Debate Sex and Organized Religion

Anyone who says that Lust is "bad" for you is incorrect. Anyone who says that Lust is "good" for you is incorrect. It's entirely based upon perspective, there are no right or wrong answer, simply different opinions held by two adamant groups - Evolutionists and Creationists.

Personally I don't agree with giving into Lust, as a Creationist, but that doesn't mean I don't believe that there can be a level field in this argument.

 

I never said anything about "lust" being good for you. My view is not an evolutionists' view. Rather it is a view that I refuse to have labeled as an -ism and thus I call it humanity. It just is, it is what we are.

Small note - Evolutionist is an incorrect term, though I do accept the theory of evolution it should be noted that by calling me an evolutionist you should also call me a gravitationalist, plate tectonist, big bangist, red shiftist, relavtivist, thermodynamicist, etc. If that is too long for you, you can call it what it is - reality. Call me a realist, one who takes the evidence from our world and draws conclusions from it.

 

I never related anything towards you, Nitrous, I was simply answering this (quoted) question with my opinion on the situation. No need to become defensive and imply that Creationism isn't reality, as some believe.

--Back on Topic

 

Even so, "Evolutionists," though I can't speak for all of them, would only say lust is useful in a breeding stand point to continue a species. Not that the emotion of lust can connotate a good or bad labeling. That would be entirely up to the person's own subjective view, not an objective one - which necessitates god.

Did I come off as defensive? I didn't think it was too defensive, though it was a defensive reply.

 

Woo-Hoo! First non-colored name guy to post!!


....too much?


Anywho, I feel the dictations of right/wrong in the Christian religion regarding sex is obvious. We are told to abstain until marriage. However, I'm hoping it isn't off-topic to discuss the bounds of "what sex is" according to the religion of choice.

I've heard firsthand (a youth pastor) that sex is any form of "penetration." Yeah, that was a talk he gave to older kids, of course. He even defined even french kissing (making out/tongue-ing/tonsil hockey) as sex. Personally, I don't feel that to be a sexual act, but I can also see his reasoning.
The Bible discusses the issue of lust, saying...

Matthew 5:27-28

You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

​

Now, that goes even further than even physical contact. That passage brings "sex" into an act of the mind. So, my initial thoughts lead me to note that it is just as evil as greed or murder. It's "eaten my lunch" (let me know if you don't understand the regional dialect) for a long, long time. Sadly, we Christians (often, not all of us) pick the parts of the Bible we want to obey. For instance, I'm happy to tithe my 10% out of every paycheck, but I'm just as willing to get fresh every time I go to visit my girlfriend 7 hours away. I'll be the first to say that I'm wrong for doing this. I merely brought it up as a discussion piece.

Ah, that's the excuse for a first post I can come up with at 12:09. Working on Saturdays fails.

 

Now that's where I begin to disagree with the bible about sex. Christianity strongly believes that Jesus Christ committed no sins and died for ours, correct? Yet he was only human. So tell me, how does a normal human being NOT have a lustful feeling. According to the bible, lust was introduced to mankind back in Genesis. The Garden of Eden. Long before Christ was said to be born. So, if he was just a normal human being like he is said to be, wouldn't it be impossible for him to not have lustful feelings?

 

So what do you think the Christian religion would say if you told them you thought Jesus Christ was asexual? Isn't that a bit of a mental defect?

 

As I said, I've not lived to those standards. That is my interpretation of Scripture regarding sex. I've not experienced that way of life, and therefore, can't honestly comment on how "messed up" it makes one's mind. I can only say that I don't feel any Scripture to even attempt to "repress" the individual. It isn't a denial of sex, but rather, a re-focus of priorities. I just mentioned this in another post. Sex is a beautiful, God-ordained thing when practiced the way it was intended. There's nothing wrong about sex or wanting sex, within context. If you feel the Bible's restrictions on "proper context" to be too strict, then that is merely opinion.

If ever you've witnessed a leader in a church doing what the aforementioned, please understand that they're either not intending that or they're wrongly delivering a moral message. No Christian should ever look down on or condemn another. Now, don't confuse, "Hey, I want to let you know that you're living in sin. God considers what you're doing a sin" with "You're going to hell because of ]X[". It isn't wrong to notify another of his/her sin, but it is wrong to do so with a haughty attitude, as if the person in question is a worse person than the questioner.

It's a difficult issue, obviously, and especially so when dealing with unsaved people. Christians aren't better than anyone, but we are guaranteed eternal life. We are held to a standard that unsaved people are not. Hopefully, I've delivered my stance on the fine line enough for you to understand.

WOOHOO!!!!

I actually wrote a 9-page report on this my senior year. I'd like to say I know a fraction of the truth regarding this after that little jewel, but who knows.

He is never said to be a normal human. He is the only representation of what theologians call "The Hypostatic Union." That is, he is 100% Divine (this is the God part) and 100% Human. The title of my report was, "Jesus Christ- Peccable or Impeccable?" This goes a little further into a totally off-topic discussion, but it further promotes Christ's inability to sin. Through a series ( a long, long series) of studies, I found that Christ was incapable of sin. His Divine Nature was undeniably holy (meaning that He, like God, could not withstand sin). This prevents Him from being able to retain "lustful feelings."


...phew

 

I just wanna say first Im jewish, but either way, here is my view.

Organized religion is sort of corrupt. It's, as stated, about power and wanting to have people do things the way you want. (By the way, isnt power a lust???)

But sexual lust is an instinct of humanity. We literally need it. After all, without sex, (whether physical or scientific- aka, like, having sperm from a man taken and biogenetically placed with a donated woman's egg to form a baby) we couldn't survive. reproduction is one of the main life functions. Though it is not specifically important to any individual, it is necessary by a species for survival, and since sex is the only way to reproduce, then how is it a bad thing?

Now if you're talking about sex for pure lust and feeling, with no desire to reproduce, then it can be said it is a "sin" by biblical standards, because it is therefore plain lust with no meaning or cause for.

Those are my views on it.

 

.....................Ok than........contradiction at its finest you say christian people are no better than anyone else. But than you go on to say that your guaranteed eternal life and that your held to a standard "unsaved" people are not. Even before such sentence came about you mentioned that this topic is a difficult issue to debate with "unsaved" people. This in itself sounds as though they are held in lower regard than supposed followers of christ.

 

While I understand that these are only your views, can you please reference the passage you derived this from? Nowhere in my Bible does it say that sex is wrong. Within marriage, it doesn't specify for what reasons/purposes you must have sex. It only demands that you practice sex within marriage.

They aren't better than anyone. A higher standard of living doesn't make them more important or higher in class as people. Unsaved people, by Biblical standards, do not serve God. Therefore, they've no reason to live morally. Their life choices mean nothing in light of eternity without having been saved. That is the blunt version. I said it's difficult to discuss because it's difficult to discuss. There was no underlying meaning or purpose behind that statement.

If you want to pick what to derive from what I say, then please, have no hard feelings when I correct you. I speak assuming the reader has common sense.

 

Thank you. I'd like to know that. Im jewish as previously stated. I'd like to know what I haven't been saved from. what sin or event has befallen upon me without my knowledge and hurt me. And in this unknown event, if a christian had been there, would someone miracuously saved him, but not me, even if we were together, or so much as siamese twins? The way dented said that, it sounds like anyone not christian is of a lower class.

no offense to dented personally, but I personally hate people who preach their religion to others over the internet, in person or on TV or anywhere. You can believe in what you want to believe in. It doesn't ACTUALLY grant you eternal life. Name one person who has never died and is like, a thousand years old. Right now. Name them. I can believe in what I want to believe in, because, and no offense to people who are die hard christians, but religion is just that, a belief someone decided upon and decided, "this is my opinion on life." So everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Leave it like that. Sorry to go off topic but I seriously can't stand for something like that.

EDIT:

Again, I do not believe you are correcting me, or sheogorath, because it's all an opinion. I don't believe in your god so suddenly I have no reason to live morally? Ask yourself how that makes me immoral. Explain to me that. I know its hard to discuss something like this, but I really don't understand how that even makes any amount of sense.

 

Because the actions of the individual do not decide his/her eternity. We are born into a world of sin, and therefore, are sinners. This was caused by Adam/Eve (we remember that, right?)

Being the sinners we were, we had no way of reproach to God. We had no way of "making ends meet." In Old Testament times, they sacrificed animals. That was their way of "earning" their reproach. However, we needed a perfect sacrifice. A perfect sacrifice (Jesus) satisfies the need for God to deliver punishment. Now, don't bring up the "God is love, so why does He punish us?" thing. God is just as Holy/Just as He is loving. He cannot tolerate sin.

So, we're now in a state with the ability to come to God. Before, we were full of sin, and could not talk/be with God. Now, our sin has been laid on the hands of someone who did not deserve it, because He was without sin. Get it so far?

Neither my morals or your morals mean anything. Christians are expected to live morally because of their life's dedication to God. A non-Christian doesn't have that dedicated life, and thus, reaps no reward for living morally.

 

At the same time, all religions have their own God. Jews do. Christians do. Muslims do. Buddists do. They all do. point being just because I do not dedicate my life to be moral to your God, does not mean I can't to my own, and thus, I can still have a moral life, just maybe not in the eyes of your God, but in the eyes of mine I do. just as in the eyes of my God, you don't have a moral life, because it is not dedicated to my God, but to yours, you do.

Do you see what Im saying? Christians cannot say that all people not christian lead immoral lives because they don't dedicate their life to your God. This goes back to my whole opinion argument I brought up before. In your eyes your religion is the truth and right and all, but in the eyes of another, it is not. So believe what you want, but keep it to yourself and fellow Christians, and let us believe what we want, no matter how "wrong" you might feel it is, because in my eyes and anyone elses, you are quite wrong in your beliefs maybe, but I'm not either the one or should be, nor should anyone be, the one to tell you otherwise.

 

You're describing (almost perfectly) the belief of Unitarianism. This is the theory that "everybody loves everybody and we're all going to be ok in heaven." I have to disagree because...


The Biblical call to witness...

[SIZE=-1]

and the way to heaven....

[/SIZE]

prevent me from following your directive. This is getting too off-topic. I'll revert to the previous discussion, and I ask that you both do the same. If you wish to continue this, please PM me, make a new thread, or sent a message to my profile.

 

Just wondering, why would you use biblical references when you KNOW that a lot of people on here don't believe what the bible says? Not saying I don't.