Some religions believe that sex is only for the married couple who internd to procreate. Others do not agree. Which one is correct? Is sex indeed solely for the purpose of married people for procreation?
It's far more than just Catholics - actually. By all means, show me a Christian church that preaches that promiscuity is OK? It isn't out there.
Whatever you believe is what is correct for you, and nobody else has the authority to tell you otherwise so long as you do not harm anybody. OH the wonders of LIBERTY!
Some religions believe that sex is a part of spiritual enlightenment. Just look at the Kama Sutra and Tantric sex.
But not all Christians groups teach that sex is only for married people with the intent to procreate. And you shouldn't assume. I'm sure that if you would do the searching that there would be some who would teach that it is okay, just as there are Catholics who do teach that Birth Control is okay. What most Christian Churches teach is that immoral sex is not okay, and immoral is not the same as promiscuity.
Yep, they teach that immoral sex - sex outside of marriage, promiscuity - is wrong. All of them. I am not assuming. You are making an assumption that rationalizing your desire for sex, immoral sex - promiscuity, is OK with church doctrine. Maybe you should read the Bible and see how many times we are admonished to avoid these things. Or is that too a dirty trick? Its pretty simple, do you want sex? Or do you want Love? God? Take your pick brother and remember that BOTH decisions have consequences.
I want sex with lots of different women..Hey, at least I'm honest.. love and god is for religious geeks who are lying when they say they lust for just one women and are faithful in the confines of marriage.. that's like saying priests don't jerk off or that some guy who's been faithful in his marriage for 50 years doesn't have sexual thoughts when he sees a young hotty bending over in the dairy section of the supermarket.. god bless catholic girls..they are the most promiscuous women out there..they love sex and they can do 5 guys in a week and then go to confession on saturday and be absolved of their sins with 10 hailmary's..the best of both worlds..sex with no guilt..
And yet the simple fact of the matter is that there are indeed priests who do not masturbate, and plenty of people who live a committed relationship with their spouses - because its the relationship that matters - not JUST the sex. Indeed, what you write above is nothing more than allowing sex to control you rather than you to control sex. And ultimately - its empty. A life full of sex and absent love - commitment - honor - respect - dignity - and the genuine affection of actual love making. Seem others, myself included mind you, disagree with your choice. BTW - eventually, if someone keeps doing what they are doing and sleeping with five different people a week - they will no longer be given absolution for the sin they continue to commit. A geunine change of heart will be required. And what happens the day you go into confession and the priest says, "Sorry brother, but you must change your ways to be forgiven."? A choice must be made - promiscuity or God. Take your pick.
Nonsence. You do not speak for God. The OT is full of Gods Chosen engaging in promiscuous behavior. Only certain acts were not allowed such as bestiality, sex with your kin, and sex as a form of religious worship - temple prostitutes, and sex with another fellows property (his wife or wives) Adultery in the OT is not "sex outside of marriage". Adultery is the specific crime of a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband, or a man having sex with a married woman. It does not apply to married men having sex with a non married woman or to people who are not married.
I just cannot agree withthis. Adultery is sex outside of marriage, period. And if it does not apply to married men and only married women, then that is a double standard. And it's these kinds of double standards that create problems for us Christians with which we are often challenged on. People do not like the double standard, why it's okay for one person but not another, period.
Well, just as me most Christians I am friends with have no problems acknowledging the simple fact that the texts of the Bible were written in the socio-historical contexts of a patriarchal society and are able to distinguish between the ensuing sexism in these texts and the more timeless messages that they may hold.
So because there is some sexism in the Bible it means that the message of immoral sex is completely wrong?
Maybe you should actually read the Bible. Notice the fact that deuteronomy, etc. say about sexual immorality and the death sentence they preside. Maybe you should take a look at what Jesus says about it as well. You make stuff up in order to justify a personal opinion, and, once again, show just how little you know about the faith. Read the Bible.
This may be your version of Adultery, but it was not so in the OT times. Darn tootin it was a double standard. Women were considered property at the time so using/taking another persons property was akin to stealing. .. a really bad form of stealing. In the laws you will find things such as .. if you give a slave girl to your son .. you are supposed to treat her well (like a daughter). Almost all the patriarchs had multiple wives. In Proverbs in the warning on adultery you find the passage. Better to go with a prostitute than to commite adultery. A prostitute will cost the price of a loaf of bread .. adultery will cost you your life. It then goes on talking about how no amount of payment will satisfy a jealous husband .. adultery is like holding a burning coal to your chest .. and so on. Look at Solomon who had a massive Harem. These times were not like now and women were considered property. David was criticized for going after Bathsheba not because he was cheating on his wife, but because the Bathsheba was the wife of another man. He could have any number of women and presumably he did.. but his affection on this occasion was for someone elses property.
Depends on who you ask. But I assume that most people including atheists would assume that there is indeed sex that is morally wrong: in our society sex without consent is regarded as morally wrong, sex that is exploitative and has only been consented to because there's a huge power divide between the people involved or because false promises have been made is morally wrong, ...
I did .. many times. Your problem is that you did not actually try to understand what you were reading. You have to understand what "immorality" meant. There was no death sentence for immorality .. only for Adultery. You could rape a virgin in the field somewhere and get away with only a fine. Obviously that was not considered immoral the definition you present. You have to "think" while reading and not just impart meaning that you learned as a Child.
Solomon had many wives. Polygamy is in the OT. In fact, Moses - giving the lower law, made a divorce decree a requirement for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus ends that. ONLY adultry is an acceptable reason to divorce. But of course, you ignore the changes and, like most atheists, are stuck in the OT as if the NT does not even exist or is relevant to this discussion.
