The ceremony takes place in a church -- the house of God. Dozens or hundreds of witnesses are on hand. In front of God, a representative of God and all of these witnesses, a couple declares that they will wed "til death do us part."

The Christian faith also puts a very, very large stigma on divorce. For example, in Matthew 5:32 Jesus says:

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

In Matthew 19:9, Jesus repeats that sentiment:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Adultery is a major problem in the Christian faith. First, one of the commandments in the Ten Commandments specifically forbids adultery. Even worse, in Leviticus 20 we find this:

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

Adulterers get the death penalty. Clearly, God and Jesus want Christians to stay married for life.

So let's review. When a Christian couple gets married, we have all of these forces that should be working to keep them married:

1. The marriage is performed in God's presence...
2. ...in God's house...
3. ...in front of God's representative (a minister or priest)...
4. ...and in front of many Christian witnesses.
5. The couple presumably prays before and after the wedding for a good marriage...
6. ...as do all of the witnesses...
7. ...and the minister/priest.
8. The couple knows that if they divorce/remarry, it is an act of adultery...
9. ...which God has forbidden...
10. ...and which the Bible says is punishable by death.

And don't forget this important line from the ceremony:

What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

Now think about this. God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe. If God puts something together, shouldn't it be impossible to break it? Isn't that what "all-powerful" means?

Given all of this, and given the fact that an all-powerful, prayer-answering God is supposedly looking over the lives of a Christian couple, guiding them in the spirit and so on, what would you expect the divorce rate for Christians to be? Clearly, the Christian divorce rate should be zero.

But when we look at the divorce statistics of American couples, and compare Christian vs. non-Christian divorce rates, we find this strange statistic: divorce rates among Christians match those among the rest of the population. It does not matter whether the couple is Christian or not.

According to this article, "'While it may be alarming to discover that born-again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time,' said George Barna, president of Barna Research Group." There are a millions ways to crunch the data, but no matter how you slice it, it is easy to see that Christians divorce just as often as non-Christians.

The reason for the high divorce rate among Christians is easy to see: God is imaginary.

scmiyphr mgfvubpah rkxhlc zshwdij yosquabh thuc hdonqly

scmiyphr mgfvubpah rkxhlc zshwdij yosquabh thuc hdonqly

scmiyphr mgfvubpah rkxhlc zshwdij yosquabh thuc hdonqly

scmiyphr mgfvubpah rkxhlc zshwdij yosquabh thuc hdonqly

I think this was a really good post that makes more sense than most, so I am re-posting it. I'm tired of reading so many posts of people who think to rationalize is to be wise. I can find reasons why pre-marital sex could be good, but that doesn't mean that there aren't answers that are so much better out there...or that they're even morally right at all. Anyone can rationalize.

This comment was from Soja John...

"Tips: The five authors who stand out in my mind (now)who helped shape my values on sexuality are:

1. C S Lewis - His essay on sexuality is a very down to earth and rational discussion of the subject.

2. D H Lawrence - The prologue in his book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is really an insightful essay on sexuality.

3. Erich Fromm - His book "The Art of Loving" discusses sexuality from an evolutionary point of view and provides a broader context for describing different kinds of love. He points out to the fact that the lower down an animal is on the evolutionary scale, the less differentiated is its sex pattern. The difference he points out is that animals act only in accordance with their instinct and their need without excesses but human beings don't: Animals have mating seasons, they don't think about sex all the time as humans do; the species of animals that bond, bond predictably without the need to try out several relationships like some humans do; for an animal sex is just sex and it behaves in a predictable fashion in accordance with its instinct, whereas in humans, sex is associated with all sorts of other emotions both good and bad, among the less honourable - an ego trip, an expression of power, a tool for manipulation etc.

4. Carl Rogers - His book "My needs, Your Needs, Our needs". He emphasizes why it is vitally important to reserve our first sexual experience, to an emotionally meaningful relationship. Once we get used to the idea of having sex without any emotional attachment, the harder it gets to associate emotions with sex. The Buddhists call it, "Using the other human being as a toilet."

5. Patrick Carnes - "Don't call it love". Carnes has done very important work on sexual addiction. For those who think sex without any restraint is a sign of liberation, one should take a good, honest, and clinical look at what forms such "liberation" can take, so that one does not glorify sex for the sake of sex to the extent morality and self-control is considered a weakness.

I wish to emphasize that none of the above authors discuss sexuality from the point of view of religion and morality imposed by religion. It is based on the observation of human behaviour in history. The wonderful thing however is that the morals propagated by religions suddenly take on a new meaning, and is no longer seen as kill-joy instructions and power games played by people of God.

I wish to close with a Zen story. It might seem like an extreme example, but it shows the value of training in celibacy and self-control without resorting to any denial or repression tactics. It is really about developing the capacity to become fully aware of one's sexuality and yet not acting it out inappropriately. It goes without saying that celibacy is a skill one must master in order to remain faithful to one's partner when one is exposed to temptation outside that relationship.

A young monk (in the days when Zen Buddhist monks in Japan had to be celibate and spent many many years in meditation to attain enlightenment)was troubled by his sexual fantasies during meditation. The advice he got from his master was always the same - to let the thoughts and images come and go, without suppressing it or engaging it in treacherous conversation or dwelling on it; without passing any judgement on the quality; and to draw his mind back to his breath over and over again, minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month. His life become hell due to the sexual fantasies which always emerged when he started to meditate and thoughts were supposed to subside and the mind expected to get silent. But he was determined not to give in to give in to his sexual urges and leave the monastery because he wanted to be enlightened. A few years passed but there was still no sign of either enlightenment or an end to the sexual fantasies. One day he finally decided he had had enough. Accepting defeat at the hands of his sexual fantasies and giving up his burning desire to be enlightened, he said goodbye to his master and left the monastery to fulfil his sexual desires. He went straight to a brothel. At the sight of the prostitute ready to offer him her services, he was enlightened. He turned away immediately and left the brothel without touching the prostitute and returned to the monastery to continue his meditation. Enlightenment was only the beginning.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia"

I think this was a really good post that makes more sense than most, so I am re-posting it. I'm tired of reading so many posts of people who think to rationalize is to be wise. I can find reasons why pre-marital sex could be good, but that doesn't mean that there aren't answers that are so much better out there...or that they're even morally right at all. Anyone can rationalize.

This comment was from Soja John...

"Tips: The five authors who stand out in my mind (now)who helped shape my values on sexuality are:

1. C S Lewis - His essay on sexuality is a very down to earth and rational discussion of the subject.

2. D H Lawrence - The prologue in his book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is really an insightful essay on sexuality.

3. Erich Fromm - His book "The Art of Loving" discusses sexuality from an evolutionary point of view and provides a broader context for describing different kinds of love. He points out to the fact that the lower down an animal is on the evolutionary scale, the less differentiated is its sex pattern. The difference he points out is that animals act only in accordance with their instinct and their need without excesses but human beings don't: Animals have mating seasons, they don't think about sex all the time as humans do; the species of animals that bond, bond predictably without the need to try out several relationships like some humans do; for an animal sex is just sex and it behaves in a predictable fashion in accordance with its instinct, whereas in humans, sex is associated with all sorts of other emotions both good and bad, among the less honourable - an ego trip, an expression of power, a tool for manipulation etc.

4. Carl Rogers - His book "My needs, Your Needs, Our needs". He emphasizes why it is vitally important to reserve our first sexual experience, to an emotionally meaningful relationship. Once we get used to the idea of having sex without any emotional attachment, the harder it gets to associate emotions with sex. The Buddhists call it, "Using the other human being as a toilet."

5. Patrick Carnes - "Don't call it love". Carnes has done very important work on sexual addiction. For those who think sex without any restraint is a sign of liberation, one should take a good, honest, and clinical look at what forms such "liberation" can take, so that one does not glorify sex for the sake of sex to the extent morality and self-control is considered a weakness.

I wish to emphasize that none of the above authors discuss sexuality from the point of view of religion and morality imposed by religion. It is based on the observation of human behaviour in history. The wonderful thing however is that the morals propagated by religions suddenly take on a new meaning, and is no longer seen as kill-joy instructions and power games played by people of God.

I wish to close with a Zen story. It might seem like an extreme example, but it shows the value of training in celibacy and self-control without resorting to any denial or repression tactics. It is really about developing the capacity to become fully aware of one's sexuality and yet not acting it out inappropriately. It goes without saying that celibacy is a skill one must master in order to remain faithful to one's partner when one is exposed to temptation outside that relationship.

A young monk (in the days when Zen Buddhist monks in Japan had to be celibate and spent many many years in meditation to attain enlightenment)was troubled by his sexual fantasies during meditation. The advice he got from his master was always the same - to let the thoughts and images come and go, without suppressing it or engaging it in treacherous conversation or dwelling on it; without passing any judgement on the quality; and to draw his mind back to his breath over and over again, minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month. His life become hell due to the sexual fantasies which always emerged when he started to meditate and thoughts were supposed to subside and the mind expected to get silent. But he was determined not to give in to give in to his sexual urges and leave the monastery because he wanted to be enlightened. A few years passed but there was still no sign of either enlightenment or an end to the sexual fantasies. One day he finally decided he had had enough. Accepting defeat at the hands of his sexual fantasies and giving up his burning desire to be enlightened, he said goodbye to his master and left the monastery to fulfil his sexual desires. He went straight to a brothel. At the sight of the prostitute ready to offer him her services, he was enlightened. He turned away immediately and left the brothel without touching the prostitute and returned to the monastery to continue his meditation. Enlightenment was only the beginning.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia"

The only sinful sex is sex without the partner's informed, rational consent (which isn't sex - it's rape) or sexual activity that violates a trust (such as adultery - if you promised monogamy, you need to keep that promise).

Adult/child sex is without consent. The child is not in a position to give informed, rational consent, and at the same time, often does not have the ability to say "No" and back it up. Any time a position of authority is used to gain sex from another person, it's wrong.

Human/animal sex is without consent, as an animal cannot give consent.

My only objection to teens having sex with each other is that they are not prepared to deal with the possible consequences of their actions. A 15-year-old get pregnant, but that does not mean that she is capable of parenting a child. And it's a damned shame for someone to contract a life-long (or life-threatening) STD at such a young age.

I see no problem with sex between consenting adults of the same gender, or with groups of other consenting adults.

Those whose religions frown on homosexuality or polyamory are free to abstain from such activities. But they shouldn't get to make the rules for everyone else.

Just a thought, Religion is more about power over somebody else's life...w/ vicious penalties.

Has nothing to do w/ SPIRIT/Spirituality!

Noonespecial: "Just think ,when you are getting married ,what would you rather have in a marriage mate ,a virgin ,or someone that has sex other people"

I don't really care whether or not my husband slept with other women, or other men for that matter, before we met, as long as his sexual past does not affect my present or future. If he had an STD, I would need to know he had it, so that I could avoid contracting it. I would not need blow-by-blow details of how or from whom he acquired it.

If he had progeny for whom he was obligated to pay child support, I would need to know that they existed, because it would affect our household budget. I would not need to know in what position they were conceived.

If you have no diseases and no kids, then your level of prior sexual activity are no one else's business. My husband and I both have friends of the opposite sex with whom we have had recreational sex in the past when we were unattached, and with whom we are still friends. It doesn't matter that these people slept with our SO in the past, because we both know that neither of us is going to have sex with anyone else NOW.

All this talk about sex and if it right or wrong before marriage .Just think ,when you are getting married ,what would you rather have in a marriage mate ,a virgin ,or someone that has sex other people.And this goes for men ,and women.Be honest with yourself.

maybe some religions see sex as a sin as they misunderstand the mysteries of it. they see sex as a taboo were religions that see it as sacred understand full well the mysteries that surround it. some may see that it is a sin becouse it is been outside "wedlock" but maybe people need to move forward from that small mindedness and embrace the fact that a world that views sex as sinful will most ultimately not populate the world as fast as people who do not see it as sinful but as sacred and a form of seeing as an act that shows love.

In my opinion, if you have any love for yourself and/or God, you'll wait until you're married.

Sex is not intrinsically sin or sacred, but it can be either depending upon the context in which it occurs. Sex that is out of bounds, that is prohibited, immoral or betrays one's vows of marriage is sin. Sex that is not prohibited, immoral and does not betray one's vows of marriage is sacred.

If taken outside of religion, sex should at least be positive for society, and not negative. Sex that results in diseases spreading, financial problems for society, or offends societal standards of decency should be considered wrong, while sex that does not contribute those wrongs to society should be considered as acceptable.

Both of these tend to encompass the same behavior. Monogamy falls within the sacred and acceptable, while promiscuous and unprotected sex tends to fall in the sin and wrong status. A simple, honest look at what is considered sin tends to reveal that the true beneficiary of avoiding sin benefits both the individual and society. Seeking sin almost always has a negative result for either the individual or society, and usually both.

The trouble is that we humans are very selfish and rebellious children in the way we act. We like doing the wrong thing, even when it hurts us, and we feel constrained by rules or edicts that tell us what to do. Which is why we always stick our fingers into the light socket of sin, even though we will most certainly get a shock and death as a result.

I have no intention of critizing anyone's religion. So please no one take what im about to say in the wrong way.
First of all. Sex before marriage is a sin. Just a few verses talkin about it are (2 Corinthians 12:21;Galatians 5:19;1 Thessalonians 4:3)

But sex after marriage is not a sin at all, its very healthy and is needed in a marriage. God does not frown upon that at all. He made it as a gift to married people. But too many people take advantage of it and abuse it. You are to have sex with your husband/wife and thats it. Here are some verses (Genesis 1:28;1 Corinthians 7:2-5;)

As for monks and nuns. Its not that they frown upon sex or marriage they just feel they should devote all of their time and energy to the lord and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So in conclusion. Sex is a sin when it is before marriage, with someone other than your mate, or of course with an animal, family member, etc.
But when your married there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex. The Bible proves that. God wants people who are married to enjoy sex and have babies. Sex is a beautiful thing when it is used the right way.

I have no intention of critizing anyone's religion. So please no one take what im about to say in the wrong way.
First of all. Sex before marriage is a sin. Just a few verses talkin about it are (2 Corinthians 12:21;Galatians 5:19;1 Thessalonians 4:3)

But sex after marriage is not a sin at all, its very healthy and is needed in a marriage. God does not frown upon that at all. He made it as a gift to married people. But too many people take advantage of it and abuse it. You are to have sex with your husband/wife and thats it. Here are some verses (Genesis 1:28;1 Corinthians 7:2-5;)

As for monks and nuns. Its not that they dont frown upon sex or marriage they just feel they should devote all of their time and energy to the lord and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So in conclusion. Sex is a sin when it is before marriage, with someone other than your mate, or of course with an animal, family member, etc.
But when your married there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex. The Bible proves that. God wants people who are married to enjoy sex and have babies. Sex is a beautiful thing when it is used the right way.

Sex is the initiator of life, not a moral disease.

Sex is the initiator of life, not a moral disease.

Sex is the initiator of life, not a moral disease.

I think that the moral aspect of consensual sex is often over-emphasized.
As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, and there is no breach of trust involved, and care is taken to avoid the transmission of STD's and to prevent unwanted pregnancies, then I don't see the problem.

Since rape involves lack of consent, it would still be a crime. Same with child molestation.

Since prostitution is basically a sales transaction, it should be legal for one adult to pay another a mutually agreed-upon fee for the use of the other's body for mutually agreed-upon sexual activities under mutually agreed-upon conditions.

If mutual monogamy is a condition of a couple's relationship, then breaking those vows by having sex with someone else would be a breach of trust, and as such, would be wrong. But if a couple agrees to an open relationship, where each is free to pursue sexual pleasure elsewhere, then it's ok.

Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?

Isn't that a false dichotomy? Any belief system that has the concept of 'wrong', 'disharmony' or 'sin' regards some sex as sin. I don't know of any belief system that would all forms of coercive sex (rape) as acceptable and non-sinful (though some approve of it under certain circumstance).

On the other hand, many ancient pagan religions and many forms of modern Christianity regard sex as sacred. In Christianity, it's precisely *because* sex is sacred that some forms of sex are also sinful. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians in the Bible that because in some spiritual sense as well as in a physical sense, 'two become one' in sex, and this is his justification for going on to prohibit prostitution as a sin.

Certainly other religions appreciate the value of sex as not only a method of procreation but as a way to join people together in at least an emotional if not always a spiritual (sacred) sense - see Song of Solomon, a love story in the Jewish religious text, or divine sex as a way to enlightenment in Hinduism.

It seems most belief systems recognize the value of sex as a very special or even sacred act, and most for this very reason attempt to set boundaries on sexual behavior by labeling some forms of sex or sex in certain contexts as immoral.

Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?

Isn't that a false dichotomy? Any belief system that has the concept of 'wrong', 'disharmony' or 'sin' regards some sex as sin. I don't know of any belief system that would all forms of coercive sex (rape) as acceptable and non-sinful (though some approve of it under certain circumstance).

On the other hand, many ancient pagan religions and many forms of modern Christianity regard sex as sacred. In Christianity, it's precisely *because* sex is sacred that some forms of sex are also sinful. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians in the Bible that because in some spiritual sense as well as in a physical sense, 'two become one' in sex, and this is his justification for going on to prohibit prostitution as a sin.

Certainly other religions appreciate the value of sex as not only a method of procreation but as a way to join people together in at least an emotional if not always a spiritual (sacred) sense - see Song of Solomon, a love story in the Jewish religious text, or divine sex as a way to enlightenment in Hinduism.

It seems most belief systems recognize the value of sex as a very special or even sacred act, and most for this very reason attempt to set boundaries on sexual behavior by labeling some forms of sex or sex in certain contexts as immoral.

Religion is a combination of personal and group worship and common beliefs sometimes referred to as faith. A believer’s worldview, morals, values, thoughts, feelings, and actions are largely derived from their religious beliefs which are obtained through cultural story telling, traditions, sacred historical writings, and their own spiritual experiences. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the first ethical precepts were passed down by word of mouth from parents and elders, but as societies learned to use the written word they began to write down their ethical beliefs. These records constitute the first historical evidence of the origins of ethics ("ethics"). These teachings serve as a positive authority to guide lives and conduct. Religion also promotes giving, healing, optimism, love, and a measure of right and wrong making it a force for good in our society. Not all people see religion as positive force though.
According to Newsbusters,
Bill Maher, host of HBO’s "Real Time," appeared on the April 16 edition of "The View" to voice his opposition to all religion. Maher asserted that "pretty much all religion" is bad and all religion is "childish destructive nonsense." Co-host, Joy Behar inquired "What about people who just like to go to church, you know, the old ladies in my neighborhood who used to go and light a candle?" Maher responded likewise. "They are certainly better than people who fly planes into buildings, yes. But they are enablers for some thing that is worldwide and winds up killing more people, distracting us from more good works." According to Maher’s logic, the Salvation Army, Father Joe’s Villages, and church going conservatives who donate more to charity than secular liberals, are all distracted from more good works (qtd. in McCarthy).
Bill Maher is not the only person in society that believes religion is a driving force for evil. There are a number of other people and articles that agree with him. The majority lack a full understanding of the religions they write about and don’t take into account the number of people that merely say they are religious, but are not sincerely practicing their said faith. Many do not take into account the length of time a person has been practicing their faith, which makes a difference as to the amount of knowledge and maturing a believer has done spiritually. They also seem to lack the concept that just because there may be a correlation between two variables that does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship between them.
While people are busy accusing religion of all evil in the world, there are thousands of religious organizations fighting for social justice, peace and compassion. Religious organizations all over the world reach out to help feed, cloth, and shelter people. They have a passion to love their neighbors as themselves. Yet many in our society continue to only focus on a small faction of fanatics. Religious organizations are a force of good in society and should never be compared to a fanatical group that clearly only claims to be religious, but clearly is not. As Christianity says you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears.
Charity without question is another force of good in our world. According to a recent study from Syracuse University, ninety-one percent of regular church attendees give to charity each year, compared with sixty-six percent of those who said they do not have a religion. That is a huge difference in giving. “Religious people give four times more money per year than their secular counterparts”, according to Brooks who wrote Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Brooks states that “religious people also donate twice as much blood” (Zylstra). Charity begins and ends with the individual. Surely if there was no religion people would still give. But what makes religious people give more? An important value of many religions is the importance of giving.
The Department of Psychology at the University of Alabama did a study that explored the relation between religious faith, spirituality, and mental health in the outcomes of 236 individuals recovering from substance abuse. They found that recovering individuals tended to report high levels of religious faith and affiliation. The results also indicated that among recovering individuals, higher levels of religious faith were associated with a more optimistic life orientation, greater perceived social support, higher resilience to stress, and lower levels of anxiety (U.S. National Library of Medicine). 45% of participants in a religious treatment program for opium addiction were still drug-free one year later, compared to only 5% of participants in a nonreligious public health hospital treatment program (Desmond and Maddux, 1981). For every person that turns away from drugs that is one less evil in our society.
According to Dr. Dixon of Churchill College of Cambridge, “religion may have been the occasion for various social and political wrongs, but it is not the cause”. If anything, man wrongly uses religion as an excuse for their own wrongs. If religion was done away with, people would still identify themselves with some other group and go to war over territory, political conflict or some other issue. Man’s injustice to one another like elitism and bigotry are sadly a part of human nature with or without religion (Dixon).
Religious traditions provide us with a common set of morals and values in an age where relativism reigns. With relativism there is not a clear cut definition of truth because the relativist believes that right and wrong is relative to circumstance. This means that, according to relativism, right and wrong is constantly changing. Society needs the moral insight of religious traditions, which have been past down from many generations of spiritual wisdom to guide us regarding ethical matters. We need to recognize that not only does spirituality have many benefits for the individual, but it has many benefits for society as well. Religion helps people work toward a common good for all of mankind. Dr. Dixon stated, “Religion, when practiced seriously and sincerely, is a force for good in the world promoting humility, morality, wisdom, equality, and social justice”. I couldn’t agree more.

Sex, biologically speaking is a powerful physical neccessity on any animal with a drive to procreate and continue its species. In the wild such courtships can be brutal to the prospective males who must perform well to be deemed worthy of the female after all she does not want to waste her procreative powers on weak genes. While nature has very rough and crude ways of handling what gets made and what survives to repopulate the species humans have it much easier in some ways. Because we live longer, and have alot more kids in the time we are alive, and our social structure has us in communities survival of the young is improved. There has to be a break somewhere. I don't know how it is that some religions think that sex is a sin it is a neccessity really. Even from a Biblical veiw we are commanded of God.. to populate the earth and to fill it and subdue it. He gave us a pair a man and a women to accomplish that. But here lies the rub why did they wait till after their rebellion to have kids? Some think that the rebellion is what gave the pair to the notion of procreation or at least the know how and thus this knowlege being had at the cost of their relationship with God resulted in a sort of guilt so some speculated that the cost of knowing how to have sex made it sinful. However lets reflect that He commanded us to procreate and also commanded us not to eat off that dang tree. I think incidently it was a matter of timming. Presumably humans had from what the bible tells us very long life spans if we take the whales into consideration they only calve a young once or twice in a hundred or so years. If humans lived as Adam did 900 years or more what great need would there have been to procreate as often as we do now and the events that transpired in the Garden with the rebellion might only have taken place before they felt the need to do so. A brute beast needs no tree to know its mate well enough to spawn its next generation I hardly think that humans needed a fruit from a tree to have sex and procreate. Sex is survival, and God made sure that it would be a very powerful influence and bonding so that they would continue to make more babies. With that said even though its hardwired into our make up via them hormones at puberty to satisfy sexual activity we are sentient and we like the natrual world around us have a responsibility not just to procreate but to teach the young to survive and thrive, or die trying. Human life span is barely over a hundred years now on average only 70 or 80 and we breed faster then we should and in alot of cases we do so out of no regard for the young. So in my assessnment irresponsible use of our procreative ability for say recreation and failing that killing the young that result and or neglecting their rearing is what is sinful, both religiously as well as in the natural order of things. As for homosexuals. I think they are natures way of putting on the brakes on our reclace breding. So leave them alone.

Changing the Tides
see how Islam is being destroyed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEIGw8NtNA

Changing the Tides
see how Islam is being destroyed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEIGw8NtNA

To Pacific PanDeist (Ref post 4 March 2007 11:10 PM):

Free sex for all with all was tried out in the 1960s and 70s in the hippie communes you know and it didn’t work out. Human beings were found to be badly suited for the role of sex machines. Many who set out to become sex machines discovered that they had emotions as also bonding needs attached to sex, at least after some of the initial enthusiasm had worn off. As you well know the whole adventure was ultimately dropped because it wasn’t considered worth the price. I do not want to pass any kind of judgement on your religious practice, but from the way you describe it, I wonder how many sex addicts are being created in the process of practising free sex with all as part of religious worship, whether older people get to enjoy the same privileges, how families are created and how they survive, and how many broken lives need mending.

In the name of God, peace to those who follow guidance.

The prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "...in the sexual act of each of you there is a charity." They said: "O Messenger of God, when one of us fulfills his sexual desire will he have some reward for that?" He said: "Do you not think that were he to act upon it unlawfully he would be sinning? Likewise, if he has acted upon it lawfully he will have a reward."

Islam teaches us that sex is sacred inside of marriage and a sin outside of it. The Islamic position is the most balanced position. Sex is a beautiful thing but we must take full responsibility for our actions. That is why Islam raises marriage to such a high pedestal. You recognize the beauty of having a partner and also assume responsibility for your actions.

The West pretends to have a thorough understanding of sex and love but in reality what they really understand is sex and lust. It is about fulfilling a physical desire without a commitment. Islam stresses commitment and responsibility and provides a framework for fulfilling your desire and having a healthy family life.

Friend, the answers to this and every other question are in PanDeism, the marriage of PanTheism and Deism. PanDeism shows how God not only created the Universe, but in fact became the Universe in order to experience existence through the experiences of the Universe (and thereby to learn what it was like to face obstacles and limitations unknowable to a deity)....

The sacredness of sex is one of the core concepts of PanDeism, for under PanDeism, our sexual practices are understood to be a fantastic gift to God, who shares in these experiences.... thus there can be few better lives lived than those in which the experience of giving and receiving pleasure is maximized by the sharing as much of this joy with as many willing partners as possible!! I say again that all of our positive experiences, including our consensual and mutually enjoyable sexual practices, are a fantastic gift to God!!

Jonathan,

You : Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.

Me : So, how do we get people off religion, like off drugs, alcohol or cigarettes? Those are addictive too. Have you undertaken psy tests on religiously inclined people to say that they have no self-confidence or are lonely?

You : Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.

Me : How so? People spend more time at their workplace than at churches, temples or mosques. Contributions towards religious entities depends on the religious entities. And donations (or tithes as you call them) are specifically for the needy. Up to you to contribute how much you want to spend time in churches, temples, mosques as well as contributions to religious entities. Unless the religious entities how much, the percentage of your incomes goes to it. Fight that then.

You : Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.

Me : Even the Taliban are dancing at weddings. If you want to party with lots of dancing, copious flow of alcohol and engage in pre-marital sex when drunk and could not remember what happen the morning after, and made a fast exit to the door, that is up to you. Being drunk after consuming alcohol and excusing what was said and done when drunk is a terrible excuse for personal responsibility. Alcohol is also a mind altering substance, a liquid drug. Or else there won't be alcoholism.

You : So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!

Me: Prayers is only part of religious piety and devoutness. It is not what you pray for, but how you live your life by your beliefs. What do you believe in?

You : I say ban religion!

Me : Of course. Let us all lobby our state and nation's legislators to ban religion. However, freedom of freedom of belief, freedom of thought and freedom of religion is also a fundamental human rights. As of now, there are more believers than unbelievers. Would be hard going to ban religion. Is there a legislator that dare say s/he wants to ban religion? The best they can muster without losing votes is to call for seperation of state and church. As of now, non-believers could not even get religion out of state affairs and policies. Is there really seperation of church and state in state affairs and policies from gay rights to abortion to evolution/creationism?

Yes, well, belief/religion is addictive for it is affirming for the individual is a person, and the community as a group. The alternative as you seem to propose for a well rounded or life well lived -alcohol, dancing, pre-marital sex, is not that fulfilling for many, but perhaps for you. Whatever gets you through the nights and days Jonathan.

Jonathan,

You : Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.

Me : So, how do we get people off religion, like off drugs, alcohol or cigarettes? Those are addictive too. Have you undertaken psy tests on religiously inclined people to say that they have no self-confidence or are lonely?

You : Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.

Me : How so? People spend more time at their workplace than at churches, temples or mosques. Contributions towards religious entities depends on the religious entities. And donations (or tithes as you call them) are specifically for the needy. Up to you to contribute how much you want to spend time in churches, temples, mosques as well as contributions to religious entities. Unless the religious entities how much, the percentage of your incomes goes to it. Fight that then.

You : Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.

Me : Even the Taliban are dancing at weddings. If you want to party with lots of dancing, copious flow of alcohol and engage in pre-marital sex when drunk and could not remember what happen the morning after, and made a fast exit to the door, that is up to you. Being drunk after consuming alcohol and excusing what was said and done when drunk is a terrible excuse for personal responsibility. Alcohol is also a mind altering substance, a liquid drug. Or else there won't be alcoholism.

You : So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!

Me: Prayers is only part of religious piety and devoutness. It is not what you pray for, but how you live your life by your beliefs. What do you believe in?

You : I say ban religion!

Me : Of course. Let us all lobby our state and nation's legislators to ban religion. However, freedom of freedom of belief, freedom of thought and freedom of religion is also a fundamental human rights. As of now, there are more believers than unbelievers. Would be hard going to ban religion. Is there a legislator that dare say s/he wants to ban religion? The best they can muster without losing votes is to call for seperation of state and church. As of now, non-believers could not even get religion out of state affairs and policies. Is there really seperation of church and state in state affairs and policies from gay rights to abortion to evolution/creationism?

Yes, well, belief/religion is addictive for it is affirming for the individual is a person, and the community as a group. The alternative as you seem to propose for a well rounded or life well lived -alcohol, dancing, pre-marital sex, is not that fulfilling for many, but perhaps for you. Whatever gets you through the nights and days Jonathan.

Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.
Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.

Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.

So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!

I say ban religion!

Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.
Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.

Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.

So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!

I say ban religion!

Get a much clearer and more plausable understanding of Jesus in The Second, and Last Coming, A Movin-On Novel by Luigi Enrico Pietra d'Oro. Visit www.revolvingdoorbooks.com

God has balls, Mary wasn't a virgin, and the Holy Spirit moves us towards each other sexually.

Can you believe what we believe!

Soja,

I'm sorry if I gave you the idea I was condoning polygamy in christianity. After all, in my examples I was trying to show how many great men of the bible were having children by women they were'nt married to. I only mention one completely polygmist relationship with Lamech. Ammon and Moab are nations born out of incest and rape. Doesn't sound to cool to me but God blesses one those nations immensely, even bringing them in on the line of messiah. (Ruth)
New Testament examples, Mary sister of Lazurus, washes Jesus feet with her hair and tears. She's called an adulteress doesn't seem to bother Jesus since this is the second time he defends her actions. Women at the well, Jesus tells her how many times she's been married and that she currently lives with a man she's not married to. Men throw a women in front of Jesus and accuse her of adultery. Jesus tells them he who is wthout sin cast the first stone. Three occassions Jesus does not demand the Law prevail.
Both Old and New Testaments are written in a time that arranged marriage is fairly common on the whole planet not just the middle east. Love is not a reason for marriage throughout the whole book but it doesn't mean that many of the stories don't include love between husband and wife. My point is that the morality of thou shalt , thou shalt not is carried out only for control one person to another.

Being a long-time Episcopalian and supporter of all of God's creatures, I found a movie that is helping my church deal (rather than avoid, run, hide) the current debate that's causing such a divide in so many of us. It's called God & Gays: Bridging the Gap and it speaks to what we're all going through really well. It helped me with perspective, to see why the humanity and the spirituality in this "issue" is what's key. I hope you'll join me in watching the movie, sharing it and allowing it to help guide us to what so many seek...reconciliation (www.godandgaysthemovie.com)

Scott

In the post you are referring to I was only quoting The New Testament to prove that Jesus made no mention of polygamy, since Douglas quoted The Old Testament as "proof" that polygamy was permitted in Christianity. I made it a point to mention that Jesus was talking of the ideal situation with regard to divorce. I had already mentioned the case C S Lewis made for divorce in another post, and as you can see I mentioned it again in my addendum before your post appeared on the thread.

Of course I agree that divorce is justified in some cases, and everyone has the right to be happy in this life. Very few manage to find real soul mates after all. Only a minority really work hard at making the marriage the best it can be. In reality the vast majority make do with a mediocre marriage. And of course marriage shouldn't be about enduring hell, and divorce should be permitted to end that hell. I expect that Jesus is compassionate enough to understand the human situation. And for those who are not Christians - atheists, Jews and Muslims etc - divorce should be allowed without question.

Addendum:

C S Lewis, a deeply committed Christian, made the best case for divorce in certain circumstances, assuring serious Christians that Jesus is a God of compassion and mercy who forgives human beings. Of course Lewis does not advocate that married couples should stay together only until the next attractive or younger person comes along. He emphasises that divorce should not be lightly undertaken, and should be restricted to cases where the marriage has become destructive to one or both partners. He asks on what basis Christians conclude that a God of mercy who is willing to forgive all sins, would withhold His forgiveness only when it comes to divorce alone. Why should a God of love and mercy withhold our happiness in an another life giving marriage, if the first one had to be ended because it was destructive to one or both partners?

Is there an alternative to lusting after beautiful members of the opposite sex because Jesus did not approve of it? Yes, there is. For instance we admire a flower growing in the wild without the desire to take it home and adorn our homes. We admire the flower for what it is, without lusting after what pleasure it can bring us as our possession. Similarly it is possible to train ourselves to admire the beauty of the opposite sex without lusting after them and needing to possess them. We need to train ourselves not to carry the memory of the beauty in our hearts, or create needless circumstances, where the feelings can grow and create a need to possess the object of our desire. There is a little Zen story that illustrates this point. On the way to the monastery on a rainy day, two Zen monks were trying to cross a huge puddle, when a beautiful young woman came along. She clearly had difficulty crossing the puddle. One of the monks carried her on his back and took her across. When the monks were ready to retire to bed that night, the other monk asked the one who had carried the woman across the puddle whether he hadn't realised the mistake of carrying a woman on his back when his vow of celibacy clearly forbade him to have contact with the opposite sex. The monk replied, "I left the young woman on the other side of the puddle. Are you still carrying her on your back?" Being awake to the reality of the moment with every breath is what helps us to have appropriate feelings and the strength and wisdom not to act out based on any inappropriate feeling or fantasy.

Soja,

It's nice to think we could live in a world where such advice could be adhered to without fail. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world.

Relationships are not black and white. Nor do we live under the same circumstances as those who wrote the Bible. While this is a noble and wise ideal, I feel it does not reflect the reality of human relationships. Surely, there are other reasons beyond infidelity that should be cause for divorce, such as spousal abuse?

I've seen divorce tear families apart over petty differences. These separations were unnecessary and even irresponsible. But there are also situations were divorce represents the most responsible option given the situation.

Responsibility is not something we can legislate or enforce in all cases. If we should ban divorce, why not ban irresponsible people from getting married in the first place? How about banning irresponsible people from having children? Of course such ideas would be frowned on, regardless of how beneficial it might be to society as a whole, since God has told us to take a wife and multiply.

Such a simplistic position on divorce puts more focus on the "sin" than the reality of the situation and the effect it has on people.

If you believe that people have a soul, you may believe that whatever suffering people go though here on earth is irrelevant and will be rewarded in heaven. But for those of us who do not share that view, we believe our time is finite and limited. Responsible people should be able to make responsible choices. Including divorce, when appropriate.

On 27 February 2007 8:19 AM, Douglas wrote:

“I can quote only from Biblical text because I’m a Christian and that doesn’t bother me…Christianity falls prey to political correctness through some morality they created millennia ago that has very little to do with God. First off nowhere is it written a man can have only one wife. Before the Christians freak on that keep your Romans passage in context that it's talking of wife swapping common practice in the Dionysis age it was written…”

As a liberal Catholic (belonging to the Syro-Malabar Catholic church), I’m wondering why Douglas quotes extensively from The Old Testament to justify polygamy, while completely ignoring the words of Jesus and The New Testament which is the basis of Christianity. The Old Testament is expected to serve primarily as background knowledge to a Christian because it speaks about things that happened before the birth of Jesus Christ, including the announcement of the Prophets concerning His birth, leading up to the birth of Jesus. We read the Old Testament to confirm that Jesus was indeed the Messiah who was to come to save the world as predicted in the Old Testament by the Prophets.

It is well worth reflecting why when two people fall desperately in love, there is no place in their hearts or minds for a third person. Why is that a couple who are deeply in love feel complete, without having a need for a third person? A third person usually enters the picture when love begins to fade, and due to inflated ego needs and greed, and has nothing to do with what a human being needs to be biologically happy and content. Why is that the greatest love stories are written about the passion between two persons and not about the "merry" crowd in a harem? The Taj Mahal was built in memory of a single woman, not the whole crowd in the harem. When therapists try to help anyone with sexual addiction, or any other kind of addiction, identifying triggers at the level of thoughts, and teaching patients to deal with them, or shift their attention away from them, forms a cornerstone in successful treatment. Science recognises the power of thoughts.

The morality propagated by Christians has to do with what Jesus taught, and Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. What Jesus taught must be understood as the ideal to strive for, not matter how many Christians may fail to live up to it, no matter how many times Christians may need to beg for forgiveness for having fallen short of the standard set out by Jesus.

God created only one female - Eve, for one male -Adam. Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that God created several women to fulfil the needs of one man or vice versa. Any double moral standard which permits a man to take more than one wife, or for a woman to have more than one male partner, is human made. I found the following passages in my Bible which speaks against divorce, except in cases of marital unfaithfulness, and polygamy hasn't even been considered worth a mention:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”

It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.’

--- Matthew 5:27-32

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

“Why then, “they asked, “Did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. “

--- Matthew 19:3-9

Figure it this way - once upon a time, when humans were inventing Christianity in particular, how could they make sure that this thing stuck in the minds of the victims ... I mean believers?
Well, attach it to one of the most primal urges a mammal feels. Not the desire for food, nor the desire for breath, but rather the desire for sex.

Now, you make it wrong, you make sex wrong. you make the victim believe themselves to be destined for hell everafter for having this urge, this desire.

Now, you offer the only solace available - you offer forgiveness.

How many times a day does the average man think of sex? I do not know exactly, but anecdotally we hear it is just all day long. All day long the average man needs to be forgiven.

How is that for intelligent design?

Sheila wrote: "I have defended and supported my belief and you have just disagreed with me. Seems like you really have no proof there is no God."

I'd simply point out that E. doesn't have to prove anything.

E. is simply pointing out that there are different possible explanations for "spiritual" events that people experience. You're free to believe whatever you want, but unless you have proof to the contrary, E's position is just as valid as yours.

Sheila wrote: "God. Creator. Supreme Being. Whatever name you give Him.

He's real."

While I'm glad that your belief gives you peace, this is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Human beings wrote the Bible. While it's up for debate wether man was inspired by God when he did so, I think we both agree that men actually put pen to paper and wrote each chapter. As such, these men have made the claim that God exists.

There is no indication in nature that God exists or that Jesus was born of a virgin birth or resurrected. Nor is their any physical evidence from that time that proves these facts.

The burden of proof is on the believer.

Sheila – I thought we weren’t having an argument, that, from your perspective, we had “agreed to disagree.” Now you say with certitude that I am wrong: “When you die, you will be proven wrong.” Let me ask you, do you also mean that I will go to Hell for eternity for not believing? I know you haven’t said that, but I’ve heard it often in these discussions and know it’s a widely accepted Christian belief. Do you think moral, law-abiding people like me will go to hell because we don’t believe?

Also, I thought we weren’t trying to convince each other, but rather to understand each other. You seem quite offended that I suggested alternatives to your belief that Jesus spoke directly to you, even though I said, “That’s one possibility.” Did you know that many religions have mystics, not just Christianity? And that anyone, religious or not, can have mystical or spiritual experiences? I know spiritual experiences exist – I’ve had them, and like many people who have described these experiences, I felt at one with the universe.

You say, “You haven't proven to me that there is not a God. Not one iota of a shred of evidence.” Sheila, I wasn’t trying to prove it. As I said before, “God hasn’t been proved or disproved.” I have no ultimate proof that there is not a God and I think you don’t have proof that there is one. You choose to believe. We live in a culture that supports that belief, which makes it easier and makes it seem more natural to believe, but in my opinion, that doesn’t make God’s existence any more likely.

Maybe some of the flesh and blood people in my life “have been inspired and put there” as you suggest, by God, assuming he exists. Then again, maybe some of the troublesome, evil people I’ve had to deal with were put there by the devil, or maybe by God as a test. It doesn’t help me or change anything to think of it this way. I’m going to deal with them, without the expectation of divine intervention.

Sheila, I don’t appreciate it that you called my comments “lame” and a “cop out.” These seem like insults in an otherwise civil conversation.

Still, I’ve enjoyed talking with you, obviously, or I wouldn’t have kept it up so long. This forum is great for having conversations that just wouldn’t happen in “real” life.

I can only comment from biblical text because I'm a christian and that does'nt bother me. Aren't Muslim's allowed five wives? Just something I heard. Christianity falls prey to political correctness through some morallity they created millenia ago that has very little to do with God. First off nowhere is it written a man can have only one wife. Before the christians freak on that keep your Romans passage in context that it's talking of wife swapping common practice in the Dionysis age it was written. Abraham married only once yet his wife gives birth to only one of his seven sons.
Jacob marries twice and four women give birth to the tribes of Israel. Judah's story shows that God cares who the woman that carries the line of messiah is. Tamar is his daughter in-law and it's both with deception and the lack of marriage that Judah continues the line of messiah. Gideon has sevety two sons only sevety one by women he was married to yet it's the sventy second son that leads Israelon the battle field. David has more than three hundred women as wives and concubines , Solomon has nearly a thousand women between wives and concubines. Concubines? Lamech,the last of Cain's decent preflood,is the first man mentioned to specifcally have two wives. His two wives, Adah and Zillah, and daughter Naamah, are the only women who's names appear preflood besides Eve.
Truth is from God religion is from man who do you trust.

And so the argument will go on. I have faith in God and you do not. Until the end of time or one of us changes their mind. When you die, you will
be proven wrong. And after all, it is proof that you need. You will know Him then.

Why?

That will be one of the questions you will be asked. Why did you reject Him all your life?

There are consequences to every action. Especially denial.

Simply saying -'this may have been some neurological thing'- Or saying -'you didn't really hear it'-. Come on. Can't you do better than that?

What a cop out! How lame!

You refuse to accept that it was a 'mystical' experience and that you can't reason it away.

I have defended and supported my belief and you have just disagreed with me. Seems like you really have no proof there is no God.

Have you ever thought that the flesh and blood (people) in your life have been inspired and put there by the very God you deny exists?

You haven't proven to me that there is not a God. Not one iota of a shred of evidence.

God. Creator. Supreme Being.
Whatever name you give Him.

He's real.

Hi, Sheila, a couple of things:

You say, “If he stopped loving us we could just as easily be extinguished by His power.” (I assumed “DIStinguished” was a typo.)

That sounds like going from love to murderous hate. Where did you get that idea? It doesn’t seem to jive with the “God is Love” message you started out with.

“I do think I am better off however as I have a Supreme help mate that I can turn to.”

You may feel better off with your supreme help mate, but you can’t know for sure that you are. I think the flesh and blood, visible people I’ve turned to are just as good as the supreme, invisible being that you think is there to help you. Unfortunately, there’s no way to test it that I can think of. Even if we lined up all the help we’ve ever received from our respective visible or invisible helpers, the results would be so subjective I think they’d be hard to evaluate.

In your second post – Sheila, I’m really glad you found comfort when your mother was suffering so much. Of course, I can’t explain it, but I can say that just because it can’t be explained doesn’t mean it was Jesus. That’s one possibility. Maybe it was something neurological that hasn’t been explained yet, but will be someday, or maybe you could swear you heard it, but it did come from within you. I was sure I heard my sister calling my name one night when I was out of the country. The sound of her voice woke me up. I called her the next day. Everything was ok and she hadn’t had me on her mind. I suspect the voice was more my anxiety about being far away from home and out-of-touch with my family. I felt better after talking with her.

Sheila, in your situation with your mom, I think the really wonderful thing is that you heard a voice with a very comforting message at a time you really needed it. That’s something to be thankful for, regardless of the voice’s origin.

I wasn't going to share this experience but I will do so as sometimes this is the best way to pass on a God experience.

Several years ago my mother was dying of cancer. I was uncertain of how my prayers might best help her. It was at that moment when I was feeling desperate and at a loss for answers, as a mortal, how could I know if she would live or die, or be better off in either outcom. I actually prayed or more rightly 'called out' to God for guidance.

Suddenly, a voice spoke to me, very clearly, saying "When ever you think of your mother and her suffering, ask Jesus to have mercy on her".
It as if it was yesterday. I was alone in my home and it was not my own thoughts coming to me.
I did hear these words, audibly.

I was flooded with relief for from that moment on I felt I had the perfect prayer for mom. Now, I did not have to decide to pray for healing of her body or a quick death so she wouldn't suffer.

Gods mercy, delivered through His Son Jesus, was at hand.

How can that be explained?

E Fav,

I certainly do count on mankind in general for my day to day existence and sustinance. No doubt about it.

I also happen to believe there is a force out there known as God who sustains our existance by willing us to be here. If he stopped loving us we could just as easily be distinguished by His power.

I don't need 'proof' that He could do that. It is 'faith' that I have and you don't have.

I am not better than you because of it. I do think I am better off however as I have a Supreme help mate that I can turn to.

Hi, Sheila – here are my responses to your ideas of why it may be that people don’t believe there’s a God:

- they themselves have seen no proof – RIGHT

- never heard His voice - RIGHT

- never felt His presence - RIGHT

- and they sure won't believe in something that hasn't done something for them 'first' – WRONG

Speaking for myself, I’m not looking for a reason to believe and I'm not waiting for something to be done for me. I count on myself, my family and friends and the kindness, compassion and morality of humanity in general. I bet you probably count on those things a lot too.

Hi E Fav,

If you prefer not to be prayed for, I won't pray for you. I don't get a big thrill out of praying for others. I was going to ask God to bless you all in some way or reveal Himself to you. But I don't know if that is how He works. To reveal himself just so an unbeliever will believe. I think you have to want to know Him and have faith that He does exist before you experience Him.

That maybe why there are people who don't believe there is a God. They are sure there isn't a God due to the fact that they themselves have seen no proof, never heard His voice, never felt His presence and they sure won't believe in something that hasn't done something for them 'first'.

I can't recall ever not believing in God. I have heard it said that we are born with a God shaped hole in our soul and we keep searching until He fills the gap. I believe we must search for Him and when we ackknoweldge His prescence, then, we will hear His voice and know Him.

I hope that makes sense. I guess I don't know that i have felt God walking besides me either.

God is like the wind in the way that the wind cannot be seen. It can be felt though. Not brushing up against us as in a breeze, but an energy, a force. Because no one can see God, does not prove that He doesn't exist.

Can we see electricity? A sound wave? Not with the naked eye. But electricity and sound waves do exist.

Have a good evening.
Pax!

I haven’t really felt God in my life, I don’t think, at least not in the way I’ve heard people describe it - God walking beside them, showing up unexpectedly, etc. It’s more that I knew he was there the same way I knew a lot of things –teachers and clergy and my parents told me so. I accepted it without thinking about it much. God isn’t like the wind, which has a physical explanation. God hasn’t been proved or disproved. It can’t be proved that there’s not a celestial teapot orbiting the sun, either (an example borrowed from Bertrand Russell).

In terms of your prayers, Sheila, I know you mean well, but I’d prefer not to be prayed for. No big deal, I realize it’s probably something that comes naturally to you (to pray and to tell people that you’ll pray for them). If, however, it still makes you feel good to pray, even knowing how someone like me feels about being prayed for, then by all means, pray away.

Victoria, E Fav and Pagan Place,

Hi Victoria. Thanks for the encouragement. It feels good knowing that you were making a positive connection. How cool that you, E Fav ,Pagan Place and I are talking about our faith and whether or not there is a God and we are being civil and trying to connect and understand one another. Earlier on when I joined this blog site there wasn't much kindness being shared. Atleast that is how I felt at the
time.

E Fav,I think we are making progress. I understand where you are coming from. You seem to have felt God in your life but are not sure He exists due to lack of proof. Someone once said that we know that wind exists even though we cannot see it. It can be felt and heard but not seen. Can you imagine God in the same way? I could ask you to prove that there is not a God. Could that be proven?

And now, Pagan. This thought came to mind when reading your post. Indeed alot of peoples experience of God is enhanced by their relationship with their earthly father. In fact, as a young girl I had difficulty embracing or identifying with the Father image of God. I didn't have a close relationship with my own dad. He was distant and not at all affectionate or loving. Jesus Christ, my Savior was much easier for me to have a relationship. I guess it goes without saying that my experience with God is a understanding of the Triune God, as in The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Can i ask how you all refer to yourselves as in athiest, christian, etc? I live in the midwest and am 53 yrs old. Are christians more likely to be from that region of the US? Are you from the US? I just assumed that you were.

Hey, guess what? I gotta get to bed, tomorrow is Sunday and I gotta go to church! :)

I will pray for you all! Okee-dokee!

Peace, friends!

yes sheila the latter- welcome to on faith- sometimes youll get knocked around for your faith- take it witha grain of salt and especially keep having nice days because youren not alone and it goes back and forth-

with your good manners and intentions youll be fine
peace

Yeah, that was about the broader discussion, actually. Sorry if someone thought it was specifically trying to respond to any particular statement.

(and for the stray last line, come to think of it, that was just sloppy editing)

I think people come to the belief that 'sex is a sin,' and most notably, 'I must control this with shame and repression in order to be with my God, and in fact prioritize this over other concerns related to that God' *because* these branches of these religions tend to use psychological double-binds for the purpose:

"God is love, so this shame and repression and often-abusive attitude is from God, therefore this is love, and if I don't do it, I get shame and no love unless I say shame is love."

It just robs the situation of reason. Turns what could be the most *connective* thing in our experience into a source of alienation.

And, in this case, seems to put everyone in the position of competing for the approval of Someone, and, well, in the end, neither really talking about sex nor the Sacred. Just rules.

I’m not sure if Paganplace was referring to our discussion or the broader discussion on sex, so I’ll let Paganplace speak for him/herself.

Regarding my “understanding of faith is and how or if you experience God in your life” I think that even though you and I have a common desire to try to communicate – we think and feel and express ourselves in such different terms, that communication is hard. I experience joy and wonder and transcendence without associating it with God. Regarding faith – I can’t say I understand it at all. When I had more faith – i.e. faith in a supernatural God – It wasn’t very important to me -- It was just there – didn’t help much/didn’t get in the way. Once I started thinking about it, it didn’t make much sense to have “faith” in something that I’d never seen and for which there is no evidence. Although I felt OK with faith, I feel better without it.

E Fav,

What the world did Pagan just say? I am totally lost is space, as in some where out there! Forgive my rudeness Pagan, but you didn't make a connection at all! Would you simplify your message?

E, so now it is your turn to tell me what your understanding of faith is and how or if you experience God in your life.

Peace.

You did well! I think I’m starting to get it. One thing I know for sure (which I didn’t before) is that you’re not trying to duck out of the conversation. Several times in different discussions here, people have made strong assertions, then when I asked for clarification, they’d disappear or chastise me for not accepting the “truth” of what they’d said. One of the things I like about this forum is it provides an opportunity to sit back and think about what you’ want to say. Thanks for hanging in there.

I think we're touching on one of those troubling psychological double-binds that seems to be endemic to authoritarian religion: "This is love, you sinner, *thump, thump.*" If people did that, it'd be considered *abuse.* Claim the ultimate authority in the universe does it, and people end up emulating it, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

This neither enlightens sex, nor really very successfully *controls* it, even if that's what you want.

I think people's attitude to a 'wrathful God that's love' especially, well, has very much to do with how they see, or *want* to see, father-figures in the first place.

Too many times we hear, "When I hurt and repress you over this, I'm hating the sin but loving the sinner." Same kind of double-bind. May as well hit people in the face and say, "I'm not doing this cause I'm not that kind of person."

Double-binds.

Same sort of attempt to

Hi E Fave

Not to worry. I was only saying that we (us bloggers)obviously approach 'faith' in different ways. I explained in a former blog that to me, GOD is WHO I have faith in. So I can not have a discussion of faith with people on this blog if I don't use Him as the source of my FAITH. I need to go back and reread what I said a few days ago.

God has revealed Himself to me through christianity and mostly through sacred scriptures in the Bible.He has also revealed Himself through the beauty and majesty of nature. Like just take a minute when you are out walking through the park and count the many kinds and colors of the flowergardens. The beautiful aromas of each flower and the intricate detail of every blossom! That is why I said earlier on that 'God is love'. I do realize some people do not have this experience of God. I only tried to share 'my understanding' of God in my blogs.

Forgive me if I didn't come across in this way. It was not my intention. Without the sounds of voice and emotion it is not always possible to know the exact implication of peoples message.

For instance,Victorias last blog, not sure if she is stating, 'hey, that is how it is, take it or leave it' or, 'yes, this can be uncomfortable, too bad, but have a nice day.'

So I mean that to me, Sheila, God is a God of Love and He wants me to know Him as Love, then that is what He is to me.

I believe God reveals himself to Christians as a God of love and mercy because He is refered to as that in the scriptures. That is my TRUTH! If another Blogger says God is not a God of love, then I will agree to disagree with that person if that is their TRUTH. Capeesh? Not to say I won't explain why I feel that way, because I will and did. I guess I just didn't know how much of an explaination you wanted or needed.

Did this get too drug out? Seems like it did. I want to be sure I have explained myself this time.

How did I do?

Hi, Sheila – You say that “we will agree to disagree”, but to me it seems more like a miscommunication. I wasn’t disagreeing with anything you said – I was asking you what you meant by what you said. Now I wonder if you perceived my asking for clarification as disagreeing with you.

In your first post, you suggested “why not ask to have an explanation of something you don't understand?” That’s what I’ve done and here’s how I interpret your answer: You want what you’ve said to be accepted as a personal "truth" that requires no explanation.

Jihadist,
It's still Sodom on the sand, an adult playground if you will. I am glad you had a good time and I would love to travel to your neck of the woods as it were. At 6'5" I'm sure to stand out in a crowd... lol

Thanks for the information on the slave trade in the pacific rim. It's tragic that this still goes on today.

welcome to on faith sheila

Hey Concerned,

Whoa Nelly! You have gone off the deep end now! You are saying God is not omniscient and does not know the future because He does not intervene. And you know this because who told you so?

Save it!

Don't waste your energy or mine by explaining which ex-priest like, JD Crossman, who left his vocation and fills your mind with his interpretations.

You can not call yourself a Catholic. An informed Catholic. You may be a Catholic by birth, a cultural Catholic, but not a Catholic in union with the Roman Catholic Church.

Ever heard of CS Lewis and his Screwtape Letters?
Tell me you have and that you are trying to relive the experiences there in. If so, I can sleep tonite.

Like Jason, I think it is time to discontinue this blog as it has gone off the topic and has taken on an area that is disturbing.

Peace

hi E Fav'

A few comments re: your blog. It seems like we may be getting into 'semantics' when I share my thoughts about FAITH and its implications. What then, is faith? A belief or trust not based on logic or reason but based fundamentally on volition often associated with a relationship with God or a Higher Power. So, it seems that we do not all think of God and the religion that He has revealed Himself to us through when we say FAITH.

Thus, i stand by my comment that 'we will agree to disagree'. I have my own TRUTH and you have your own TRUTH and so it will remain.

Thank God for other Catholics coming in starting with Jason and Sheila. The discussions among Catholics become really interesting now. Not that I understood fully all that is being discussed.

RAS,
Thanks, but I am not at war with Concerned. As a Sri Lankan Buddhist (you said so in another thread) I'm sure you are a Theravada Buddhist. Surely you are not advocating a war between me and the People of the Book here:)

GREG,
Sorry I missed your last post to me here. I've been to Las Vegas, your hometown. Saw Cirque de Soleil, blow a roll of quarters on the slot machines, rationalised if I win by the will of God, I will donate it to the Salvation Army. Of course I did not win. I'm not supposed to gamble as a Muslim. Was expecting Las Vegas to be full of mobsters, drunk gamblers and strippers. You know Sin City, Fun City, Sodom and Gomorrah of the US. But Vegas turns out to be a mini Disneyworld. Should I go again when Paris' Crazy Horse get in your town.

You must come and see Kuala Lumpur, my hometown yourself in mad, madding and maddening Malaysia.

Very briefly, re your question on trafficking in women and sexual slavery, in Southeast and East Asia, most of the victims are Thais, Chinese, Filipinos. They transitted Malaysia en-route to North America and Europe. Some landed in Malaysia and work as "masseurs". When apprehended, they are sent to their countries of origin. There has yet to be Muslim gangs doing this in South East and East Asia. But it did not stop some Muslim men in Malaysia from availing themselves of these victims.

As for the women who are victims, it can be tricky and sensitive. Some Thai ladies do it voluntarily to earn a living. They have specific arrangements or contracts, if you will, with their "employers" and were let go after a few years as agreed. Many saved enough to start small business like hairdressing, tailoring or as legimate masseurs etc.

But the Chinese women and girls are pure victims tricked by promises of jobs in Chinese restaurants etc overseas. Some do get those jobs as promised, but at very minimal wage and dismal conditions, but still at great cost, up to US 50,000 that they have to pay to the "facilitators/arrangers"( aka Chinese Triads) and they work under great and dismal conditions in sweat shops. Some got "passage" for low and have to pay for their passage for years and years.

Dealing with it is by inter-state enforcement cooperation. And there is lot of corruption that also enables this trade to go on.

As I've said before, if sex is considered neither sacred or a sin by the traffickers of women for sex and exploitation of labour (slavery by any name), but just business, and a lucrative one, well, it will go on.

Of course Muslim men are "lectured" about the dangers of extra-marital and unprotected sex on religous and health grounds, but men has free will. HIV/AIDS is rising in Malaysia not only because of sex but, also due to drug abuse. This is a country where 60% of its population are Muslims.

Regards

P. S. I think the Catholic and Adventist Churches do not respect the Sexuality of certain ethnicities of women. The Adventists were involved in the Rwandan Genocide and allowed for the mass rape of rwandan women to occur. The Adventists were involved in Divide and Rule in Rwanda, as they are currently involved in Divide and Rule between Black America and Immigrants from overseas. Here is more information about the Adventist Involvement in the Rwandan Genocide
http://www.afrol.com/Countries/Rwanda/backgr_cross_genocide.htm

P. S. I think the Catholic and Adventist Churches do not respect the Sexuality of certain ethnicities of women. The Adventists were involved in the Rwandan Genocide and allowed for the mass rape of rwandan women to occur. The Adventists were involved in Divide and Rule in Rwanda, as they are currently involved in Divide and Rule between Black America and Immigrants from overseas. Here is more information about the Adventist Involvement in the Rwandan Genocide
http://www.afrol.com/Countries/Rwanda/backgr_cross_genocide.htm

P. S. I think the Catholic and Adventist Churches do not respect the Sexuality of certain ethnicities of women. The Adventists were involved in the Rwandan Genocide and allowed for the mass rape of rwandan women to occur. The Adventists were involved in Divide and Rule in Rwanda, as they are currently involved in Divide and Rule between Black America and Immigrants from overseas. Here is more information about the Adventist Involvement in the Rwandan Genocide
http://www.afrol.com/Countries/Rwanda/backgr_cross_genocide.htm

I believe that Sexuality has been imperiled by Conservatives in Churches like the Adventist Church. The Adventist Church is comprised of alot of White conservatives and Immigrant Conservatives who adhere to racist notions of sexuality concerning women. For example, scores of Rwandan Women were raped in the Rwandan Genocide. Adventist Pastors and Doctors were involved in fanning this Genocide. http://www.afrol.com/articles/15032
The Adventist Church was guilting of fanning the desecretion of the sexuality of these women and even propped up the guilty Adventist Culprits.

The same thing continues to go on. The Adventist Church - involved in Divide and Rule in Rwanda, continues it until this day - this is why their Adra Program concentrates most of its effort in Africa and other developing regions to the exclusion of blighted zones in Developed nations where you find alot of black and brown peoples.

In the Adventist Church, some of the immigrant Adventists have espoused some of the same practices and beliefs of racists - such as that women are wenches. Zambians who called women wenches, etc. and tried to prey upon them, much as white slavemasters did to black women in the 18th century - have been propped up by the Church.

This Church is devoid of the African-American intelligentsia and the middle and Upper classes. Not only does it not court this contingent - it concentrates virtually all of its mission efforts overseas. It is essentially like Conservative think Tanks like the Heritage Foundation, who go overseas and give AID in order to develop a cadre of overseas "conservatives". The Adventist Church is cultivating a band of puppets that it unleashes onto the public -

The Adventists build all sorts of hospitals, clinics, etc. in many developing countries, because they are trying to cultivate a cadre that will support their political conservativism and undermine progressive social policy here in the US.

In the Adventist Church -officials are more concerned with protecting the "dignity" of an Adventist tribalist, or a rapist, - than the women victims of these culprits.

Marco Polo,

As noted previously, be very cautious reading the Catholic Catechism. Some added observations by Dr. James Biechler , an emeritus professor of religion at LaSalle University. He also holds a licentiate in canon law and is a longtime member of the Canon Law Society of America.

http://astro.temple.edu/~arcc/rights11.htm

"In the first place Catholics have a right to have the gospel preached to them. Even canon law states that "the Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments" (Canon 213). I know of a parish in which the Sunday homilies are concentrating on the new catechism. I also know of a parish in which the pastor had the new catechism placed on a pedestal in the front of the church and asked all present to touch the catechism as a sign of their acceptance of it. To my knowledge he has never done the same with the bible or the lectionary containing the gospels. The quasi-idolatrous message here is that the catechism takes precedence over the word of God."

"We learn to our surprise that only a "man" can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. And lest you think that term includes women as the catechism nearly everywhere else assumes, in an English usage more anachronistic than a bishop's jeweled ring or coat of arms, the catechism finds it necessary to give the Latin vir in parenthesis. Why is this a fact? Because Christ and the apostles chose only men to carry on the church's ministry. This is news to historians and scripture scholars but it is now a "truth" enshrined in a catechism which has the authority of the scriptures and the ecumenical councils."

"No one who has examined the catechism can deny that it contains a wealth of material from the scriptures, the general councils, the Fathers, and the great theologians. But it also contains a veritable "toxic landfill" of questionable opinion, outdated theology, and misleading, scandalous teaching."

Marco Polo,

Added CCC comments by Dr. Biechler, an emeritus professor of religion at LaSalle University. He also holds a licentiate in canon law and is a longtime member of the Canon Law Society of America http://astro.temple.edu/~arcc/rights11.htm
about the Catholic Catechism:

"In the first place Catholics have a right to have the gospel preached to them. Even canon law states that "the Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments" (Canon 213). I know of a parish in which the Sunday homilies are concentrating on the new catechism. I also know of a parish in which the pastor had the new catechism placed on a pedestal in the front of the church and asked all present to touch the catechism as a sign of their acceptance of it. To my knowledge he has never done the same with the bible or the lectionary containing the gospels. The quasi-idolatrous message here is that the catechism takes precedence over the word of God."

"We learn to our surprise that only a "man" can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. And lest you think that term includes women as the catechism nearly everywhere else assumes, in an English usage more anachronistic than a bishop's jeweled ring or coat of arms, the catechism finds it necessary to give the Latin vir in parenthesis. Why is this a fact? Because Christ and the apostles chose only men to carry on the church's ministry. This is news to historians and scripture scholars but it is now a "truth" enshrined in a catechism which has the authority of the scriptures and the ecumenical councils."

So read the CCC carefully as per Dr. Dr. Biechler notes: "No one who has examined the catechism can deny that it contains a wealth of material from the scriptures, the general councils, the Fathers, and the great theologians. But it also contains a veritable "toxic landfill" of questionable opinion, outdated theology, and misleading, scandalous teaching. "

“Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?”

This question is rather loaded and unsophisticated, as if any religion has such impossible black and white beliefs! I can only assume Quinn and Meacham are implying simplistically that Hinduism and paganism are the religions that considers sex sacred and that Christianity is one of the main ones that considers sex a sin. (Kind of a slur on Christianity from an unthinking secular view point.)

There cannot be a sense of the sacred unless there is a sense of the profane. Any religion that is focused on expressing the sacred in sexuality certainly has an awareness of its need (at the very least) to be protected from profane abuse or disrespect.

A more enlightening question: How have human beings (who often express deep and important values through religion) understood sex to be sacred and how as profane? And how--specifically--are these understandings and expressions in dialogue with the surrounding culture. Your "Why?" merely expresses tied old ways of reacting to different religions.

Let's bring the culture war dialogue to a higher, more educated, level and not allow such nonchalantly biased views to dominate.

Jmj

Hello again Concerned! I am disappointed (but not surprised at all) to hear that you are a Catholic. You are not alone my friend – many Catholics like yourself have not been catechized as well as they should have been. That you are missing some of the basics for understanding the faith and what the Church teaches is certainly not an uncommon occurrence for Catholics. But, it is unfortunate.

Having said that – I hope you will believe me when I tell you that I really do appreciate where you are coming from. And the Church is certainly not against you educating yourself - and learning from many different sources – doing so is a sign of wisdom indeed! So, I’m not trying to be critical of your desire to examine things from anti-Catholic (or anti-Christian for that matter) perspectives – there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But, you ARE apparently allowing some of these “sources” to guide you – so if you are being misled, you must accept the responsibility. After all… we CHOOSE who we follow – no? ;) And some of the sources you’ve provided are filled with errors (as a side note – if you hope to have your opinions taken seriously in discussions like this, you would do well to be more careful about what sources you use to publicly support them. Don’t be careless with your credibility my friend!)

That you feel the Church and her teachings are opposed to science (in this case – the theory of evolution and the scientific study that supports it) reflects that you have a shallow understanding of the faith that you claim as your background. This is easily remedied though! Take the time to learn your faith my friend! If for no other reason than when you happen to find yourself in a debate with a fellow Catholic who actually DOES know a thing or two about the faith – you will be on equal footing! Plus, if you are willing to identify yourself as a Catholic – you owe it to yourself at least to actually learn a little more about what that means!

Additionally – I really don’t know if it’s appropriate to continue in this venue – we are straying too far from the topic in my opinion. And I definitely have answers to your questions and/or accusations – but, this probably isn’t the best place, and I do doubt my ability to answer you as well as I would like to. To your satisfaction I mean. I would like to put you in contact with a resource where you can get some feedback from experts that actually can field some of those questions for you if you’d like! Try visiting this forum (http://forums.catholic.com/index.php?referrerid=28560) and I am sure you will find plenty of people willing to discuss some of the issues you are raising here in greater detail – and with greater clarity than you will find here. ;) Don’t be afraid to ask questions though! The Church will always be your home – so get to know it! :)

May the Lord be with you!

Jason

Jmj

Greetings MARCO POLO! The Catechism is pretty much THE place to go if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches – and you can rest assured that anything you read in it is 100% consistent with official Church teaching (as opposed to the opinions of an individual or group – whether they be Catholic or not.) As I’ve mentioned, it’s very readable… and I highly recommend it to anyone interested! :)

Here is a link from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops – http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/ -
you can also find it on the Vatican’s website (of course) - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

There are plenty of other sites that have it available – the only difference would probably be maneuverability. Good luck!

By the way – you screen name reminded me of a trip I took to Italy. The Church where Marco Polo was buried is very old and very beautiful. If you ever get a chance to visit Venice – you should definitely check it out!

May the Lord be with you!

Jason

Victoria -

I agree that casual and careless sex is potentially dangerous and can be emotionally harmful to either or both parties as well.

I have to think, however that neither of these are the basis of religious disapproval of sex. Heck - I can't remember the source but it has been said that of all the sexual perversions, celibacy is perhaps the strangest.

Sex is both an emotive and a physical act. Religions that seek to narrow the definition of "proper" sex simply do not take into account the broad scope and range of human sexuality that is not harmful.

well forgive me everyone if my rant was too pointy-
just the laissez-faire attitude of if it feels good do it doesnt work anymore- there is too much at stake now- its a serious subject and when people make so light of it i get frustrated by their complacency- as ive seen too much damage caused by it- and if we dont take responsibility for our own actions- who will? if we knwo something will possibly hurt someone we have to speak out about it-

Madame Jihadist,
You are not talking to Concerned anymore? I was beginning to be rooting for you. You are better. Many Christians are better people than him. I still don't understand why he hated all Muslim very much. He said many cruel things about your people. They are very kind and good in Sri Lanka, not like the Tamil Tigers.

Respectfully

Ras

and because i mentioned AIDS and god and homosexuality in the same sentence dont go all mental and reactionary about aids being gods will or something- everything is gods will inmy philosophy-
also dont start any nonsense about gods punishment- thats one of the most evil concepts ive ever heard-

no one hre knows what gods will is

possibly bigmouth you are talking about christianity?

there are other religions-

regulation of sexual mores has its upside-

besides unplanned pregnancies- sexually transmitted diseases (that we can cure now but used to be fatal or permanently debilitating) have given way to the new danger AIDS-

i started doing volunteer work for AIDS in the late 80s when america hadnt really even heard about it yet- and everyone who had it was dying of "cancer"

alot of death certificates of pwas (people with aids) state cancer as death-

the stigma attached to aids wasnt the disease- but the FACT (that isnt up for dispute) that most every pwa in the early 80s was a gay man-

and homosexual unprotected sex was the mosy common way it was spread whe it first hit these shores-

there is no way i could be considered homophobic- its not an issue or motive as im not and have more than proven this with my service to the homosexual ommunity for years when their own families abandoned them-

but the fact is that it was spread- and then through other demographics- but today sex is still the most common way to acquire AIDS-

believe me when i tell you this-
people who think hedonism and feeling good if you dont hurt anyone else is a valid way to comport oneself on this planet quickly and irrevocably change their tune when they discover theyre hiv positive-

if religion is one of the vehicles that have helped people to control their urges and saved them from dying- how can that be a bad thing?

i do not really see any superior and practical alternative offered here- because with this issue you very well may be more than hurting someone else with your self indulgent behavior-

also liberated- as far as god not being prescient-

i think its logical to assert that in the case of sexual abstinence outside of protected relationship- there is definitely prescience and wisdom in gods command to abstain from sexual relations outside of marriage-

before anyone screams about religion or my mention of homosexuality- this is a question about sexuality and religion and is my opinion and i am entitled to it-

go to your local aids center and volunteer to be a buddy to a PWA and then say something-

Umm! Religion and Sex.. of course they are not related in any manner, except in the minds of religiously indoctrinated people.

Sex is good because it stimulates the pleasure sensors of the brain.

Religions are evil because they promote devisions of peoples, ie, the death and destruction around the world being performed by religious fanatics (suicide bombings, killing physicians who perform abortions, etc)are examples of what religion can do.

Sex is real, however, religious ideas only exist in the mind, nothing about religion is real. God is just an idea. Everything in exixtance must have a beginning, so who created God, another, bigger , stronger God, perhaps? Our religious beliefs are a result of childhood indoctrination, where we are taught to feel guilt and fear.

Guilty because we are responsible for every sin committed by our ancestors, starting with Eve. We are taught to be fearful of God, Jesus, Satan, Hell, and not getting to this imaginary place we call Heaven. Without fear and guilt there is no need for a religion.

Athiests and nonbelievers have no fear of all these things allowing them to think freely with open minds.

blindness of the heart.
have they not travelled thru the land ,and have they hearts wherewith to understand and ears wherewith to to hear?verily ,it is not the eyes that grow blind,but it is the hearts which are in the breasts that grow blind.
blindness of the heart leads to sex deviation leads to diseas leads to death.
diseas and death is serious heart tenderizer.

This question is a bit like asking, "Why do you think some people like the crunchy cookie, while others like the creamy filling?"

I believe that the SDA - Adventist Church does not regard sex as sacred when it comes to black people. THis Church has one of the highest AIDS rates in the world, because instead of condemning the promiscuity that is often behind the epidemic, it has adopted the stance, that it must not encourage HIV/AIDS stigma.

Additionally, this Church is a very racist Church.

It goes overseas -and it is like a neocolonial institution. Like the Colonialists of yesteryear - this Church goes overseas, and propps up tribalists, killers, etc. who harm the people. For example, the Adventist Church was seminally involved in the Rwandan Genocide. An Adventist Doctor who was Rwandan and who ran an Adventist Hospital was one of the key persons spreading hate messages, and he and his father were never kicked out of the church or discliplined in any manner until they were jailed.

The same thing goes. This Church's Headquarters are here in America - however, this Church spends about 99% of its missionary AID overseas and it recruits and funds puppets who prey upon the nonsuspecting population.

Some Zambian Adventists preyed upon the population - calling people racial slurs, such as "wenches" and "monkey" and instead of them being disciplined, they were propped up by the Church like Puppets.

Sexuality is not sacred in the Adventist Church especially when it comes to ancient stereotypes about some sectors of the population.

If you were to attempt to dishonor some sectors of the population and call them "wench" or something, the Adventist Church would probably give you an award, or some Money - to encourage you to more of this behavior. The Adventist Church is a neocolonial institution.

For all of its work in Africa, and Asia, the Question - is - why is it that President Paulson and Pardon Mwansa, have never shown their face in black American inner city neighbhorhoods, such as SouthEast DC - when these neighborhoods are nearer to them than, many locations overseas?
The Adventist Church - a large segment of the conservative immigrant population and white conservative population subscribe to notions of sexuality that dishonor the sexuality of certain sectors of the population, and that harken back to ancient racist stereotypes.

Women of certain races and national origin, can not have any dignity or safety in this Church - due to the fact that this Church courts bigots to undermine the dignity of peoples here in the US and to undermine social progressivism here in the US.
Why does the Adventist Church have several hospitals and other mission projects overseas, and nothing in black inner city neighbhorhoods in the US - i. e. SouthEast DC?

Religion is a set of irrational rule for irrational people. Different religions have different irrational rules regarding sex.

1 John 4:8 states: "Whoever is without love does not know God for God is love" should have one very important provision i.e. that God is not omniscient. If God is omniscient then this Singularity knows who will be born blind, deaf, without limbs, or with significant other disabilities. Since this happens all too frequently and the omniscient God does not intervene, the Singularity can hardly be labeled as Love.

As per Father Edward Schillebeeck, famous contemporary Catholic theologian, God is however not omniscient i.e. does not know the future. In his book, Church: The Human Story of God, Schillebeeckx says,

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and
women."

This question does not adequately differentiate between the various classes of sexual activity. I don't know of any religion in which all sexual acts are considered sinful. Within the Judeo-Christian tradition the issue is whether sexuality is expressed within the sacred institution of marriage or outside those bounds.

The question is "flamebait" and serves to stir up irrational argumentaion due to its lack of clarity.

Sheila,

Did you read the complete article by Dr. Biechler?

Did you note his final comment?? i.e. "Once this is said (the CCC referenced paragraphs), it is clear that those who marry really do not wish "to follow the Lamb wherever he goes" and are really "not intent upon the things of the Lord."

How can you possibly believe that the CCC does not have some troubling aspects after reading this. Read the CCC paragraphs Dr. Biechler is referring to.

See also his article on celibacy at http://astro.temple.edu/~arcc/rights13.htm

The Magisterium also is typically way behind correct theological thinking. Ditto for the College of Cardinals. Neither one can even come to grips with limbo. And we should not then question their standard motto i.e. the Bible says it is true because the Bible says so???

Sheila,

Catholic universities teaching "The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic?? i.e.

"Yes, this story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon])."

Notre Dame and Catholic University for starters. Contact their theology departments.

Sheila,

Indeed, I am a Catholic but a Catholic who has taken the time to evaluate our Faith and found it full of discrepancies starting with the four gospels with their different versions of the same story or complete lack of attestation and verification. JD Crossan has done an excellent job reviewing the Gospels and associated scripture. He concludes that over 60% of the NT are embellished passages added by well-meaning scribes. See for example his book The Historical Jesus. His references used for the book are posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf. His conclusions are posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Sheila – thanks for getting back to me. It’s interesting to know the reference for “God is love” but you didn’t address my comment that this forum is not a blog on our “understanding of God” as you said, but instead is a “conversation about faith and its implications” as the forum sponsors wrote in their description.

When you say “We will continue to agree to disagree!” what does that mean? For instance, is it that you don’t accept that others have had a different experience with God than you have? Or that others aren’t able to understand what you do about God? Maybe you meant something else. I’m not sure. Could you explain?

Thanks

Religion is only harmful if it is abused, sort of like alcohol or prescription drugs.

Regarding God is love:

1 John 4:8 states: "Whoever is without love does not know God for God is love".

I have known that verse forever and it may well be stated in other places in sacred scripture.

I wouldn't know how to approach conversations ON FAITH and religion with out remembering God and scriptures.

However, there are those who have no concept of a loving God and or a God of any sort.

Point well taken by the former bloggers who suggested this point!

We will continue to agree to disagree!

Concerned T C N L,

I need to know if you are a Catholic quoting the
catechism or someone who reads the writtings of others and believes what is in print.

I know what the Catholic Church currently teaches and it is certainly NOT contrary to the Catechism. We know this, God created man, Adam, and his partner, Eve. They sinned, known as 'the fall of man'. Brokeness and imperfection was passed on to the rest of the human race and we are all affected by the stain of 'original sin'.
Pretty simple stuff.

What major Catholic Universities are you referring to that teach contrary to this?

Who is this Dr Biechler, Prof of Religion that you quote? What makes him correct? If he is not teaching in union with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, then he is in ERROR! Fact of life! He cannot simply disagree with official church catechism just because he is a canon lawyer or holds a degree in EIEIO and believes he is smarter than the College of Cardinals or whatever.

Give me a break!

These men are desenters and are leading people astray.

Curious,

My understanding of why condoms being used to prevent conception is against the teaching of the Church, is that we are called to be'open to life'. That meaning that God should always be the 'third party' if you will so that nothing unnatural is standing between a husband and his wifes coming together in the sexual union and the openness to bringing a new life into the world, if it is Gods will. I hope I explained that right. Does that make sense to you?
It really requires us to have faith and believe God has our best interests in mind, at all times. He just might know what we need more than we know ourselves!

"on the other hand can cause a lot of suffering when engaged in carelessly."

Andy, that doesn't explain the rules against homosexuality and masturbation, as I mentioned early in this thread. Neither one intrinsically causes suffering.

Sex and religion have something in common. Both are highly overrated!

``I don't know of any religions that assert that all sex is sinful.`` Of course no religon says that ALL sex is sinful but why is it considered wrong by Roman Catholics that sex between a husband and wife IS wrong if they use a condom?

I don't know of any religions that assert that all sex is sinful. As to why religions are concerned about sex, I think it is because sex is a powerful force that on the one hand creates life and reinforces love and on the other hand can cause a lot of suffering when engaged in carelessly.

Orin Hollander,

Excellent point about cultural origins of religious teachings. I haven't explored that much, because I've been more focused on questioning the claims about those teachings being handed down by deity. To a religion, the idea that its teachings had some human origin is blasphemy.

While I don't claim to be a sociologist, I suspect that "clan-based and insular communities" have taboos that limit individual freedom in other areas besides sex. (Which is why I see that kind of insularity as generally a bad thing.) I would guess that in practice, the "overwhelming importance" given to paternity is what leads these communities to regard women as little more than baby vessels. I would argue that such importance is really about the clan placing its own desires above the needs of the community or the individual.

JasonB82ABN,

"Catechism of the Catholic Church is the first new edition of the catechism in 400 years. "

http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-U-S/dp/0385479670

The current edition was published in 1992 so it is already 15 years out of date.

"Here it is-the first new Catechism of the Catholic Church in more than 400 years"

http://www.catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=981

So let me get this straight? According to the Liberated one, I am closer to God for being single? Sweeeeeeeet. I'd revel in it if I believed in the guy. Just nice to know I can do what I do and be justified. Thanks Man

JasonB82ABN,

From the CCC: "417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

vs. what is being taught in theology classes at major Catholic universities:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
Yes, this story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon]).

Original sin is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin. Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies. Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer
accepted."

Another opinion from http://astro.temple.edu/~arcc/rights11.htm
(Dr. Biechler, an emeritus professor of religion, is a member of ARCC's board of directors. He also holds a licentiate in canon law and is a longtime member of the Canon Law Society of America)

"No one who has examined the catechism can deny that it contains a wealth of material from the scriptures, the general councils, the Fathers, and the great theologians. But it also contains a veritable "toxic landfill" of questionable opinion, outdated theology, and misleading, scandalous teaching. There is no evidence, for example, that marriage, "under the regime of sin" as the catechism puts it (#1606), is "threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation." Married relationships (#1607) "were distorted by mutual recriminations...a relationship of domination and lust...burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work." In contrast, (#1618) by renouncing marriage one can "follow the Lamb wherever he goes," one can "be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him...." After all, it says, "marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away" (#1619). Once this is said, it is clear that those who marry really do not wish "to follow the Lamb wherever he goes" and are really "not intent upon the things of the Lord."

Very few comments have addressed the stated question.
The cultural environment in which a religion develops determines how it treats a number of issues of significance to that culture.
The Western monotheistic religious tradition began among desert bedouins. In such clan-based and insular communities the question of legitimacy of offspring, hence inheritance, was of overwhelming inportance. Thus, very strong taboos about sex were established to minimize the chance of confusion about paternity. By their very nature taboos take on religious underpinnings in order to legitimize the taboos- Not my idea, it's God's!
By contrast, cosmopolitan religions, as developed in Greece, Egypt, or Persia had other things to worry about, and so sex was left to its own devices. When that happens, sex is more open and free. Sex is fun, and in the absence of taboos it is tolerated to a much greater extent.
The more secular a society, the more sex is treated as just another aspect of living.

Sheila,

Some comments on your references:

1 Cor 7: 32-34 as per JD Crossan in his book In Search of Paul, p.111: St. Paul was not interested in marriage because he assummed the second coming was imminent. Fortunately for us, he was wrong.

Matt 19: 12 " For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

Not the way to go in my opinion and not a good reference for promoting celibacy.

Definition of a eunuch:

1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
3. Informal. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.

Well put Tonio. Nice to see some intelligent discussion again my friend.

"I wish to emphasize that none of the above authors discuss sexuality from the point of view of religion and morality imposed by religion. It is based on the observation of human behavior in history. The wonderful thing however is that the morals propagated by religions suddenly take on a new meaning, and is no longer seen as kill-joy instructions and power games played by people of God."

Valid point, Soja John. I want to get away from the idea that any one religion has exclusive title to any kind of morality, sexual or otherwise. Whatever the merits of the various religions' definition of that morality, it is possible to treat sex morally and responsibly outside religion.

I see the phrase "kill-joy" as misleading. That implies that whenever someone criticizes religions' teachings about sex, the criticism is motivated by pure selfishness. I think it would be more accurate to say the people who crafted those teachings about sex may have had other agendas besides morality. Even if some of those teachings have merit, that doesn't prove the claim that those teachings were handed down by some deity.

JasonB82ABN:

Hey, you got the link for that? I'd like to check it out. I am always up for reading anything about religion and its teachings. It helps me to better understand it.

I have a comment on the whole "god is love" bit.......what if he isn't just love? what if he is also hate, kindness, retribution, anger, understanding? Maybe he is all those things because God didn't make Man. Man made God, and in all the confusion, man made him into what he wants to see him as. Just a thought.

Hi, Sheila –

I checked out the “about On Faith” section and find that it’s described as “…a conversation about faith and its implications….” This is a bit different from your description: “This is a blog on our understanding of God, who is Love, remember?”

Some people here who have been raised with a harsh and demanding God, might not feel that God is Love. Others here who don’t think that there is a God still might have much to say about the implications of faith in our society.

I agree that it’s good to try to show respect and compassion to each other when discussing these sensitive subjects. Also, I think it’s sometimes hard to know how to do that while still expressing your views honestly. Sometimes what seems “snippy” can be more a matter of people reacting to a divergent point of view that they’ve never heard before.

I think this forum is great in starting conversations among people with very different views who would ordinarily not find an occasion to talk with each other at all.

Hi, Sheila –

I checked out the “about On Faith” section and find that it’s described as “…a conversation about faith and its implications….” This is a bit different from your description:
“This is a blog on our understanding of God, who is Love, remember?”

Some people here who have been raised with a harsh and demanding God, might disagree with you that God is Love. Others here who don’t think that there is a God still might have much to say about the implications of faith in our society.

I agree that it’s good to try to show respect and compassion to each other when discussing these sensitive subjects. Also, I think it’s sometimes hard to know how to do that while still expressing your views honestly. Sometimes what seems “snippy” can be more a matter of reacting to a divergent point of view that you've never heard before and are unprepared for.

I think this forum is great in starting conversations among people with very different views who would ordinarily not find an occasion to talk with each other at all.

CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL--That and of course the extermination of Jews and homosexuals is what Xianity is all about. Control a people's natural impulses (i.e., anything you want to do) and you control the people. American Xians love that control thing.

Jmj

Greetings folks! A few quick responses before I move on here. ;)

Concerned – I am not sure where the idea that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is updated every 400 years comes from – that is a new suggestion to me. If you do have any references, I would very much appreciate it if you could dig them up! :)

And as far as the current edition goes – I can’t say I agree with your general statement about its need for an update. If you haven’t read the portions of the Catechism that deal with the biblical story of creation, I suggest you do! Maybe you will not find it as “un-modern” as you currently appear to believe it is. ;) The Catechism is an easy read – approachable for almost anyone. And as I’ve mentioned… is available online to view if you have the inclination. Please feel free to take advantage! :)

JIHADIST – thank you for your comments my friend - I appreciate it very much! And peace be with you as well!

Dennis – well said my brother. ;) Very informative in content and charitable in tone!

Sheila – also, well said my sister. And practical I might add! Thank you.

May the Lord be with you all!

Jason

Tips: The five authors who stand out in my mind (now)who helped shape my values on sexuality are:

1. C S Lewis - His essay on sexuality is a very down to earth and rational discussion of the subject.

2. D H Lawrence - The prologue in his book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is really an insightful essay on sexuality.

3. Erich Fromm - His book "The Art of Loving" discusses sexuality from an evolutionary point of view and provides a broader context for describing different kinds of love. He points out to the fact that the lower down an animal is on the evolutionary scale, the less differentiated is its sex pattern. The difference he points out is that animals act only in accordance with their instinct and their need without excesses but human beings don't: Animals have mating seasons, they don't think about sex all the time as humans do; the species of animals that bond, bond predictably without the need to try out several relationships like some humans do; for an animal sex is just sex and it behaves in a predictable fashion in accordance with its instinct, whereas in humans, sex is associated with all sorts of other emotions both good and bad, among the less honourable - an ego trip, an expression of power, a tool for manipulation etc.

4. Carl Rogers - His book "My needs, Your Needs, Our needs". He emphasizes why it is vitally important to reserve our first sexual experience, to an emotionally meaningful relationship. Once we get used to the idea of having sex without any emotional attachment, the harder it gets to associate emotions with sex. The Buddhists call it, "Using the other human being as a toilet."

5. Patrick Carnes - "Don't call it love". Carnes has done very important work on sexual addiction. For those who think sex without any restraint is a sign of liberation, one should take a good, honest, and clinical look at what forms such "liberation" can take, so that one does not glorify sex for the sake of sex to the extent morality and self-control is considered a weakness.

I wish to emphasize that none of the above authors discuss sexuality from the point of view of religion and morality imposed by religion. It is based on the observation of human behaviour in history. The wonderful thing however is that the morals propagated by religions suddenly take on a new meaning, and is no longer seen as kill-joy instructions and power games played by people of God.

I wish to close with a Zen story. It might seem like an extreme example, but it shows the value of training in celibacy and self-control without resorting to any denial or repression tactics. It is really about developing the capacity to become fully aware of one's sexuality and yet not acting it out inappropriately. It goes without saying that celibacy is a skill one must master in order to remain faithful to one's partner when one is exposed to temptation outside that relationship.

A young monk (in the days when Zen Buddhist monks in Japan had to be celibate and spent many many years in meditation to attain enlightenment)was troubled by his sexual fantasies during meditation. The advice he got from his master was always the same - to let the thoughts and images come and go, without suppressing it or engaging it in treacherous conversation or dwelling on it; without passing any judgement on the quality; and to draw his mind back to his breath over and over again, minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month. His life become hell due to the sexual fantasies which always emerged when he started to meditate and thoughts were supposed to subside and the mind expected to get silent. But he was determined not to give in to give in to his sexual urges and leave the monastery because he wanted to be enlightened. A few years passed but there was still no sign of either enlightenment or an end to the sexual fantasies. One day he finally decided he had had enough. Accepting defeat at the hands of his sexual fantasies and giving up his burning desire to be enlightened, he said goodbye to his master and left the monastery to fulfil his sexual desires. He went straight to a brothel. At the sight of the prostitute ready to offer him her services, he was enlightened. He turned away immediately and left the brothel without touching the prostitute and returned to the monastery to continue his meditation. Enlightenment was only the beginning.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

you put your call to good manners in such a lovely way sheila

peace

I think it is in the best interests of all involved to refrain from criticism of anothers beliefs. Clearly there are many misunderstandings regarding the true teachings of all faiths. I for one know that there are alot of misconceptions concerning why we believe and practice what we do as Catholics. If everyone respected others faiths and agreed to go about our lives being the best we can be and practicing what we preach, the world would be a better place. There are always going to be extremists in all areas of religion and politics. They are not the norm! Instead of being snippy and bashing one another, why not ask to have an explaination of something you don't understand?

Show some compassion. Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

This is a blog on our understanding of God, who is Love, remember?

PAX,
Sheila

Hi everyone,

I have found all of the past comments and questions both interesting, informative and somewhat ignorqnt, I hate to say. Firstly, I would like to know what religions regard sex as a sin. Is that like 'sex is a sin' as in pre-marital? I assume it is. The obvious answer would be because the Ten Commandments forbid adultery which includes the act of premarital sex. The church considers marriage a sacrament and man and wife become cocreators with God in bringing forth life. Sounds mighty 'sacred' to me. The 'why nots' of sex outside of marriage are so many,here are a few of the reasons why the Holy Spirit, through the Church, teaches us to control our sexual desires and not behave like animals.(i roll my eyes Heavenward when i see comments of how 'the church is trying to make us feel guilty' No one makes us 'feel guilty'. We come to conclussions on our own due to our consciences) What feels good and seems like fun often times wounds us and the many people in our families and lives.Sex out side of marriage and being unfaithful in a marriage causes so much pain to all involved and more so if a pregnancy results. The world is full of single mothers,neglected, abused,unwanted and abandoned children, broken homes due to unfaithfulness, AIDS and many sexually transmitted diseases. We have a loving God who wants the best for us. He gives us rules like any good parent does so that we don't get hurt. Believe me, 'more sex, sex is good, and the church wants to control believers so they give more money' are all pretty stupid and ignorant statements! Come on boys qnd girls. Life is full of consequences. When we grow up and look back on a life well lived, it won't consist of frequent sex with random and uncommitted sexual partners.

On to another question regarding why nuns and priests are celibate. It began with the apostles who imitated Christ. Yes, some of the
apostles were married, including Peter. It is really a rule that comes with common sense. Imagine a priest who is committed to his Parish and his parishioners. Catholics have daily Mass, and in larger parishes the Priest is very busy with the sick, marriages, counceling, some have parochial schools in their parishes as well.
St Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:32-34, "But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided." St Paul observes, celibacy has distinct advantages for the man who must give himself wholly to God in ministry to His Church.

Celibacy is both a matter of personal choice,and on a deeper level, an acceptance of Gods calling.
Jesus speaks without criticism of those who "have renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven". Matt.19:12

Finally, we should note that the Catholic Church does not in any sense reject marriage or sexuality (1 Cor 7:38) as long as these remain within the proper biblical and moral guidelines.

Peace,
Sheila

Jihadist (aka Crusader),

Unbelievable!!! You still don't comprehend the situation. Again it is all about your Koran!!!
Start the peace process by simply denouncing and condemning its militaristic and demeaning passages. What are you afraid of?? Some Muslim truth squad??

human extremism and complexation.
2 great miraclues events happen in the history of mankind,
1-mary the virgin the chaste conceived and delivered a baby (jesus)with no man.
2-mary came to here people carrying her baby to her people,they asked her,we very well of knowing you to be a chaste and from a chaste family,what is this that you carry ?mary didnot say a word,but her baby in his cradle spoke and
said,verily i,am servant of allah and his messenger and peace be uppon me and my mother in this life and the hear after.
yet people responded to this great manfest evidence as the following,
1-those who belive in jesus as servant and messenger of the creator lord allah.
2-those who they took jesus to be son of god.
3-those who they disbelive in jesus and his mother ,claiming that jesus is son of adultery and his mother unchaste.
2 and 3 since back then still carry the misery and complication of their faith on their head and shoulder,they isolate and they deprivate their body and soul from the the right and midle course.no wonder people ran fast from the church,what is more sad ,they ran to liberalism.
please back to the midle course back to life.

test

test

Oh Concerned,

I can't help you with your fears here. I am not a "professional" in helping someone ovecomes his fears and phobias.

I am starting to really worry about you, but there is nothing I can do about your personal fear of religous text, flying, personal security etc as I am half the world and more away from you.

Please forgive me if I made you feel worse, insecure or uncertain with my posts in the On Faith threads when you are merely seeking assurances. And may God forgive me too.

I promise I will never ever take on your postings here in the On Faith threads regardless of what you say about Muslims and Islam.

Peace be with you.

Jihadist (aka Crusader),

Read this again and again denounce and condemn the militaristic and demeaning passages of your Koran:

You still don't get it. Your Koran is used 24/7 to sanctify the killing of non-believers and even fellow Muslims. That scares the hell out of us. Since your prophet was illiterate, the words of the Koran are not his anyway but of some militaristic scribe seeking to convert non-believers via the sword. This worked well in the Middle Ages but we non-believers are not going to tolerate it in the 21st century. Stay out of our neighborhoods and off our planes until your Koran teaches nothing but peace for all of humankind, believers and non-believers.

When someone threatens your safety, sex and religion are not very important topics.

From the Catholic tradition of Theology of the Body, sex is the ultimate form of PHYSICAL relationship or oneness that MIRRORS the complete closeness or oneness that exists between all persons of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit who is the resulting love shown between the Father's and Son's relationship). Since this mysterious oneness of relationship of the Trinity has been revealed, Catholics believe that all human relationships in one form or another (marriage, family, friends, coworkers, and even enemies and strangers) must appropriately mirror this meaning of closeness. This ideal necessitates any person in any relationship to be equal and respected.

Since sex signifies the ultimate physical oneness, Catholics believe this can only take place when other aspects of life, such as emotional and mental closeness and a firm commitment, reflect a permanent and REAL oneness as well. Otherwise anything less than this means people are ab-using each other with significant "risks" (disease, children, or uncommitted relationships) that no one person can or should handle. Otherwise, why not have sex all the time with everyone naturally? (That means no contraceptives.) Unfortunately, many don't understand the positiveness of sex but instead understand the negatives of sex. We want the icing on the cake or the dessert without having the rest of the meal, and we are left unfilled and unhealthy.

The sex act in itself is quite beautiful and good, just like eating food. Both are necessary and insatiable. But sex can bring about sin (aka disorder) when it isn't used for its purposes, just like overeating can make us unhealthy. Sex isn't sinful nor is eating. But sex outside its ordered meaning and purpose (healthy between committed persons) just like overeating can lead to sin.

Regarding issues of celibacy, the spiritual relationship is held in even higher regard among Christians (not just Catholics) than the physical relationship among humans. That is why the laity defer respect to the celibate and celibate religious (in addition to theological studies and a committed life) for their greater challenge of purely spiritual relationship with both God and man. It's gotta to be tough!

From the earliest days of Christianity, there were indeed married religious. Our beloved eastern Catholic churches still practice this in fact TODAY. As a matter of practicality, the western Catholic churches ceased this practice when scandal broke out where the religious were favoring their children over their duties to the laity, leading to abuse of power and office.

There's a lot of theology here, but hopefully this will suffice for now. It is said somewhere that your enemy always strikes at your weakest point and your most revered. May we be given strength to recognize the attack and to cherish our greatest gift: love of God and of one another - they are one and the same. Truth is not subject to time, culture, place, the whims of man nor the winds of change.

It's all about the right relationships - Peace yo!

JASONB82ABN

Thank you so much for what you posted. I was asking Concerned who ask questions easily and demandingly, but not to answer them at all or well for non-Christians, especially Muslims:)

I like the way you answered. It is neither defensive, nor offensive no insulting the intelligence of any readers. You, at least, assume we do know how to read:)

Thank you again and peace be with you my new friend:)

I agree with you anonymous.
It is beautiful when you have found that one person that completes you. But don't get me wrong, I also like to have fun with the wrong ones till then. I chalk it up to experience.

"I have a question for all of you: would your God/Allah/Yahweh/Ishwar prefer that we/you have sex with a beautiful woman (of your choice).."

I think God prefers that you have sex in a life-long, love-centered relationship with a person whose life and personality is in harmony and consistent with your purpose and values.

I know it seems that people in here know what they are talking about, and that is good. Most of it crap and only bolsters that persons own internal prejudicies and hypocracies. My own experience in life has taught me that one must not rely on placebos, becuase it only gets you so far. Religion is just that-a placebo.

Faith in God is good, but it only goes so far. At some point you have to stop relying on God and rely on yourself and what you can do. People thank God all the time when somthing good happens(win a game,receive an award, etc.,).But why don't you thank Him when you don't win? Or don't receive accolade? Seems to me that if there was a God, he'd have just as much reason for you to fail as he would for you to succeed. Belief in God is good, but it seems to be more of a crutch than anything else. Next time you are doing something, don't look to God, but look inside yourself, and know that you did something great because of you and you alone.

Sex and moral values many years ago were not exposed in churches or in public. And you can be certain President's from years ago respected faith in God more then the Amercian public does now without batting an eye that sex is talked about freely today and accomplished between sexes with out realizing nor caring what God intended sex to be.
Little concern is given to the fact that HIV's, Aids, pregnancies can happen with a follow up abortion ...that is morally wrong. With people having no regrets or shame participating
in sex acts for their own satisfaction remaining number 1 in their lives.

I do not believe churches are agreeing that sex can be an open book for any one today.
These are choices made by people participating in sex with others that choose to live in their own little world.

It's easy to pin someone else's problems on churches but churches are there for support and to help people back to God.

This wasn't in the article but to go further the
Democratic party stands for abortions that allows these people the rights to have an abortion without feeling that they are not wrong in their choices.

President Bush has been name called and put down for standing against abortions but at least he will not have to answer to God as some will be held accountable for these actions to God.

We were all created by God that's a given and if you choose to believe you weren't created by God for what ever reason this is your choice...but in the end this will be the only truth that will be clear and the actions of all will be seen.

Sex and moral values many years ago were not exposed in churches or in public. And you can be certain President's from years ago respected faith in God more then the Amercian public does now without batting an eye that sex is talked about freely today and accomplished between sexes with out realizing nor caring what God intended sex to be.
Little concern is given to the fact that HIV's, Aids, pregnancies can happen with a follow up abortion ...that is morally wrong. With people having no regrets or shame participating
in sex acts for their own satisfaction remaining number 1 in their lives.

I do not believe churches are agreeing that sex can be an open book for any one today.
These are choices made by people participating in sex with others that choose to live in their own little world.

It's easy to pin someone else's problems on churches but churches are there for support and to help people back to God.

This wasn't in the article but to go further the
Democratic party stands for abortions that allows these people the rights to have an abortion without feeling that they are not wrong in their choices.

President Bush has been name called and put down for standing against abortions but at least he will not have to answer to God as some will be held accountable for these actions to God.

We were all created by God that's a given and if you choose to believe you weren't created by God for what ever reason this is your choice...but in the end this will be the only truth that will be clear and the actions of all will be seen.

Sex and moral values many years ago were not exposed in churches or in public. And you can be certain President's from years ago respected faith in God more then the Amercian public does now without batting an eye that sex is talked about freely today and accomplished between sexes with out realizing nor caring what God intended sex to be.
Little concern is given to the fact that HIV's, Aids, pregnancies can happen with a follow up abortion ...that is morally wrong. With people having no regrets or shame participating
in sex acts for their own satisfaction remaining number 1 in their lives.

I do not believe churches are agreeing that sex can be an open book for any one today.
These are choices made by people participating in sex with others that choose to live in their own little world.

It's easy to pin someone else's problems on churches but churches are there for support and to help people back to God.

This wasn't in the article but to go further the
Democratic party stands for abortions that allows these people the rights to have an abortion without feeling that they are not wrong in their choices.

President Bush has been name called and put down for standing against abortions but at least he will not have to answer to God as some will be held accountable for these actions to God.

We were all created by God that's a given and if you choose to believe you weren't created by God for what ever reason this is your choice...but in the end this will be the only truth that will be clear and the actions of all will be seen.

Sex and moral values many years ago were not exposed in churches or in public. And you can be certain President's from years ago respected faith in God more then the Amercian public does now without batting an eye that sex is talked about freely today and accomplished between sexes with out realizing nor caring what God intended sex to be.
Little concern is given to the fact that HIV's, Aids, pregnancies can happen with a follow up abortion ...that is morally wrong. With people having no regrets or shame participating
in sex acts for their own satisfaction remaining number 1 in their lives.

I do not believe churches are agreeing that sex can be an open book for any one today.
These are choices made by people participating in sex with others that choose to live in their own little world.

It's easy to pin someone else's problems on churches but churches are there for support and to help people back to God.

This wasn't in the article but to go further the
Democratic party stands for abortions that allows these people the rights to have an abortion without feeling that they are not wrong in their choices.

President Bush has been name called and put down for standing against abortions but at least he will not have to answer to God as some will be held accountable for these actions to God.

We were all created by God that's a given and if you choose to believe you weren't created by God for what ever reason this is your choice...but in the end this will be the only truth that will be clear and the actions of all will be seen.

I like the comment about the Bible being the Jews' version of Greek mythology. Of course, you'd think they would have come up with better stories if they were gonna borrow from the Greeks. Most of the stories in the Bible are boring and lack creativity.....Only one that is cool is Revelations, and that was written by a crazy man who had it in for the Roman emperor Nero.

Jason,

The Catholic Cathechism, I believe, is published every 400 years. To say the least the current version needs to be updated with respect to recent scientific discoveries.

To review these discoveries see: (as noted previously)

National Geographic's Genograhic project:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

To get to the specifics on "Adam", click on Explore the Atlas, then Journey Highlights and then "Adam". Time lines and maps are also given.

Some added comments:

No Christian/Catholic theologian today believes in the Biblical story of creation. Do you really think God created Earth in six days? Magic gardens? Talking snakes? Rib transfers?

The first five Books of the Bible are the Jews' version of Greek mythology. The Greeks were some of the first humans to show how "creative" our minds can be.

And one final observation: Common sense is one of God's greatest gifts as is the application of knowledge to reality.

Greetings JIHADIST. I would like to make a quick comment to correct a possible misunderstanding if you don’t mind.

I am not completely certain what the phrase “mythical nature of the biblical creation story” means. But the Catholic Church definitely teaches that the story is true – that it really happened. Specifically… that Adam and Eve were REAL people.

There is certainly room for different interpretations and speculation for Catholics - but not to any degree that makes the story of creation a "myth" per se. But if anybody wants to know the Catholic Church’s actual teaching – I would encourage them to go look it up! The Catechism of the Catholic Church is easy to find in any bookstore – or you can simply read it online if you prefer. Paragraphs 355-384 deal (in part) with the “biblical creation story,” but there is much more. ;)

As to your specific questions:

“Has that filtered down to all Catholic school in developing and developed countries?”

If what you mean is “Has this teaching – that the biblical creation story is only a myth and Adam and Eve were not real human beings – been doctrinally enforced to be taught by Catholic institutions?” Then the answers are “No,” and "It never will be." Because it is not true! :)

“Why do priests and nuns still remain unmarried?”

Depends on what you mean! ;) Some priests and/or nuns break their vows to live a celibate life and “marry” – just as men and women who pledge themselves to each other (and no other) “until death do us part” break their vows as well! But, if you are asking why the discipline for celibacy is required for some Catholic priests and for nuns – then I would like to simply say… “Very good question!” And I truly mean it! And luckily - there is an answer! So why not take a few moments and go find it!? ;)

“Where in the Bible did it say that men and women of God are to be celibate?”

Your words: "men and women of God" can be interpreted many ways. But, I am assuming you are probably referring to clergy in Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. So...

First of all – there are practical reasons for celibacy for the clergy; some of them have been given attention above. Secondly, there is certainly biblical support for this discipline, some of that has been discussed above also. And thirdly – my question for you is… “Where in the Bible does it say that all the guidelines taught by the Church have to be found explicitly in the Bible?” ;)

Again, a much better (and infinitely more authoritative) explanation than what I can provide here can be yours with minimal effort on your part. ;) So don't hesitate to go to the source! I especially encourage you to dig a little if you really want to know the answers and aren't just asking questions for the sake of asking questions! ;)

May the Lord be with you!

Jason

Jmj

“Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?”

The question that initiated this long conversation is slightly more difficult to answer than it appears, in my opinion. Mostly because it seems to assume that the question itself (generally speaking) is a legitimate characterization of “religions.” And if the question is assuming this is a valid point… I humbly disagree!

Though the word “some” (as used in the question) could be interpreted to be only speaking to an extremely small minority of religious traditions – I do not believe that was the intent. (My apologies to the original author if it was.)

The word “sacred” can mean many different things – ranging from being something that is literally consecrated for a worship service to something that is simply viewed as very important.

Likewise, the word “sex” can be interpreted in many different ways!

For these and other reasons, I feel the wording of the question is far too general to fetch a serious answer.

I will offer my opinion though – taking the question at relative face value.

“Some religions” may regard “sex” as “sacred” because they believe that human beings are unique among all living things in creation – most recognizably in that they have a soul. This belief - that every human being is both body and soul - shows God’s work and His divine favor in humanity. And largely because of this great gift (an immortal soul) every human life is sacred. Therefore, the act that cooperates with God’s design to bring new human life into the world is greatly valued - and not ONLY for its procreative nature, but certainly not in spite of it.

I am aware of heresies that have plagued humanity from time to time that regarded the physical world (and the flesh of course) as “evil” – and in some of these cases, regarded sex as an “evil” act. But, this is certainly not the view of the majority of “religions.” And certainly not the view of Christianity.

What “religions” believe that sex (in and of its self) is sinful? References would be helpful! ;)

May the Lord be with you!

Jason

I believe that our elevation of human sexuality to the realm of the sacred was as inevitable as its simultaneous relegation to the realm of the profane. Put plainly: sex is scary. It pulls us in many different directions both holy and unholy.

It seems to me that there are only a few interesting issues that are universal to the human experience. The biggest among these, I would submit, are consciousness, death and suffering. These three command our attention in a way that most others do not, and our sexual natures are intertwined with each. With these points in mind, is it any wonder that humans have imbued their sexuality with religious significance?

A few related questions:

--If humans were not conscious of their inevitable deaths, would the issue of our sexual natures be of any great concern? Is sex and/or procreation (consciously or not) primarily an attempt to cheat the fate of our mortality?

--If humans were not conscious of the joys and pleasure of their sexual natures, would sex hold the same fascination?

--Is there a natural inevitable tension between sexuality and spirituality, in that both elicit a confusing mixture of pleasure, joy, will, power, humility, anxiety, fear, longing etc.., while holding the promise of physical and/or mystical union and completion?

Concerned the Catholic, pardon me, Christian Now Liberated

You said to Tonio : "I do know that in Catholic high schools and Catholic universities, the correct concept, i.e. the mythical nature of the biblical creation story, is taught."

Has that filtered down to all Catholic schools in developing and developed countries?

Why do priests and nuns still remain unmarried?

Where in the Bible did it say that men and women of God are to be celibate?

physique and metaphysique.
heart and genitalia.,
man,s heart contain man,s mind,his ideology,attitude,love or hate,modesty or lust,gudiance or misguidance.man,s mind is in his heart not in his brain,the heart kicks to the brain and the brain kicks to the genitalia and the genitalia kicks back,its a chain of kicking,all back to the reservoir the heart.
guided heart leads to guided genitalia and misguided heart leads to misguided genitalia.
heart and genitalia are vital organ and metaorgan in man,s life.,heart is the subject of guidance or misguidance.while the genitalia is the subject of compassion,mercey,pleasure,tranquality and multiplications.
separation between heart and genitalia is very unscientific,very astraying.
denyieng and isolating the genitalia is very unnatural ,no divine religion ever denyied or forgot about the heart and genitalia.
we all are human beings ,those among us who they have genitalia problem,let them check the soundness of their heart first.
i shall never recommend better than ,please read the final and last divine revelation(quran),mercey to your heart and genitalia.

Peter Jackson

ON FAITH Explaining why some religions regard sex as a sin. Feb 18, 2007

According to some thinking, mankind has three levels of existence, the physical, the inner human level and the spiritual level:
THE PHYSICAL – action, science, emotions, fear, joy, force, sex, violence, etc.

THE INNER HUMAN LEVEL – values, attitudes, honesty, generous, behavior i.e. body language, romantic love, ideals, freedom, nationalistic, democracy, equality, etc.

THE SPIRITUAL LEVEL – prayer, the mystic, religion, eternity, etc.

You could say that we live in three levels at the same time and the object is to live in harmony with all three at all times as much as possible. And that we suffer in health and well-being as an individual and as a civilization, to the extent we do not live in harmony. For example of harmony – sex done in love and in marriage.

SEX is a physical action between two physical bodies.

ROMANTIC LOVE is a human relationship between two personalities.

SPIRITUAL LOVE, adoration, mysticism, is a relationship with God and eternity.

All three above can each be a very powerful experience and to a great extent are exclusive at a given point in time i.e. you can do only one at a time. According to science, romantic love can be many times more powerful than sex can be.

In history a culture has often stressed one or another.
MIDDLE AGES – Spiritual, religion.

THE ENLIGHTENMENT – Reason, material.

THE LATER !8TH CENTURY ROMANTIC PERIOD – Human inner feelings, love.

VICTORIAN PERIOD – Religion, ideals, morality.

ABOUT 1939 TO DATE – Science and the material, ignoring religion and the spiritual.

As thoughts and actions of a sexual nature are so common and so natural, and there is practically no effort required, they are constantly claiming our attention and thoughts, they need some control, discipline if we are to exercise our inner human nature and our spiritual nature.
Civilizations that degenerate and die usually end up being a sexual culture.

To build a great progressive, free, democratic civilization requires human discipline and development of our inner human nature in values, attitudes, honesty, ideals, etc. and the power and direction of the spiritual.

When society and individuals destroy and ignore the human and spiritual natures they are on their way to death. This has happened a number of times in our civilization but fortunately it was made whole again in time and became even greater.

Religion is so strict with sex because it requires constant effort and self-discipline to create and maintain the human and spiritual aspects of living.

Look how sex has taken over everywhere in our culture today.

By pjackson8

Carole, I disagree with your claim that sex "is a powerful appetite that knows few internal rules." I disagree with the concept of "temptation" as defined by Christianity. Emotionally mature people are capable of sexual moderation, or any kind of moderation, without outside help or with the threat of pregnancy or STDs. And that maturity is the key, I believe. While I do not claim to be an expert on psychology, I suspect that most people who live lives of sexual abandon are really compensating for deep emotional issues, the same as any gambling addict. In other words, it is the fault of the person, not the sex drive.

Is sex good or bad that is indeed a major issue between a lovely Christian married couple: George and Laura Bush. In fact the arguments are so heated up that they are heading for a divorce. The issue is that George likes Condi and then some. Question: who is at fault here? What is life all about? Some countries or religions allow more than one wife. What should the rules be here in Christian USA?

Is sex good or bad that is indeed a major issue between a lovely Christian married couple: George and Laura Bush. In fact the arguments are so heated up that they are heading for a divorce. The issue is that George likes Condi and then some. Question: who is at fault here? What is life all about? Some countries or religions allow more than one wife. What should the rules be here in Christian USA?

Is sex good or bad that is indeed a major issue between a lovely Christian married couple: George and Laura Bush. In fact the arguments are so heated up that they are heading for a divorce. The issue is that George likes Condi and then some. Question: who is at fault here? What is life all about? Some countries or religions allow more than one wife. What should the rules be here in Christian USA?

Is sex good or bad that is indeed a major issue between a lovely Christian married couple: George and Laura Bush. In fact the arguments are so heated up that they are heading for a divorce. The issue is that George likes Condi and then some. Question: who is at fault here? What is life all about? Some countries or religions allow more than one wife. What should the rules be here in Christian USA?

I have a question for all of you: would your God/Allah/Yahweh/Ishwar prefer that we/you have sex with a beautiful woman (of your choice), regardless of her marital status/virginity or not ? (Of course such sex implies 'consensual sex' and not rape or other forms of bestialities against women.)

Judeo-Christianity doesn't consider sex as wrong. It considers sexuality so holy that it doesn't want it treated like another human appetite. The question could be rephrased: Why do some religions consider sex with one person holy? And why do other religions think it's alright to have sex with anyone one wishes?

From what I've seen from the news media, courttv, and even from this Anna Nicole stuff, it's apparent that sex is a powerful force. It is a powerful appetite that knows few internal rules and knowing this, many religions have tried to constrain it a bit.

Right now, we understand that sex addicts, pedophiles, children born to men who have abandoned them, have caused many of the problems in our court systems. We also understand that other kinds of sexual related issues -- such as polygamy and abortion-- create grief for women. Judeo-Christian religion has tried to protect the weak from the strong...and that is why it puts such a value on right attitude, right relationships when sex is involved.

Oops, make that "living in a dream world".

Also, note the National Geographic web site for the Genographic Project as noted above is https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ . I recommend exploring the complete Atlas. To get to the specifics on "Adam", click on Explore the Atlas, then Journey Highlights and then "Adam". Time lines and maps are also given.

Tonio,

You asked: "I suspect that most Christians don't know that, especially the fundamentalists. Why do you suppose that is?"

Lack of education especially the lack of education of fundamentist preachers? Lack of common sense? Leaving in a dream world? Not having access to web sites like https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ ?

I do know that in Catholic high schools and Catholic universities, the correct concept, i.e. the mythical nature of the biblical creation story, is taught.

"No Christian theologian today believes in the Biblical story of creation."

Concerned, I suspect that most Christians don't know that, especially the fundamentalists. Why do you suppose that is?

Dolores,

You need to read the latest information on the origins of humankind. e.g.

As per National Geographic's Genograhic project:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Some added comments:

No Christian theologian today believes in the Biblical story of creation. Do you really think God created Earth in six days? Magic gardens? Talking snakes? Rib transfers? The first five Books of the Bible are the Jews' version of Greek mythology. The Greeks were some of the first humans to show how "creative" our minds can be.

A thought of SEX and HIV/AIDS is present. The CURE for HIV/AIDS is found at www.ambushcuresaids.homestead.com. then we can discuss sex.

In Genesis 1, Adam was made supernaturally and Eve was made a female clone of Adam. They were not to reproduce by body. They did and made Cain and Abel the first Inbred people and Cain became a Killer with his genetic defects. All people since have been Mis-bred by Body Birth because we are all Inbred.

In Genesis 1, Adam was made supernaturally and Eve was made a female clone of Adam. They were not to reproduce by body. They did and made Cain and Abel the first Inbred people and Cain became a Killer with his genetic defects. All people since have been Mis-bred by Body Birth because we are all Inbred.

Quote from one of you: "We don't condemn animals when they procreate, why should we condemn humans?"

Understood. We should do as animals do. We don't condemn lions for killing or pigs for living in dirt, why should we condemn humans?

No major religion promotes sex outside marriage, only some crazy sects, for the same reason you see suggestions?offers?promises? for sex in perfume and car ads. Sex sells.

As the author of a new book titled, Life Is Sexually Transmitted - Why Marriage Is All About Cleaving" let me take all of you back to the beginning of mankind and show you the foundation of sex, marriage, and commitment. One of the first readers said, "My gosh- why didn't you write this book years ago. It should be in the library of every clergy. They need this book." I believe you too will be astonished at the truths about sex and marriage revealed in this book. See; www.cleave2.com

As the author of a new book titled, Life Is Sexually Transmitted - Why Marriage Is All About Cleaving" let me take all of you back to the beginning of mankind and show you the foundation of sex, marriage, and commitment. One of the first readers said, "My gosh- why didn't you write this book years ago. It should be in the library of every clergy. They need this book." I believe you too will be astonished at the truths about sex and marriage revealed in this book. See; www.cleave2.com

It would appear that my last message didn't go through. Let me see if I can remember what I was saying...
Let's talk a little bit about history. For as long as we have had organized groups of people on this planet, we have had conflict over who will have control over the land and natural resources. It doesn't matter if you're talking about tribes, roving bands, budding nations, or whichever label you would like to put on them. They all had one issue facing them. Whomever had the most people won. More people meant a larger labor base. More people meant a larger army. It meant, in times of illness, a larger buffer between success and extinction. If a society wanted to survive, and even more important, expand, it needed more people than the surrounding competing groups. This is a plain simple truth. The ancient Hebrews needed people.When Hitler's Reich was established, he actually set up housing programs for unwed mothers so they could continue having babies for the Reich. Groups in this position demonize masterbation and homosexuality for one simple reason - it doesn't result in more babies for the group. Now let's look at the other side of the coin. Societies that were well established and already had the upper hand weren't nearly as concerned about these issues. Cases in point, the Roman empire, and the ancient Greek empire. So, now we have to ask why these issues are made so important now. Survival can't be it. Demonizing these activities no longer has anything to do with survival. It's about power, money, and plain simple job security. Catholic priests actually refer to having children as "perpetuating the faith". That's a bit of a give-away if you ask me. The more adherants a given religion has, the longer it will last, the more influence it has, the more money it has to acquire more influence, and most important of all - those in charge can stay Right Where They Are. Some people say I don't know anything about the religions I "rant" about. The truth is I've studied religion, and the psychology of religion, for thirty years. I've found that reducing these issues down to the basic human drives and characteristics they truly represent makes them much easier to understand. Sometimes this appears blunt, callous, or even glib. But, if one thinks about it, it's usually pretty close to the mark.

Okay, I think I added in some things I forgot last time. Sue me.

TOV -

Thank you

E FAVORITE -
Sorry if I offended you and jumped to conclusions of your motivations. I have had people use that question in the past as a way to duck the reality that no matter how God deals with the person who has never heard the gospel, the person asking the question generally has heard the gospel, and therefore is in a position to either accpet it or reject it. I recommended the book to you not because I was trying to be evasive, but because Dr. Tiessen gives very a clear Christian response to it and summarizes other responses Christians have had to that question through the ages. More clear than I cn give, but I'll give it a try anyway since you asked.

Within most of the church that still takes the Bible seriously there are generally three responses to the question. The first could be called ecclesiocentrism, though it is often reffered to as the exclusionary response. In short, it is the churches responsibility to spread the gospel to the world and it is only through responding to this proclaimation that people can be saved. Those who do not hear the gospel are lost. Somehow this is just, though hard to justify. A second position could be called the agnostic position. It is similar to the first in that it is the churches responsibility to spread the gospel to the world and it is through responding to this proclaimation that people can be saved, but since God is gracious and the Bible is ultimately silent on the issue of the heathen (the Bbile assumes contact with the true God), we cannot be certain that God does or does not damn those who have never heard. So the "i don't know" answer you might get when you ask this question could actually be more spophisticated than it sounds. A third position, a minority position among evangelicals to be sure, but one that has more support in Catholic tradition (especially post vatican II) could be called accessibilism. Accessibilists believe that there is reason to be confident that someone who has never heard the gospel will be saved if they have responded positively during their life to the degree of revelation they have been exposed to. This position takes very seriosly the general revelation God speaks to all humankind through and the remnants of special revelation that invariably make their way into every culture. If a person responds positively to the light they have recieved, they will be saved and after death comprehend fully that which they only knew in part on earth - that there is a God who loved them and saved them.

I personally waver between the second and third possibilities, and I think most evangelicals are in the second. It is important to understand that the fist explanation has not been accepted by evangelical councels over the past couple of decades (Lausanne, NAE) but the first one is generally the position that non-believers assume Christians hold to. Generally.

I hope that clears some things up for you. I assume that you have been exposed to the gosepl though. I hope you respond positively to the degree of revelation that God has granted you.

TOV –

You’re right – there are many questions I can’t answer quickly and articulately. That’s what I like about this forum – it gives people a chance to formulate their thoughts before responding – and gives people the option of not responding at all. I wish that you had taken time to answer my question instead of telling me I should read a book and giving me your perception of my motivation for asking. It seems rather presumptuous and not very Christian, actually. I’m not trying to feel superior. I really am interested in hearing people’s responses, or people’s reasons for not responding. As I read through your post again, I see that there may be some answers among your projections of my motives – this is a question that confounds Christians? Christians “admittedly do feel uncomfortable about that aspect of their faith”? Please tell me if I’m on the right track.

Would you respond to the same question I posed to Ruth? If you do, I promise not to ask you follow-up questions, if you prefer not to discuss it further.

well, paul pretty much created christianity -peronally i would think that Jesus(ata) should be- but we may not even be having this conversation without paul- actually i was just respnding to jihadist remarking that some popes had children and raj misunderstood the conversation-

wasnt the subject sex?

The important occurrences/persons in Christianity were: the actions and sayings of Jesus (only the 33% of the current NT as per the Jesus "Seminarians"), the whim of Pilate, the Paul's false prophesy of the imminent second coming, Gentile money, and the sword of Constantine. The divine right of kings, queens and emperors also was important.

Ok,

Paul was not the most influential character in Christianity. A criminal repenting his sins and serving the Lord? We see and hear about it all the time. Just go visit a prison any day of the week. Maybe there is no Most influential character, but I'd at least like to put Charleton Heston up there.....he ruled as Moses. He made me want to look at the Bible more closely. And from waht I have read and seen, it needs a major overhaul.

Raj- Paul was quoting Jesus-
The point was if any popes had children- not who was the most influential figure in christianity
it was a response to a question

there ws no clarity added (speaking of augustine-
he certnly got around himself- and fathered any children with a nun-
also- as far as him being the most influential character in christianity- that is highly debatable-
id say Paul wins that one hands down-

Christians have a lot more to worry about then the questions noted above. Besides the sex scandals, there is the historical Jesus movement. For example, Professor Crossan, one of the On Faith panelists, has concluded that over 60% of the NT passages are embellishments.

These embellishments are specifically noted by Professor Crossan in his book, The Historical Jesus. Please spend $5(used)-$15(new)and buy this book. A synopsis of the embellishments can also be found at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf. Use your Edit/Find menu to quickly access the NT passages of interest. As clearly noted in the book and on the net site, embellishments are noted with a minus or minus/plus sign.

Some of the embellishments as per the Jesus Seminar can also be found at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html. This site is directly related to the Crossan site.

Professor Borg, another On Faith panelist, is also a member of the Jesus Seminar.

The historic Jesus movement is one of many that are moving religions towards convergence. For example, the Koran without the flying chariots, talking "spirit/angel", and militant passages, without the passages that make women inferior, and without the passages that allow slavery to include harems and polygamy is basically the same as the NT without the embellishments (e.g. the son of a god, miracles, resurrection and nativity myths). Bottom line: Islam, Judaism and Christianity could be joined with one book/way of life and we would be well on our way to the utopia of religious convergence. The name of the Book would be ?? "Finally, Reality" !!!!!!!!

E. Favorite,

I might have an answer for you, albeit an odd one, but I always liked the idea of Reincarnation. Wouldn't it be interesting if we kept coming back as different people? I know I want to come back, but this time I'd like to remember everything I've learned in this life so that I can have an even better one the next time.

E Favorite, my objection to the doctrine of salvation is this - the doctrine says that people must accept Christ to be saved from hell, but the only evidence for the existence of hell is the doctrine itself. In my view, the doctrine is selling tiger repellent.

E. Favorite -
Your question posed to Ruth was abit off-topic (though, to be fair, so was Ruth's comment).

The question that you pose is a good one, but not the only one difficult for us Christians to answer. There are actully five groups of people that pose problems to Christians.

1) People whose lives come to an end before they are born
2) infants and others who die before they are able to understand the gospel.
3) mentally disabled individuals who cannot comprehend the gospel.
4) Unreached people who have never heard the gospel.
5) Anyone living before the Christ's ressurection (OT saints)

Now that I gave you more ammunition to attack and confound Christians with, please go read the book "Who Can Be Saved" by Terrance Tiessen (InterVarsity Press, 2004). He very clearly articulates common Christian views on the subject. Until you read that book, please do not use that question as a badge to feel superior over Christians who admittedly do feel uncomfortable about that aspect of their faith. I am sure there are also inconsistancies and difficult aspects of your own worldview that you would be hard pressed to answer for quickly and articulately.

Ruth, you say:

“Please take your salvation very seriously. It means the difference between heaven and hell for all eternity. Jesus Christ is the only way to attain heaven.”

Here’s a question I’ve asked others who feel the way you do:

What happens to good, ethical religious non-Christians after they die? For instance, people whose parents raised them in another faith or people who lived in a remote region that Christian missionaries never got to.

Unfortunately the question seems like a real conversation stopper. Usually, the people I ask disappear from the discussion after that. I once found a person I’d asked participating in another discussion, so I asked my question again, and the person disappeared from that thread too. It’s a prerogative anyone has here in this type of anonymous environment, but I’m now curious about people’s reasons for avoiding the question. I hope you respond, either with your answer to the question or your reason for choosing not to answer.

I’ve only gotten an answer once. I’ll tell you what he said after I hear from you.

Thanks

TOV,

I applaud you sir for saving yourself for marriage and still being able to enjoy new things with your wife. I didn't save myself for marriage, but I did eventually get married. I will agree with you, sex in marriage is good, for me and you at least. I still have excellent sex with my wife after 9 years.
But I have heard of lots of couples who waited till marriage to have sex, and those same couples end up divorced because one or the other has cheated due to the fact that they want to experience other things. I am not faulting that, nor am I faulting you. to each his own, and for all the people with self control and the ability not to stray from their spouses, I respect that. Sex can be sacred, and sex can be nothing more than a small inconvenience. I'd like to think that when it comes to sex, whether inside of marriage or outside of marriage, consideration needs to be taken in. Be safe, be careful, be yourself, and don't deny yourself what you really want. if you are open minded and want to try all kinds of different sex, don't find a partner who is uptight and not willing to budge. Find someone willing to do the same things you want to do, or you may end up divorced. Find what you want, and find the person that wants the same things. It works out in the long run.

To Ruth,

God didn't creat sex, Man did. God didn't create Man. Man created God. Man, in his never ending quest to explain the world, created a God. man created many Gods. I for one, love the Greek Gods the best. And the Norse God thor kicks butt.

Religion Survivor,

I am sorry that you had to deal with your faith the hard way. In my experience, it does seem that if one questions the Church, then they are no longer welcome. Seems to me like it is the the same as a schoolyard scuffle or a student questioning the teacher-he or she gets thrown out of class. Its the same thing. People in Authority don't like to have there authority questioned. Ever notice how the biggest critics never like to be criticized themselves? I notice all the time.

two points i would like to correct.
1 jesus did not said best to not marry...paul did. most believe the disciples (at least the older ones were in fact married...and i am sure having sex!)
2 st. augustine had probably the biggest effect on christianity's view on religion. if you read confessions he had come from a religion that promoted "free sex". many popes had children. in the beginning it was ok for a pope to be married. then a papal edict changed it. martin luther returned to sola scriptura, removing the edict from the protestants...now we protestants (i will take ownership) have perverted sex to being bad. wives hold it from their husbands, husbands hold it from their wives, pornography steals if from reality...etc.

the bible does condemn withholding sex from your spouse, unless it is durning a time of prayer&fasting.

hope i added clarity...?!? ok maybe not...

as i recall many popes had children, one of the happiest pappys was Innocent who sired the infamous lucretia and cesar borgia-

youre right jihadist- we co-wives havent set our sights high enough- i think we cn all cooperate and up the ante- then well all be set to jet off to that condo in las vegas and really hone our collective bargaining skills-

just for giggles ill share something personal-
i was a novitiate for several years and spent moe years than i care to share celibate- and i america too- and unsupervised by anyone-

as far as religion goes it does provide a framework and a higher goal to aspire to-
strength can come from god and prayer and also from ourselves- but we need help sometimes and im not too proud admit it- if i were that pride would prevent its arrival-

we have real freedom in america but also the freedom to make mistakes- and some sexual mistakes have long lasting sometimes fatal and always lifechanging aftereffects-

my own controls and restrictions are self imposed but drawn from religion-

i havent heard or seen any alternatives tht are superior so far-
the unbridled sexual mores of the 70s and 80s didnt offer any compelling evidence to refute the wisdom that relgions have offered as far as human behavior and impulses are concerned.

the beauty of Islam is that the needs of the individual and the needs of society are balanced against each other-

well, more later-
peace all
et abientot ma petit singe

melodrama .
in memory of miss GEE. by w.h.auden
(tune:st james,s infirmary )
let me tell you a little story
about miss edith gee
she lived in clevedon terrace at n 83.
she lived in clevedon terrace in a smal bed-sitting room.
the church of saint aloysius was not so very far
she did a lot of kniting for that church bazaar.
she dreamed a dream one evening that she was the queen of france and the vicar of saint aloysius asked her majesty to dance.
but a storm blew down the the palace,she was biking thru a field of corn,and a bull with the face of the vicar was charging with lowered horn.
she could feel his hot breath behind her,he was going to over take, and the bicycle went slower and slower because of that back-pedal brake.
summer made the trees a picture ,winter made them a wreck.

she bicycled to the evening service with her clothes buttoned up to her neck.
miss gee knelt down in the side-aisle,she knelt down on her knees ,lead me not into temptation
but make me a good girl ,please.
the days and nights went by her like waves round a cornish wreck,she bicycled down to the doctor,and rang the surgery bell,
o,doctor, i,ve a pain inside me .
dr thomas looked her over and then looked some more ,said ,why didnot you come before?
dr thomas sat over his dinner,though his wife was waiting to ring,rolling his bread into pellets,said cancer,s a funny thing.
he said : i saw miss gee this evening and she,s a goner, i fear.
they took miss gee to the hospital,she lay there a total wreck, lay in the ward for women with the bedclothes right up to her neck.
they laid her on the table and mr rose the surgeon he cut miss gee in half.
mr rose turned to his students,said,gentlemen,if you please,we seldom see a sarcoma as far as advanced as this.
they wheeled away miss gee down to another department where they study anatomy.
they hung her from the ceiling yes,they hang up miss gee.
1- what was the real pain of miss gee ?
2-who realy damaged and killed the inside of miss gee ?
3-who realy hanged up miss gee? the vicar,s doctrine? the parish ? the society ? or miss gee ?
misgudiance kills.

Let's face it, mankind can easily exist without religion.

Without sex? Not so much.

Jihadist and Victoria,
That was alternately entertaining and informative. A condo in Las Vegas would make a nice gift you know... (then you could see my home town in person)

And yes priests and nuns are supposed to devote their lives to God, and thus don't marry. It's far easier said than done though. Many branches allow their pastors and ministers to marry and to have families. Sex unfortunately is still a subject that gets short shrift in many churches aside from the usual lessons of sex is only for marriage etc. Only recently are we starting to teach how to stay committed etc., and starting to really deal with sexual temptation especially in men. Porn is a big problem for many Christian men especially with the advent of the internet.

http://pure.typepad.com/x3pure/

That is a blog that deals with sexual sin and porn in particular, you would find it interesting to see what is being done. If I saw correctly Jihadist is from Asia someplace so you are sadly aware of the sex trade and sexual slavery. How are muslims dealing with this challenge? I'd be interested to know.

Summarizing (now that we have inputs from all the religious folk):

The Koran without the flying chariots, talking "spirit/angel", militant passages, without the passages that make women inferior, and without the passages that allow slavery to include harems and polygamy is basically the same as the NT without the embellishments (e.g. the son of a god, miracles, resurrection and nativity myths). Bottom line: lets join Islam, Judaism and Christianity with one book/way of life and we would be well on our way to the utopia of religious covergence. The name of the Book?? "Finally the Reality"

Victoria,
Why settle for Meseratis and Lamboghinis when you can demand Learjets, 100 foot long yatch, a small castle in England and a townhouse in New York?

I am lazily thinking that that Concerned is or was a recovering, or reformed, or post modernist Catholic. He promotes JD Crossan everywhere. Muslims can do profilings too, no?

Good to hear from you again my friend. They are all busy at Susan Jacoby's and Cal Thomas's threads. Can't wait to read later next week what the usual suspects and cuckoo crowd has to say when they finally got here:)

By the way, some Popes have children too, yes?

Merci, salaams and until next time mon ami.

o by the way- the concepts of monks and nuns cant be found in the bible- it stems from an exhortation by Jesus(ata) to his followers to marry if they must but it is better if they follow his way (which was celibacy).

One of the benefits of such an institution (well, beneficial to the church anyway) is a pool of ready made free labor- another great benefit (to the church again) is that priests, bishops, monsignors, cardinals, monks and nuns- while they may use the properties of the church to create more wealth for it- upon their death all properties revert to the church- if all its servants are celibate- there can be no pesky heirs dividing up the properties and art and such after the death of papa bishop or mama superior or whatever- no legitimate heirs- no legitimate claims on the wealth!!!

as you can see its worked out pretty well for the catholic church over the centuries-

and all that repressed energy has to go somewhere-
salaams

personally i quite enjoy my staus as the fourth wife jihadist- wife number one cooks and makes babies and wife number two cleans and make babies and wife number three runs a corporation to pay for the babies and i just shop til i drop- sometimes i dont come home for days but nobody worries as i show up eventually--- and when i do foat in its always to a nice cooked meal and fresh clean laundry-
when we all get bored we gang up on the husband- for instance last week layla asked for a maserati- not to be outdone amina clamored for a lamborghini-

any suggestions as to what i should ask for?
thinking about is just too much for my busy life-

o rats! i see im scheduled for my weekly beating!might as well get it over with-

Greg,
Thanks for the link on trafficking in women for sex trade. I am not Christianphobic. Only wary of fundies/extremists of any religion, including and especially mine.

Yes, most Muslim men practice monogamy for the same reason as you. One wife is enough. And one has to be a Turkish Ottomon Sultan to do that. Even they don't want to. One actually drowned his whole harem in the Bhosphorus. Suleiman the Magnificent loved just one, Roxelana, and ignored the rest.

A Muslim man must be able to afford to have more than one wife as he is suppose to treat each and every one of them equally. Give a Bentley to one, you have to give the same Bentley to another. In theory, but hard to practice and can be grounds for divorce initiated by the aggrieved wife.

Muslim men in my country have to have the prior signed approval/consent from the first (or second, or third) wife before marrying another. The Shariah court is rather stringent on that to the dismay of some fellows who love women a lot.

Some women do accept being second or third or fourth wives because they can't have children, and some actually do because they want time out from their rather sexually active husbands after a hard day's work. Some because they need financial and material support. No kidding.

If you husband is a randy fellow, better to know of his other wife/wives first rather than be the last to know about his mistress. Saves a lot of time from lying and cheating.

A friend did because she can't have children. She and her husband's second wife, a friend of hers, get along fine sharing childcare chores. Of course not all wives get along, because the husband may be more enamoured with a new, younger wife. As always in the case of men in mid-life crisis -either a new job, a new car or new mistress or wife.

Muslim marraige is a contract with clear duties and responsibilies. And while Muslim women inherit less than men under Shariah law and made a fuss of by some non-Muslim feminists, in actual fact, what a Muslim woman owned and acquired is hers. Her husband can never touch, not even in divorce, without her consent her monies and property. No California-like law of dividing property/wealth equally. Muslim men have to share their wealth and property among their wife/wives and childen.

The sex part may be and seem good in polygamy, but the reality of other aspects are such a hassle in having more than one wife, even for the very rich. Of course in the Qur'an there is a Sura that says of all the allowed things, God hates divorce the most. But well....like Russell D observed in another thread on the Bible, the Qur'an,has, in fact, become a guideline for many Muslims who spin and manipulated its text, especially men, in war, love, sex and gender rights etc.

And you have not heard of temporary marraiges in Islam as yet, the "mutaa" allowed by some Iranian Shiite Mullahs/Ayotallahs to address casual sex or temporary relationships not leading to permanent marraiges. This practice came about when Muslim men were in caravanserais for months or years for trade, and by sea too. It varies in time, from hours to months. Ibn Batutta is one such fellow availing himself of this, not exactly mutaa, but having a wife in every port or place he visited. Sometimes divorcing them, sometimes not, to keep his quota of a maximum of four wives at any one time I suppose.

The Iranian Shiites can answer this better for some Mullahs/Ayatollahs objected to "mutaa" as a form of legalizing prostitution etc. Such a proposal was broached by an Islamic scholar in my country. Everyone - men, women shot it down. For now. Sunnis are more prudish about this than Shiites it would seem.

I hope other Muslims would elaborate to you on Muslim marraiges and divorces in their own lands. It differs from Muslim country to Muslim country. But divorces are same problem - acrimonous and some ex-husband trying to avoid alimony and child support if he can.

Thanks for the Chinese New Year greetings Greg. My Chinese friends tells me they will only feed vegetarian soybase mock ham and pork dishes to me. Must be halal and kosher and such, never mind this is going to be the year of the pig.

Got to go. Have a nice weekend.

So Ruth Is there sex in heaven?

About Sex and God.
God created Sex, so I know that he is in favor of it. He wants us to enjoy it, with only one stipulation, that we only enjoy it within a marriage between a man and a woman. Anything you want to know about sex is in the Bible. Religion is a turn-off for you, usually because it doesn't always make sense because man invented it, not God. We must read the Bible which has been documented as historically sound; and follow Jesus Christ because God sent him to us to die on the cross so that we can be saved and live with Him forever in heaven. It is very important that you listen to a pastor who has studied theology and understands how to truthfully answer your questions. God created the universe and every living and nonliving thing in it. Christ inspired those who wrote the Bible so that we will know how live and how to be saved. Please take your salvation very seriously. It means the difference between heaven and hell for all eternity. Jesus Christ is the only way to attain heaven.

Jihadist,
That was a lovely fantasy you posted there. I was about ready to convert until I realized that having one wife is a full time job, there aren't enough hours in the day for a harem... LOL

Onto a more serious subject I wanted to let you know that christians are very aware about the problems of the sex trade and that people are starting to make a dent in this horrible industry.
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5970

You will find that to be an interesting read. It's a Christian site so consider yourself forwarned (no not anit-islam). I saw an earlier post that states that muslims have the same basic views about the benefits of a monogamus marriage, correct me if I am wrong on that. Enjoy the Chinese New Year...

First of all let me state that I spent 12 years of my life studying the Bible fervently and having the Bible interpreted for me by “scholars” and “Gifted MEN of God.” All was well with my life as long as I adhered to the doctrines and teachings of the “pastor” of my church. I then began to question this MAN on his teachings on the Roles of men and women in the Christian world. As the differences in opinion became more and more visible the accusations began. I was accused, falsely, of having sexual and emotional affairs. I was then given the choice to repent and confess these lies as truth or be disciplined out of the church (excommunicated.) This was a tactic to discount all of my questioning of the pastor and any open minded debates regarding doctrine.

In my mind and experience religion seeks to control the individual. What better way to control an individual than to direct one of the most basic drives and desires? One of the best ways to control is to first demoralize the individual then help regenerate or redeem the same individual. Is this not what the military does? Ask anyone who has been in military basic training. Here we see the roles of Sin and Sanctification at work. We were also taught, as many churches do that the role of every “Believer” was to proselytize, convert, and evangelize the world. The typical tactic taught was to find someone who is at a low point in life. We were then to befriend this person. Next we were to point out this person’s destructive sins. We were then to declare that God hates sin and will throw sinner and sin into hell for eternity. The final phase of this process was to offer redemption and a way to salvation to this target. We were further instructed that if this person did not repent we were to discontinue the friendship and move on; for the Bible states to not cast your pearls to the swine. So this person who was once our alleged friend was now no better than a pig.

Sex and sexual activities are used by the church as leverage that’s all. This beautiful and pleasurable experience is demonized so that religion can demoralize an individual in order to apprehend them.

Furthermore the structure of the church regarding the family is this:
Children are to submit to their parents. The wife is to submit the headship of the family to her husband. The husband is to submit to the authority of the church and its leaders. In this way the trickle down effect is that the church rule over all; in the name of God, of course.

My story ended with my wife deciding to follow this pastor. She believed the lies about me. I am divorced now as I walked away from the church and am now living with my two sons.

Use your own mind, explore and find the truth. The truth should set you free, eventually.

... and trafficking in women and girls are by people (Russian Mafia, Chinese Triads) who consider sex to be neither sacred nor a sin, but just business.

Secular or religous, there are parameters on sex -with whom, at what age, type of sex "approve", the issue of same gender sex in love and life.

Both religious dogmas and scriptures and secular laws wants to regulate sexual behaviour, all in the belief it is best for the individual and community.

Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?

A good question, but we can certainly say from the modern point of view that doing either is incompatible with modern society. It might seem easy for us to say sex should be regarded as sacred rather than sinful, but is this not something of the position of extreme romanticism, even something of a type of obsessiveness?

What we do know is that we recoil today against sex being something sinful...but is sinfulness not necessary to achieving self-control and arriving at interests other than sex?

Perhaps we can split the difference and say that sex will become sacred--truly sacred--only when we have absolute self-control with regard to sex. Without this absolute self-control--without in fact passing through a sex is sinful stage--the sacredness of sex is a sham because we really have no self-control with regard to it...

The sacredness of sex in the final analysis is something of an ideal and should not be taken as something easily arrived at. Essentially sex is something that animals themselves do quite well (not that I am saying we are not animals) and without self-control--consciousness of decision--we are no better than animals and about as sacred in our actions as they are...

I find religions that consider sex sacred suspect. We are too easily fooled into believing by such religions that they have managed to achieve what we today in modern society have not achieved: not only the place of sex in society, but its place to the point of sacredness...

I think sex, if not sinful, will always be a problem until we can elevate it to its proper position and not have it drag us down intellectually (in other words, as we achieve greater consciousness and self-control sex is elevated as well).

Modern society is against sex being sinful but it is a problem and we would like it to be sacred but when we do so we once again wallow in sin...Around and around it goes...

The problem has always been the proper placement of sex in society and I doubt that this has ever been decisively and satisfactorily achieved. We should not be lulled by sex is sacred religions. This is not to say that at some points in history a magical tension between sex and society was not achieved, just that we should not take it for granted...

We need to always strive for that magical tension knowing all the while that we must not fall into the extremes of on the one hand being romantically obsessed (a crazy elevation) and on the other constantly pointing out the sinfulness of sex...

This practice should be the new religion with regard to sex in society perhaps...and perhaps this practice will give birth to a new religion.

Russell D,

No, I am not confused by Concernend the Christian Now Liberated (CCNL) last posting LOL - "I don't see any commentary about Islam and sex. I assume the Koran and its allowance of harems to include the presence of slaves in said harems plus the allowance of polygamy are significant embarrassments to Moslems. Then again Moslems don't appear to be embarrassed about the militant passages in the Koran."

I'll humour Concerned on this in his/her expectations and assumptions. He or she needs us Muslims to define himself/herself against. I know the question is a deliberate bait, but Concerned is very boring without rants against Muslims in his/her posts here.

Concerned my friend:)

Miss us? Well I just got home from travelling and had been reading Otterson's and Starhawk's pieces on the environment. I don't know much about pagans/Wiccans and Mormons and is most interested to read what they believe, think and feel.

I only read about whether sex is sacred or a sin today. You know, since I got home, I was busy having a ball being a sex slave in a harem, putting on a veil to make myself sexier while I perform the belly dance.

Then, my husband, married to three other women besides me, decided we all join him in bed. This is really special - group love and sex. Usually, we, the wives, would consult one another as to which of us is to sleep with him, especially if we are having our menses, or is heavily pregnant.

Sometimes, for no reason apart from being tired, we shove the husband to one of the other wives for you know what. We don't have to lie about having a headache.

Oh yes, sex is for recreation. Even my neighbourhood imam has two wives, unlike Catholic priest and nuns who don't marry at all. I have no idea why they don't marry. You will have to ask them yourself.

Oh yes, we also have sex for procreation. You know, the militant passages in the Qur'an cause us to be violent, so our men are busy shooting, bombing and killing one another. So, we have to procreate to prevent us bein extinct. Men's population down because of killings? No problem. Those that survived can legally marry up to four wives, including widows of those fallen in battle and have legitimate children, not bastards, and to take care of orphans.

When we die and go to heaven, we have all those virgins too. In life and after death, there is sex, sex and more sex. Life and death is good eh?

Thank Almighty God for recognizing that sex is natural for men and women or recreation and procreation.

Frankly, Concerned, I'd rather you consider the trafficking of women. It is a massive problem. From Asia to Europe and North America. From Eastern Europe and Central Asia to Europe, North America and Asia. Thousands and thousands of them.

For the traffickers of women and girls, be they Russian Mafia or Chinese Triads, sex is neither sacred or a sin. Just business and the women and girls are commodities to derive income from. One only has to look at Patpong and Pattaya in Thailand to see that where sex is considered as neither sacred or a sin, the debasement of humans and individual dignity and rights are at its nadir. I have not even begun to go into mail order brides from Asia.

And yes, do go on about the Prophet Muhammad PBUH and harems and sex slaves. Sexual abuse is perpetrated by people of all religious persuasions or have no beliefs at all. The Chinese Triad members have no beliefs beyond profits, regardless of how it is derived.

Sex may be sacred or a sin in religions depending on scriptures and dogma re age, gender, whom one has sex with, whether it is same sex sex, extramarital sex or how the sex is performed. But secular states do also regulate sexual behavior from marraige to rape to consenting age for sex, not to mention the issue of same sex partnership in life and love, and sex.

Okay Concerned, Sayeed and others feeling bored and looking for a window for rants and vents on Islam, Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, go, go, go, go.............while I leave this On Faith thread to have great sex and then to go on Chinese New Year leave. This is going to be the Year of the Pig. A very good year according to the Chinese.

Peace be with all.

PS Victoria, sorry about this post. I just want to let them vent it here. It is cheaper than therapy for some of them.

By the way Victoria, I was schooled at a Catholic school at the primary and secondary level. The nuns taught us, Muslim schoolgirls, about the Trinity and Original Sin. We still don't get it, but the nuns are lovely chaste ladies and we were too shy to ask them why they and the Catholic priests can't marry.

" don't intend to make this discussion about insults, yet you seem to be the only one in here who is getting offended. Sorry to see that. It happens. "

I'm also just about the only person others are responding to and making comments about my personal point of view.

I'm not confused by the entry about Islam. The entry is self-explanatory. I think the author that because many Muslims have practices things that are frowned on in the author's sphere of influence, they should be embarassed. That, of course, assumes that the author's viewpoint is evident to Muslims.

If polygamist Muslims live in a culture that affirms such practices, why would they consider it embarassing? (I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying it's their perspective on what's right or wrong.)

Sex isn't defined as sacred or sinful period; it is defined as a gift from God which creates new life, and is also enjoyable.
However, sex outside of marriage is sinful, as God tells us in the 10 commandments, and as Jesus told the woman caught in adultery.
What is sin? Sin is something that harms, and can be defined as breaking the law God set forth, as well.
Joining physically with someone other than your spouse (in marriage) harms many (emotionally).

Some unthinking people over react and rule all sex as evil/sinful. Ridiculous--they themselves are a product of sex. They wouldn't call themselves evil.
Secondly, people call it sacred when referring to it being a God-created/given situation. God ALSO gave the parameters in which it was to be practiced--then it's "sacred" meaning "holy unto God."

Ok,

Anyone else confused about that last entry? I know I am.

I don't see any commentary about Islam and sex. I assume the Koran and its allowance of harems to include the presence of slaves in said harems plus the allowance of polygamy are significant embarrassments to Moslems. Then again Moslems don't appear to be embarrassed about the militant passages in the Koran.

Lorie M.,

I don't intend to make this discussion about insults, yet you seem to be the only one in here who is getting offended. Sorry to see that. It happens.

I would like to say something to everyone though-whether sex is good, or bad, it is not up to someone else to tell us, it is up to ourselves to figure it out. Whether the sex is in marriage, outside marriage, or homosexual activity, it doesn't matter. It's all good. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

"Sex is good, yet it can be bad also. But who is it up to to tell us what we can and can't do? A book? A person? A president? A king? Answer me that.........."

The issue really isn't sex, it's people. The problem lies in the people.

The best person to tell us what is the best for us is someone who has observed human behavior over millenia and understands how people really work, especially when nobody's looking.

I personally believe the Eternal One has been around long enough, seen enough and cares enough for each of us to reveal that truth to us if we'd sit still and dare to ask the One to reveal what's best to us.

Prayer was given for each to open a dialogue with the One who is Good and looks out for our best.

I believe and have seen God answer. I'm fully confident God would respond if anyone would be open and willing to ask what's best for his/her own sex life.

Try it.

For all the lipservice given to monotheists being oppressors, I've observed more anti-religious pre-suppositions and prejudice in this discussion.

The topic is why some religions regard sex as a sin or as sacred. (not to mistake a religion for religious rulers or traditions. Religion is established before rulers came to power. Religious tradition is not synonymous with theology.)

Can someone give me an example of any religion's theology that labels sex as sinful, other than common infractions like rape or premarital/extramarital sex? I'm not familiar with any that do. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

"By your standards, no unbeliever can post on this essay. I object to the terms - sin and sacred are religious concepts, and I reject them as useful descriptions."

It doesn't bother me that you object to those terms. You may reject any concept as you wish but so can we all.

Kindly speak of what you know- you don't know me. Those are not my standard. Until you know me, keep your mouth off my thoughts, thank you!

Anon/Lorie M: All atheists are quite comfortable with disagreement. How do you think we survive in a highly religious society that deliberately marginalizes us and, in fact, forces us to subsidize religion? You used the phrase 'anti-God' - how can you not see that that is indeed offensive to unbelievers? The phrase is derogatory in the way that you mean, but you did it anyway. Am I allowed to post only on Susan Jacoby's essays?

Sorry about the you guys thing - I should have just said monotheists. Only monotheists would even think to use the phrase anti-God. By your standards, no unbeliever can post on this essay. I object to the terms - sin and sacred are religious concepts, and I reject them as useful descriptions.

"Lorie M: With no personal disrespect intended, who elected you as the rules queen here? This is an open forum where people of many faiths or no faith at all may post as they choose, in the way that they choose, and for their own reasons, and they do not need your permission to do so.

I am not anti-god, I simply don't believe in it. I am not anti-religious, I simply don't believe in it, although I do wish that you would take your theocratic fingers out of my pockets. I exist quite nicely and very successfully in society. I have not the remotest clue what you mean by anti-contemporary. Quite a number of us unbelievers believe that some of you guys are downright medieval, however."

I didn't write the rules, the rules are implied. There are certain things you do and a way you comport yourself when having an intelligent conversation.

Your disagreements are an example of my point. You don't have to agree with everything. It's more civil and a better exchange when derogatory statements and generalization not based on facts are left out of the discussion.

By anti-contemporary I mean knocking new ideas in favor of tradition. Again, it's more meaningful to disagree and offer a logical, factual reason for it.

Oh yeah- evidently I'm one of 'those guys'. Who might that be?

It's amazing how all my efforts to focus on reasonable, logical discussion that is minimally emotionally charged has evoked such strong feelings! I guess I'm gonna have to work on that.

Ritualized behavior...

Is that what people who sincerely practice faith of any kind would categorize it?

Are religious mores, including those related to sex, void of thoughtful consideration or validity? Demonstrate why?

Sorry to disappoint you but your comments didn't set me off. As much as you'd like to make me into something I'm not and this discussion into something it is not, all you had to do was ask the question that was put forth.

Your comments only confirm that you are more interested in put-downs than having a frank discussion without generalizations or demonizations.

Religions are as diverse as people, so many possibilities and circumstances. Sex is a commodity that has multiple values, it produces cogs (people) and controls them too. So when less cogs are better, sex for pleasure is more important. When we need more cogs, the value of a correctly produced cog is more important and sex for pleasure is counter productive. When social resources are devoted to producing a satisfactory sexual experience there are less children. In farming communities that rely on large families, the behaviors may vary but the rules become more rigid which is a deciding factor in producing a predictable cog.

Religion, and ritualized behavior attempts to manage groups and suffers the same problems as every political machine. They are afraid of the masses and they should be.

Lorie M.,

thank you for showing me that all it takes is the slightest sentence or word to set someone off. I have studied, and I do have experience. I just like to see what other people do if I respond in the simplest way. It works too.

But back to the discussion at hand, sex should not be a tool for people to use as the basis for religion, and whether or not it is right is beyond reproach when it comes to religion. Sex is something to be enjoyed as well as feared. Religion has distorted it and it needs to be an openly talked about subject, not something taboo that should only be discussed in dark corners.

Lorie M.,

I like you Lorie, and that makes me smile. It is always interesting to see how littel one can say to get another person to faulter. Seems I didn't have to say much at all.

I study religion, and yes, I have experience, but I am by no means saying that I am right and you are wrong. I a love sex, as I am sure that you do too. Most people here do. Sex is good, yet it can be bad also. But who is it up to to tell us what we can and can't do? A book? A person? A president? A king? Answer me that..........

Lorie M: With no personal disrespect intended, who elected you as the rules queen here? This is an open forum where people of many faiths or no faith at all may post as they choose, in the way that they choose, and for their own reasons, and they do not need your permission to do so.

I am not anti-god, I simply don't believe in it. I am not anti-religious, I simply don't believe in it, although I do wish that you would take your theocratic fingers out of my pockets. I exist quite nicely and very successfully in society. I have not the remotest clue what you mean by anti-contemporary. Quite a number of us unbelievers believe that some of you guys are downright medieval, however.

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Let the pagans spill theirs, on the dusty ground.
God will make them pay for each sperm that can't be found.
Yes, every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed in your neighborhood."

Lorie M.,

I like you Lorie, and that makes me smile. It is always interesting to see how littel one can say to get another person to faulter. Seems I didn't have to say much at all.

I study religion, and yes, I have experience, but I am by no means saying that I am right and you are wrong. I a love sex, as I am sure that you do too. Most people here do. Sex is good, yet it can be bad also. But who is it up to to tell us what we can and can't do? A book? A person? A president? A king? Answer me that..........

This discussion is well-served by sticking to the topic at hand- how religions view sex.

Anything else is anti-societal, anti-God, anti-religious, anti-contemporary ranting that does not contribute to a meaningful, factual discussion of the topic.

Russell, this is a discussion. If I find fault, I simply disagree with you. Are you grown-up enough to handle that?

It is intellectual dishonesty to hide behind your perceptions rather than deal with the point that was made.

How much have you really studied about patriarchal religions? What in your understanding, based on that knowledge, draws you to the conclusion you made?

There's a discussion. Let's see if you can handle it.

because people are often power mad. church's want to control the minds so they can controll the wallet

To Lorie M.,

If you find fault in what I say, then you obviously have alot more to learn about who you are.

"Patriarchal religions are fear-based. Parents, guardians, caregivers and church folks continue to live and teach a fear-based philosophy to the young."

Again, a response not based on serious study of any of these patriarchal religions you rant about.

I would truly enjoy discussing this topic with people who are actually familiar with the religions they speak out.

"the big three in particular ( Christianity, Judaism, Islam ), deliberately tailor its doctrines so that human sexuality benefits the "church" instead of the individual. "

How unfactual! The teaching of marital sex was established long before ANY of these three religions were formalized, in western terms.

Reserving sex for loving, committed, lifetime relationships is totally favorable to the individual. I would venture that the overwhelming majority of people who live according this, married and unmarried, in cultures across the globe are not really as oppressed as you suppose.

Your comments suggest a gross lack of knowledge and a prejudice not based on facts.

I don't know for sure how many people realize this, or have even contemplated it. But, here is the bad news. Organized religion in general, and the big three in particular ( Christianity, Judaism, Islam ), deliberately tailor its doctrines so that human sexuality benefits the "church" instead of the individual. The ethical issues surrounding those doctrines is manifest. Sadly though, the overwhelming majority of people following any of these religions have no insight as to what is happening, or the plain simple guts to openly question it. I have no pity for those who find themsleves in this situation. Has anyone remembered that God gave us that big fancy cortex in our skulls for a reason?

Patriarchal religions are fear-based. Parents, guardians, caregivers and church folks continue to live and teach a fear-based philosophy to the young. Fear is taught through sin. This is emotional control. Instead teach that it is okay to enjoy life, it is okay to learn to make personal decisions and it is okay to question. It is child abuse to use fear, shame and guilt to control people and keep them in religion.

I don't know for sure how many people realize this, or have even contemplated it. But, here is the bad news. Organized religion in general, and the big three in particular ( Christianity, Judaism, Islam ), deliberately tailor its doctrines so that human sexuality benefits the "church" instead of the individual. The ethical issues surrounding those doctrines is manifest. Sadly though, the overwhelming majority of people following any of these religions have no insight as to what is happening, or the plain simple guts to openly question it. I have no pity for those who find themsleves in this situation. Has anyone remembered that God gave us that big fancy cortex in our skulls for a reason?

"..but if you go without sex, you can't really live life. It is a way to find out who you are and what you like."

What kind of sappy nonsense is that? Prove it!

Thousands of years of human behavior are not in favor of doing whatever pleases you. This opens the door for poor judgment and tyranny of all sorts. What seems good to Hitler may not seem good to Gandhi. Individual judgment is not always the worst but it's not always the best.

It's difficult to exercise 'good' judgment when it comes to something as emotionally, hormonally and egotistically charged as sex. '

Having an opinion on a matter doesn't make you right. How much more shaky is the ground that determines that sexual relations should be determined by individual experience and feelings?

“Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?”

Because man forms religion into what he wants it to be and people everywhere have different views on life and thus have formed different religious traditions and teachings. Just look at human life and you can see the good and bad aspects of sex. Once you understand that man has made religion, not God, it all falls into place and the inconsistencies are just examples of differing views of the people who formed the religion.

Soja John Thaikattil, sex outside marriage is NOT condemned by all religions. Consensual sex outside of marriage is still considered sacred by many faiths, usually non-Abrahamic.

Primarily, the religions that consider sex sacred is because it is the union of the Divine within each person, the masculine/feminine union that defines the act of creation. That singular definition is beyond the social context of marriage as defined by religious bodies.

To all who have an open mind,

I relay this message hoping that it may enlighten, or maybe I am just doing it to cause a stir, but I do feel the need to interject how I feel on the subject.

Sex is good. Religion is good.
Sex is bad. Religion is bad.

Both have good aspects and bad aspects. They are seperate entities in themselves, yet people can't seem to get over injecting sex into religion. Leave sex alone. Sex has been used by religions all over the world to control how people think ,and guess what, it's still working. But what I like to see is people questioning the status quo. Sex is not something to be ashamed of. To be sexually aware is a wonderous thing, belive it or not, people respond to it. Maybe the majority think that sexual regression is what it takes to be closer to God. Then explain to me the reason why catholic priests are scarring young boys for life. Sexual regression is not the way to go.

Sex is a part of life. In order to live life, you can go without sex, but if you go without sex, you can't really live life. It is a way to find out who you are and what you like. So I say go and do what you want, be who you want to be, but make sure that you know the ups and downs of it, because enlightenment is not being closer to God, enlightenment is knowing who you are and what your purpose is.

Who cares, it's like arguing whether Picard or Kirk was the better captain. Do what YOU feel is right, and cast off the outdated and damaging social mores of a band of genocidal nomadic savages who destroyed civilizations on the 'word of their god'.

Sex is good, and like all good things should be pursued in a safe way.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not teach that sex is a sin. They each teach that sex is an immensely important part of human life and society to be practiced in the safety of committed relationships.

Judaism and Christianity, as taught in the sacred writings, portray sex as sacred. It's too sacred to engage in lightly or recreationally. It's part of a sacred covenant between a man, woman and God. It is only sinful when not practiced as such.

As we all know and have witnessed, sex gives life and it kills. It builds families and can tear several apart in a few stolen moments. It tears friends aparts and helps to cement marital friends together for a lifetime. When practiced in loving, lifetime relationships, sex is extremely affirming and positive to everyone touched by it.

It's for these reasons that God admonishes us to limit sexual relationships to marriage. Living in accordance with these do not stifle us but protect us from the far-reaching affects of spiritually and socially 'unprotected' sex.

Marriage provides an arc of safety. Like many of us, God is a loving parent who set boundaries for our benefit.

Since the sexual revolution, members of our society can enjoy sex outside marriage without stigma. Despite this 'freedom' we aren't any better for it.

There's no proof that sexually active relationships (outside marriage) are more fulfilling in general- in fact it's more the opposite. Instead of enjoying it, more people are slaves to it.

In addition to all the other pressures of life, now there's pressure to have great sex and have it regularly. When you date, when do you start? How do you start? How do you know the other person is not interested in a relationship for the comforts of sex(aka using you)?

Lotta hassle for something that most often results in something miserable as disappointment, heartache, unplanned pregnancy, sterility, death or confusion!

Four words: Theology of the Body.

For those who don't know, Pope John Paul II, when he was first instated as Pope, gave a series of lectures explaining the spirituality of sex, relating it to the Gospel.

It is only in this mindset that one comes to understand that sex, in its intended forms, is holy and sacred. And sex, outside of marriage, in any deviation, is a desecration of something God had planned to be holy.

Even for those who disagree, it is well worth studying. It's utterly fascinating. Christopher West takes the Pope's scholarly teachings and breaks it down for the average layperson. www.christopherwest.com

CHRISTAN FUNDAMENTALIST LIKE SEXbecause it creates more little tithers!

"Religion" is only a vast collection of philosophies of men. This is true for all religions, Christian or not. Spiritual truths emanate directly from GOD THE EVERLIVING, and bear little resemblance to the philosophies of men. Sex is only one of an infinite number of topics which has been shaped and labeled by the philosophies of men with no regard for the spiritual truths concerning it.

Sex was not considered a sin until Chistianity, when they based that religion on sex and sin being one and the same. If one does not have sex one will never sin. They even invented original sin which it claims we are are born with because our parents had sex to creat us. Even in marriage. And an unbaptised infant that dies goes into hell or limbo because of this. They blamed women for such a disgusting act because every man would live pure and blameless lives if wasn't for all those women with their bodies forcing men to want them. After all didn't Eve tempt Adam to sin? Unfortunately a close reading of the story of the garden of eden shows that Eve did not know she was naked after eating the forbidden fruit. She was still pure...until Adam took a bite and taught her evil. Making sex the only sin and blaming women for it. justified the death of the female divine. Christianity's main rival. Which challenges the assertion that a male god created life and made men in his image, rather than a female god creating life and making women in hers. But since no man ever created life. carried it, birthed it or sustained it from his own body it's rather obvious just which sex is in God's image. Everytime a female gets pregnant she risks her life for life and suffers permanent mental, emotional and physical damage. How many men can say that they've ever risked their life even once. To counter this incontravertical truth They had to make sex a sin and women's fault with that being why they died from bearing children. It had to be a punishment for something and of course nobdy was going to blame a male. This is what is at the heart of the anti-choice movement...that women must be punished for having sex and that punishment is children. And once again nobody's about to blame the father...it is of course her fault and hers alone.

I beleive that God gave us sex for procreation and enjoyment. God commands us to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth. Without the powerful sexual desires that he has placed in us we may not have the motivation to fulfill this sacred responsibility. I believe that we are only to share sex within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman. I don't believe, however that sex is only for procreation. Sex should be a fun way for a married couple to express themselves physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. I believe that the sexual choices a married couple makes (intercourse, oral sex, etc) are up to them and are appropriate as long as they make both partners happy and are uplifting.

Does anybody here remember when humans first paid homage to the sun as the main deity? Next it was the mythical Greek gods while classic Mayans were basically doing the same thing? Ever notice how certain segments of civilization still cling to those icons? You call that evolution? I thought we were supposed to learn from our mistakes as we evolve as on this planet? Some seem like they never will. The only light at the end of the tunnel however seems to be the youthful, quiet revolution taking place all over the planet as the real evolution finally comes to light. Finally, some of us seem to be waking up and realizing that they're not going to base their lives on more icons and hokey, ancient religions and start living our lives like we should. How about just getting along and give each other respect? What's up with this elitist "Rapture" propaganda anyway, and why aren't we taking those narrow-minded fanatics to task?

Some strange people get into powerful positions in all organisations and groups - religious and otherwise! The so called 'Fathers of the Church' like Aquinas and Augustine had major hang-ups about sex and women - although in his younger day Augustine was a lecherous lad. Disguise hang-ups with a lot of intellectual nonsense ( no, it's not an oxymoron) and proclaim that you can interpret what God wants and means and that's how it takes root. Everybody who comes into the religion is then indoctrinated in their formative years and there you have it. Millions of people with guilt about sex. We should remember too that hypocrisy is part of the human condition as is jealousy and envy. In other words, sex is dirty but If I can get some of it I will.

Simple really

Joe Curran

what a ridiculous question!
what is a certain religion? i'd like to tell you, religion is just some wise man's idea, or, precisely, the collection of his ideas about social life of his age.

if i say smoking is happy and useful to our body, and another says it's not, why don't you cast doubt on this difference? a great man who created his religion favored smoking and another great one who established another religion hated smoking, which, i mean, constitutes your puzzle. that's all.

maybe you will throw a second question that why religions discussed sex and women so much and so interested? well, because few in old times appealed to people but sex, marriage and so on.

what a ridiculous question!
what is a certain religion? i'd like to tell you, religion is just some wise man's idea, or, precisely, the collection of his ideas about social life of his age.

if i say smoking is happy and useful to our body, and another says it's not, why don't you cast doubt on this difference? a great man who created his religion favored smoking and another great one who established another religion hated smoking, which, i mean, constitutes your puzzle. that's all.

maybe you will throw a second question that why religions discussed sex and women so much and so interested? well, because few in old times appealed to people but sex, marriage and so on.

Question: Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?

I am not aware of why a religion, any religion would consider sex within marriage a sin. Marriage, as far as I know, is considered sacred in every religion. Hindus prohibit widow remarriage, Judaism and Islam allow divorce and remarriage, and among Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike allow remarriage after death of spouse, but Catholics do not allow remarriage for divorcees. As a Catholic, I was quite impressed with C S Lewis’ essay that built the best case for remarriage of Christian divorcees.

In Christianity, the Virgin birth is important to confirm the Divinity of Jesus, and does not serve the purpose of portraying Mary as being more holy because she did not have a sexual relationship with Joseph when she conceived Jesus. I have trouble with the implication that seems prevalent in Catholic belief that Mary remained a virgin till the end of her life and lived like a sister with her husband Joseph, as if having a sexual relationship with her husband would somehow make her less holy. Any inference that sex was only meant for procreation is wrong. God created Eve as a companion for Adam first. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God did not mean for Adam and Eve to enjoy their companionship outside of just having children. God found everything He created good. He created sex, so it must be good in His sight as well if sex is an expression of real love.

Religious traditions which do not have monks and nuns look with suspicion on lifelong celibacy. It goes without saying that the priesthood is NOT meant to serve as haven for those who have sexual problems, for example paedophiles or those who do not want to commit themselves to a lifelong relationship to one person. The celibate life style chosen by monks and nuns in religions is not because sex is unholy but in order to be free to devote all their time to God’s work without having to invest effort and time in the cares of family life and in pleasing their partners. It is understood that very few people are truly called to a life of lifelong celibacy – many merely endure it, many make a mockery of the calling.

But sex outside marriage is condemned by all religions. What is sacred in marriage is considered sin outside it. It is easy enough to understand why sex only within the commitment of marriage is considered a good basis for human happiness. The reasons for such happiness have been listed by several. Sex restricted to marriage is an ideal to strive for, and fidelity in marriage definitely is not up for discussion. But since we live in an age when people don’t marry as soon as they reach puberty as in the days of old, and segregation of the sexes in social situations don’t exist, living a celibate life may not be feasible or advisable for the emotional health of the person concerned, when one is not called to celibacy for religious reasons, and marriage may not be feasible in the short or long term for whatever reason. Under those circumstances, would God look upon a sexual relationship as a sin, when the sexual involvement is between two persons who genuinely love each other and are not hurting anyone else in the process? I believe in a God of love and compassion who understands the human condition and weaknesses better than we do and would judge by different standards than we would do.

Sex in itself is an instinct which does not have any moral sense apart from what we choose to give it, as is the case with all our instincts. For example hunger is an instinct, yet most of us don’t steal food that belongs to someone else, we don’t eat more than we need, yet some steal, some are gluttons…But such behaviours both good and bad are learnt, not inborn. So it is with sex. We may or may not submit our sex instinct to higher values. We are free to give free reign to our sexual instinct in an undifferentiated way like the animals, or be self-controlled and submit it entirely to love. The decision is entirely ours. D H Lawrence wrote that the lower needs in man drives us to promiscuity, but higher needs inspires us to remain faithful to the one we love. When there is no love, we seek the one in the many, but when there is love, we find the many in the one.

Religions have shown us a way to the highest possible use of the sex instinct, submitted to love, as God meant it to be.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

In islam, sex is a blessing and an act of worship to God...as long as it is only done between husband and wife. So in Islam, sex between married couples is a blessing because it creates a bond between the couple, affection and love, this is all the mercy of God that he has given us...and it is also an act of Worship to God...ive never really understood the christian point of view on sex, is it bad, is it good, or why priests cant do it etc...i for one think its natural, and God put in us this feeling to need that companionship, not to transgress on Gods laws, but to make our lives easy...just think about it this way, marriage without sex....wouldnt life be hard?

All of the prophets of God have came with the word that we shouldnt have sex outside of wedlock..."covet thy neighbors wife", commit fornication or adultery...but the only alternative is too urge an early marriage (as soon as one is physically and emotionally matured) to deal with our urges in a manner that is pleasing to God...rather than masturbation (which is also a gateway into more sinful acts) or having multiple sex partners outside of wedlock (for obvious reasons as already stated by others...diseases etc)...and honestly if i did have sex before marriage, i know it wouldnt be as good during marriage...ignorance is bliss in that matter right? lol. so to those who said its boring during marraige...i feel bad for u, i think its great and a great way to show love and affection and create that love and affection, all by the grace of God. so yes in islam, sex is not just for pro creation, its also for enjoyment...all while keeping true to Gods word. in that sense, the way ive been raised at least, my religion has made room for things and feelings that are impossible to subside. anyways im rambling, im still curious about christianity as it is today, and how it became what it did, from these readings it seems sex has always been looked at as sinful or along the lines of being something evil.

Sex too often can be a power relationship: where the physical act itself is used to reinforce dominance. It can also be more familial and societal. Here sex is used to reinforce male dominance over females in a broader context as we see in too many places today.

Or it can be an act where the other person is used as an object for self-gratification.

Inside a committed relationship where there is mutual love and friendship, such distorted relationships are minimized.

At its best, I think religion serves to reinforce sex as an expression of mutual love rather than a lesser form of expression.

What I don't understand about religion is that they say GOD created us.... If so, why did god create this urge of sex and if it is so EVIL. If he created life and wanted people to behave and not have a sexual experience with the exception of creating life it really doesn't make sense. He created this "evil" act only to benefit the creation of life??? Yes, I may believe that (NOT). Let's call it the early cult (anyone remember Waco, TX). It's a blind faith and there is no proof (with the exception of the bible written by people who thought you sail off the end the earth). Let's not forget the many religions and what they pratice.. Oh! Mormans, yes the lord decided it was unfair for a man to be wed only to one women so we change the story. Then we have through history, Puritans, Quakers, Amish, Born Again, Bapist, etc. Yes, there is a God and he changed his mind and told all these faiths they are correct. Just like Charles Manson told his followers... Spare me they story!

everything has bounderies. the point of religion and its teachings is to help us understand where those bounderies are. the ideas of i can do what ever i want however i want whenever i want are given to us to choose with the understanding that we can and will make a mistake

everybody is born with the basic ability to sense right and wrong.

you feel it everytime you go outside of said bounderies

ie how do you feel the day after that one night stand?

can you really say, good?

It could also be like Daniel's idea that it must be this site that is wrong because there can't be anything wrong with what he is doing.

Religion and Sex
“Why do you think some religions have regarded sex as sacred while others have regarded it as a sin?”
Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on February 14, 2007 7:30 AM

What about it being the same reason people think EVERYTHING they want is "SACRED" and so to deny themselves anything is the ONLY thing they would call "sin".

If sex was just for procreation, it wouldn't feel so darned good.

If sex was only for marriage, it wouldn't be so boring in marriage.

sex is a wonderful gift of God to men but with a condition that we use it in the sanctification of marriage between man and a woman

Dear Gaby,

Sex is not just for procreation. If it was, women would only come into estrus once a year, instead of being sexually receptive all the time.

In bonobos (pigmy chimpanzees), sex is an enjoyable social mechanism that seems to foster group stability and cohesion. Humans love to have sex and apparently is more than just procreation.

Because religion fulfills a spiritual need to explain the unexplainable, it has been used to justify everything that needed to be justified. The earliest religion was worship of the fertility goddess. Much more logical than patriarchy.

Sex is neither sacred nor sinful. It's a physical act used for procreation. Churches should stay away from that subject altogether. We don't condemn animals when the procreate, why should we condemn humans.

Of course, as stated by TONIO, not everyone follows that norm.

And, as stated by LIBERATED, it can be very pleasurable. Which of course is why homosexuals and lonely people still want to have sex even though they can't procreate.

I have never understood why the Abrahamic religions "criminalize" acts that pose no intrinsic harm to others, such as homosexuality and masturbation. Why wouldn't moral standards for sex be defined as those actions which help or harm others? True, the acts I named do not contribute to procreation, but I reject the idea that every single person has a duty to procreate.

Is your site working or what?

Why do you think some religions....test

test

In everything we do, there is always the safety aspect. It is obvious that intercourse can be very, very pleasurable but it also can be very, very dangerous especially when having intercourse with multiple partners. This has been recognized by Judaism and Christianity for many millenium with the resultant Commandments of Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife. Mother Nature can be very cruel when there are violations of said Commandments. This cruelity can be extended to the children of violators with diseases being transferred and families being torn apart (alimony, child support, divorce, illegitimate children, lack of inheritance, hatred and a lack of leadership figures).

My very wise Aunt Katherine's advice to her nephews? Slamming it in a window brings instant self-control. We never practiced such self-mutilation but we got the picture. :)