Why does religion hate sex?

cumulusprotagonist · Post by **cumulusprotagonist** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:59 pm

It is important for there to be multiple opposing views in the world. Controversy gets people thinking(too much is a bad thing especially if it is repetitive). If people stop thinking well...
What do you think would happen?

Kaebora · Post by **Kaebora** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:05 am

I'll simply leave my personal conclusion and step away from this subject for good.

Sex is wonderful for the sake of expressing love in a married relationship, as well as for bearing children. Why is it good for expressing love? We don't know for sure, but for some reason, we are swept into doing so in the heat of passion... wanting to be as close as possible to the one you love deeply. Sex is the ultimate act of expressing love.

Casual sex, to me, indeed is a perversion of the sacred act. If you don't love the person, it is going to make your future relationships seem far less special when that level of intimacy is reached.

As far as religon is concerned... sex is not hated. It is held as sacred. Using the act of love for "recreation / fun" is by far the biggest sin. God set the "no sex before marrage" rule because of the negetive emotional effects casual sex can have on a person. He gives us such rules to help protect us from ourselves. Biblical rules about sex, if followed, can help save you a lot of heartache in the long run.

chubhound · Post by **chubhound** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:49 am

Kaebora wrote:Sex is wonderful for the sake of expressing love in a married relationship, as well as for bearing children. Why is it good for expressing love? We don't know for sure, but for some reason, we are swept into doing so in the heat of passion... wanting to be as close as possible to the one you love deeply. Sex is the ultimate act of expressing love.

Amen to that. I never thought someone could put my "feelings" into words as well as you just did. YOU ROCK!!!!

Now, Vuldari....I'm not saying that you're a bad person, or that you don't know what you're talking about. Your goal (as far as stopping rapes, curbing overpoplulation, etc...) is a good one. The problem is that the end (stopping rape & overpopulation) can't justify the means (forcibly removing the ability of everyone to experience sexual pleasure). For example, the health care industry states that there is an "obesity epidemic" in this country (I don't believe it...but that could just be because I'm a chubby chaser). They go on about the millions of dollars that it costs in terms of disease, high blood pressure and so on. Now...we COULD institute a policy of manditory gastric-bypass surgery for everyone in the U.S.A, we could make potato chips & cupcakes illegal & punishable by death, we could figure out how to remove everyone's ability to smell & taste food. Would that "solve the problem"? Yes. But would it be worth it? I don't think so. We could put an end to all violence by severing everyone's vocal chords & cutting off their hands...noone could start an arguement that gets out of hand, noone could beat their spouses or children, noone could hold a gun or a knife. Does it end violence? Again, yes...but the end doesn't justify the means. And again, limiting sexual contact to those that specifically intend to have a child wouldn't be fair to a decent sized chunk of the population. What about a married couple after the woman reaches menopause? Or what about a woman who's still in her "child bearing years", but for whatever reason (illness, injury, etc) is unable to conceive a child? What about a man that's sterile? And of course...what about gay/lesbian couples? Do we as a society look at those people, shrug our collective shoulders and say "Well....sucks to be you"? Our culture (at least here in America) might be very sexually driven, but we're not a bunch of drunken college frat guys that spent all weekend doing Jello-shots and watching the entire collection of "Girls Gone Wild". And to reduce the whole of humanity to that level does us all a disservice. Plus...it's kinda insulting. To the best of my knowledge noones ever killed themselves because they weren't "getting laid enough", and I've never seen either a massive Roman-Era type orgy OR a gang rape in the produce aisle of Albertson's. And I doubt anyone here actually considers sex (or at least the physical sensations during sex) to be the "be all, end all" of their existence. So don't worry....things aren't as bad as they seem. Just relax & have some faith in the rest of us.

Dreamer · Post by **Dreamer** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:47 pm

Now I think we've all learned something today. Religious poeple can be reasonable and normal about sex (Like Kaebora), and some non religious people can be bats**t insane about it (Vuldari, good thing he's not reading this).

Kaebora · Post by **Kaebora** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:59 am

I'm highly tempted to delete that messege Dreamer.

You can't generalize about people. Religous or non, each is just as individualistic as the next, so saying one entire group is a certain way is inaccurate. Pointing your finger at Vuldari wasn't very nice eaither. Vuldari has many opinions that are set in stone in his mind. That's just his trait. Being non-religous has nothing to do with it.

Think before posting, everyone. Make sure your post isn't going to offend any particular person before posting it.

I'll just call this Strike 2.5. This thread has been borderlineing it.

Dreamer · Post by **Dreamer** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:22 am

Kaebora wrote:I'm highly tempted to delete that messege Dreamer. You can't generalize about people. Religous or non, each is just as individualistic as the next, so saying one entire group is a certain way is inaccurate. Pointing your finger at Vuldari wasn't very nice eaither. Vuldari has many opinions that are set in stone in his mind. That's just his trait. Being non-religous has nothing to do with it.

And that was my point. That my assumptions can be wrong. People, whether they are religious or non religious go both ways on this issue. Like you, while being religious, have a reasonable viewpoint about this. Whereas Vuldari, although not THAT religious, kind of creeped me out with his idea that all people should not be able to enjoy sex.

Aki · Post by **Aki** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Vuldari wrote:
Aki wrote: Wouldn't help a bit. ...
It would not eliminate destructively obsessive behavior altogether, but it would take one out of the picture... and a significant one at that. Most other obsessions are not driven by hard-wired biological impulses quite like sex is.

Also... it WOULD definitely end the epidemic of unwanted pregnancies, and curb overpopulation for good.

In fact, the scenario would likely be so reversed that religion and everyone else would actually ENCOURAGE strong, healthy, loving male/female couples to procreate as much as possible, to fortify the next generarion. ...so as to fend off underpopulation.

Which would be a world crisis that would involve far less killing and petty territory disputes, and much easier to deal with in the long run. IMHO

Nah. People'd just focus on another impulse. It'd take one "destructively obsessive behavior" out of the picture but another will take it's place. And there are impulses far worse than "I wanna f*** something".

Plus I doubt people would react that way. If everyone isn't going "hey, be more responsible with this s***" right now. I doubt that in that scenario people would be encouraging that.

It'd be the same old apathy and "ain't my generation's problem" BS.

Abuse of sex is not the problem. Merely a symptom. Destructive behavior is the problem.

outwarddoodles · Post by **outwarddoodles** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:12 pm

Kaebora wrote:I'm highly tempted to delete that messege Dreamer. You can't generalize about people. Religous or non, each is just as individualistic as the next, so saying one entire group is a certain way is inaccurate. Pointing your finger at Vuldari wasn't very nice eaither. Vuldari has many opinions that are set in stone in his mind. That's just his trait. Being non-religous has nothing to do with it.

Think before posting, everyone. Make sure your post isn't going to offend any particular person before posting it.

I'll just call this Strike 2.5. This thread has been borderlineing it.

Just about every post here is going to offend someone.

It's natural we're all going to disagree. Some of us are more religious than another. Everyone of us has a different view on an idealistic society. And we're all looking at eachother from different parts of life. (Some of us might be sex-crazed teens, others of us might have matured a little. :] )

OT: Sorry, I just want to butt in here. I understand there's a lot of tension in this thread, but, as of yet, I haven't seen any flame war to have arisen. There's nothing at all innappropiet about this discussion. The only problem I can see is a few personal attacks (Which SHOULD be deleted and should not be condoned.).

But, anyhow, my point. Please don't end a potentially good discussion from a few idiotic comments. Thus far, most people in the thread have suceeded in ignoring innapropiet comments and moving on. What has happened in this thread has not been uncontrollable.

Dreamer · Post by **Dreamer** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:50 pm

Aki wrote:
Vuldari wrote:
Aki wrote: Wouldn't help a bit. ...
It would not eliminate destructively obsessive behavior altogether, but it would take one out of the picture... and a significant one at that. Most other obsessions are not driven by hard-wired biological impulses quite like sex is.

Also... it WOULD definitely end the epidemic of unwanted pregnancies, and curb overpopulation for good.

In fact, the scenario would likely be so reversed that religion and everyone else would actually ENCOURAGE strong, healthy, loving male/female couples to procreate as much as possible, to fortify the next generarion. ...so as to fend off underpopulation.

Which would be a world crisis that would involve far less killing and petty territory disputes, and much easier to deal with in the long run. IMHO
Nah. People'd just focus on another impulse. It'd take one "destructively obsessive behavior" out of the picture but another will take it's place. And there are impulses far worse than "I wanna {censored} something".

Plus I doubt people would react that way. If everyone isn't going "hey, be more responsible with this s***" right now. I doubt that in that scenario people would be encouraging that.

It'd be the same old apathy and "ain't my generation's problem" BS.

Abuse of sex is not the problem. Merely a symptom. Destructive behavior is the problem.

One wonders if the same views in your post should be taken about religion. Because athiests think getting rid of religion will solve most of the world's problems, but it is probably likely that people will just find another thing to fight over.

Kaebora · Post by **Kaebora** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:39 pm

outwarddoodles wrote:OT: Sorry, I just want to butt in here. I understand there's a lot of tension in this thread, but, as of yet, I haven't seen any flame war to have arisen. There's nothing at all innappropiet about this discussion. The only problem I can see is a few personal attacks (Which SHOULD be deleted and should not be condoned.).

But, anyhow, my point. Please don't end a potentially good discussion from a few idiotic comments. Thus far, most people in the thread have suceeded in ignoring innapropiet comments and moving on. What has happened in this thread has not been uncontrollable.

Maybe because i've already deleted two instances where fights started up in this thread. I'm a hair away from pulling the plug now. I've been keeping tabs on this thread to keep it from going in the wrong direction. So far it's going better than may other threads in the past. We're on the last chance here, so nobody go out on a limb and ruin it, ok?

outwarddoodles · Post by **outwarddoodles** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:25 pm

Dreamer wrote:One wonders if the same views in your post should be taken about religion. Because athiests think getting rid of religion will solve most of the world's problems, but it is probably likely that people will just find another thing to fight over.

There's two sides to every coin.

To say religion has always held society down would be incorrect. Take the time to think about some of our most awe-inspiring ancient civilizations. Who here doesn't know about the Great Pyramids of Egypt? These pyramids were created to honour the pharoahs of Egypt and to ensure them a peaceful afterlife. The Aztec and Mayan civilization had focused themselves around honouring the various natural spirits around them with temples and structures dedicated to these spirits. (The Aztec city of Cuzco is in the shape of a Jagaur.) There are countless most civilizations like this. Would we not have them if it weren't for religion?

These people's beliefs drove them to work together and form the civilization that they had. I think the point I was trying to make here is that: When people agree, amazing things happen.

All the Major Religions on our Earth teach kindness and empathy to those around us. Religion teaches us how to act to each other. Religion gives us the ground rules for a peaceful, idealistic society. Religion allows people to agree with one another to the point where the Whole becomes more important than the Individual, and we're all able to sacrifice ourselves for good of everyone else, and this power of religion is what allowed so many people across the world to break tribal laws and life and create the society we have today.

If you want to say religion is brainwashing, that's fine with me. If brainwashing people to treat eachother and the nature around them gently is brainwashing, I fully support it.

Of course. The only problem with religion is that for all the amazing power that religion holds, it's in control of human-kind. It's not that religion controls people. People control religion. Countless Crusades, Genocides, and the current sad state of Isreal can all be blamed on Religion.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
-- Ghandi

Religion can teach people both fear and love. For Example: Western religion teaches thatwolves are messengers of the devil, and werewolves are people whom are cursed with evil. While many Eastern religions believe that Animals in nature are teachers, and that people whom can change into animals are revered. In Western thought, Dragons pillage villages. In Japan and China, Dragons bring rain and good fortune.

Religion can both be used for our benefit and destruction. It's all a matter of how it's applied. Religion can be described as a Double-Edged Sword.

On the Other hand, if all of the world became athiests, I don't think it would be any different than if all the world were of one religion. Religion teaches us morals, and just because a society if Atheist, this doesn't mean they would become without morals. (And that is precisely where Humanism comes in. You can debate that Atheism would encourage people to become better people more than religion. If there's no after life, then we might as well live it up now. And if there's no god to cure our problems, we'll have to do it ourselves.)

But this is all set in the tense of an IDEAL SOCIETY. Which, we're not, because IDEALLY everything works, but not everything does. Two Sides. One Coin.

The reason why this doesn't work is because there's too many religions in this world. (Andwe'reidiotsandliketodestroyeachother.)
----------------------

Now, ABOUT SEX.

The famous book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley describes a care-free society void of religion, family and art, and filled with sex and drugs. The world is designed so that the individual is obsolete. The book can be compared to the general-on goings of our own society -- that of a society obsessed with sex, conformity, and living in the moment.

The two sides of the coin on this debate is:
1. Should we avoid sex in our everyday lives for the enjoyments of other aspects of human kind?
--OR--
2. Should we encourage sex and hedonism, trust that everything will work out, and enjoy ourselves?

I bring up the book Brave New World because it demonstrates the debate between Art and Tradition, or Hedonism. Which is more important? (Oh, by the way, read the book. I SWEAR, it's a good read, if you haven't had to read it already.)

----------------------------------------

I personally believe that the root of every religion is just a different interpretation of the same divine. I also believe that what is better for the whole, is better for the individual, and that all the world needs is love. Not respect, not tolerance. LOVE.

Aki · Post by **Aki** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:19 pm

Dreamer wrote:
One wonders if the same views in your post should be taken about religion. Because athiests think getting rid of religion will solve most of the world's problems, but it is probably likely that people will just find another thing to fight over.

Oh, totally.

I mean, sometimes the death toll incurred by religious crusades comes up, but, hey, look at what the non-religious Josef Stalin did, eh?

The root of a problem is usually traceable to some jerk abusing some otherwise fine idea.