Love, sex, and spirituality

[Trailblazer]

Well, He did say to "be fruitful and multiply..."

Those Bible verses applied to another age in history when the planet was underpopulated.

and He designed the parts that accomplish that to be fun to use...

That is true, but when people use them for purposes 'other' than what they were designed for it often reaps havoc and destroys lives and society.

Not every religious obligation should be a chore.

That's true. I opt out on the ones I consider chores.

 

[Colt]

I believe that love is spiritual, but sex is not love, so sex is not spiritual. I believe that sex for the purpose of procreation is spiritual, since it is sex out of love for a potential new being that will be created, but aside from procreation, sex is a physical act that is engaged in to gratify the desires of the flesh in order to experience physical pleasure.

On the Spiritual Singles dating site there is a Profile question about sex, and men can choose between Not Important, Somewhat Important, Important, or Extremely Important. The bulk of men I have viewed say sex is Extremely Important. Why does a man who claims to be spiritual say that sex is ‘Extremely Important’ in a relationship? Often the same man also says that spirituality is ‘Extremely Important.’ I consider this contradictory since the man is saying two things that cannot both be true, since they are in conflict with each other.

Why pretend that sex is spiritual? Anyone who has ever read the Bible knows that sex that is engaged in to gratify the desires of the flesh is not spiritual because the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

1 John 2:16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.

Galatians 5:16-17 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.

If you value honesty then give high marks to the men who say that sex is “extremely important”.

Humans are designed to procreate, it guarantees the perpetuation of the human race. Religion made sex and all sorts of other fun things “taboos”.


From my Bible:

155:6.11 (1732.4) Never forget there is only one adventure which is more satisfying and thrilling than the attempt to discover the will of the living God, and that is the supreme experience of honestly trying to do that divine will. And fail not to remember that the will of God can be done in any earthly occupation. Some callings are not holy and others secular. All things are sacred in the lives of those who are spirit led; that is, subordinated to truth, ennobled by love, dominated by mercy, and restrained by fairness—justice. The spirit which my Father and I shall send into the world is not only the Spirit of Truth but also the spirit of idealistic beauty.“


143:2:6 (1610.1) “Salvation is by the regeneration of the spirit and not by the self-righteous deeds of the flesh. You are justified by faith and fellowshipped by grace, not by fear and the self-denial of the flesh, albeit the Father’s children who have been born of the spirit are ever and always masters of the self and all that pertains to the desires of the flesh. UB 1955

 

[Trailblazer]

If you value honesty then give high marks to the men who say that sex is “extremely important”.

Are you implying that the men who did not check the box 'Extremely Important' were lying?

There were other choices: It's important, Somewhat important, and Not important. About half the men I viewed said It's important, although very few said Somewhat important and I did not see any who said Not important.

Humans are designed to procreate, it guarantees the perpetuation of the human race. Religion made sex and all sorts of other fun things “taboos”.

It is true that humans are designed to procreated but we all know that sex is int engaged in primarily for procreation, even in younger couples, and we definitely know it is not engaged in for procreation in older couples. The honesty comes forth when people admit that they engage in sex for physical pleasure, because that is the reason people have sex.

People have all kinds of spiritual beliefs, ones they made up to suit their fancies, so maybe they can incorporate sex into spirituality and say sex is spiritual, but trying to make sex 'spiritual' is hypocrisy for those who claim to be Christians. One cannot make this work and still call themself a Christian. There is nothing in the Bible that says sex is spiritual and there are plenty of verses that say it is not.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Luke 9:23-24 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

 

[Colt]

Are you implying that the men who did not check the box 'Extremely Important' were lying?

There were other choices: It's important, Somewhat important, and Not important. About half the men I viewed said It's important, although very few said Somewhat important and I did not see any who said Not important.

It is true that humans are designed to procreated but we all know that sex is int engaged in primarily for procreation, even in younger couples, and we definitely know it is not engaged in for procreation in older couples. The honesty comes forth when people admit that they engage in sex for physical pleasure, because that is the reason people have sex.

People have all kinds of spiritual beliefs, ones they made up to suit their fancies, so maybe they can incorporate sex into spirituality and say sex is spiritual, but trying to make sex 'spiritual' is hypocrisy for those who claim to be Christians. One cannot make this work and still call themself a Christian. There is nothing in the Bible that says sex is spiritual and there are plenty of verses that say it is not.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Luke 9:23-24 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

Denying self doesn’t mean sex, it has to do with conflicted loyalty. Sex is God given and therefore good but not to be abused. We are sexual creatures fir pleasure and procreation.

 

[Colt]

Are you implying that the men who did not check the box 'Extremely Important' were lying?

There were other choices: It's important, Somewhat important, and Not important. About half the men I viewed said It's important, although very few said Somewhat important and I did not see any who said Not important.

It is true that humans are designed to procreated but we all know that sex is int engaged in primarily for procreation, even in younger couples, and we definitely know it is not engaged in for procreation in older couples. The honesty comes forth when people admit that they engage in sex for physical pleasure, because that is the reason people have sex.

People have all kinds of spiritual beliefs, ones they made up to suit their fancies, so maybe they can incorporate sex into spirituality and say sex is spiritual, but trying to make sex 'spiritual' is hypocrisy for those who claim to be Christians. One cannot make this work and still call themself a Christian. There is nothing in the Bible that says sex is spiritual and there are plenty of verses that say it is not.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Luke 9:23-24 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

Denying self doesn’t mean sex, it has to do with conflicted loyalty. Sex is God given and therefore good but not to be abused. We are sexual creatures for pleasure and procreation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Denying self doesn’t mean sex, it has to do with conflicted loyalty. Sex is God given and therefore good but not to be abused. We are sexual creatures fir pleasure and procreation.

I disagree with you. Sex is for self, for physical pleasure, and even if people want to pretend they are doing it for a partner, that is laughable because nobody gives sex to a partner, leaving themselves out.

I adamantly disagree that we are sexual creatures. Such a statements denigrates the very station of man as a spiritual being who was made in the image of God.

Sex is primarily about reproduction. That's why it even exists in the first place. Its role in relationships is a secondary role, not the primary one, which evolved much later. Those who want to divorce it completely from its primary role are in a very real sense attempting to force it to conform to their own selfish desires and that, ultimately, is what is against our spiritual nature.

Our spiritual nature cannot be developed except by "dying to self" and "living in God." This very theme runs throughout the Bible, and it is also a Baha’i teaching. God has given us a dual nature: one material and one spiritual. Sex is part of the material nature, however much it may be able to play a role in a truly loving relationship. Sexual beings is not who we are, even though people insist that it is.

God is calling us to struggle against our lower nature and to become who we truly are: not material beings, not sexual beings, but spiritual beings who are in control of the physical side of our nature and who can thus find true happiness living in conformity with God’s will. There is a possible explanation of why God has made it so hard, because if it were too easy, it wouldn't be worth anything. Or put another way, because only by being challenged can we really prove our love for God.

 

[Colt]

I disagree with you. Sex is for self, for physical pleasure, and even if people want to pretend they are doing it for a partner, that is laughable because nobody gives sex to a partner, leaving themselves out.

I adamantly disagree that we are sexual creatures. Such a statements denigrates the very station of man as a spiritual being who was made in the image of God.

Sex is primarily about reproduction. That's why it even exists in the first place. Its role in relationships is a secondary role, not the primary one, which evolved much later. Those who want to divorce it completely from its primary role are in a very real sense attempting to force it to conform to their own selfish desires and that, ultimately, is what is against our spiritual nature.

Our spiritual nature cannot be developed except by "dying to self" and "living in God." This very theme runs throughout the Bible, and it is also a Baha’i teaching. God has given us a dual nature: one material and one spiritual. Sex is part of the material nature, however much it may be able to play a role in a truly loving relationship. Sexual beings is not who we are, even though people insist that it is.

God is calling us to struggle against our lower nature and to become who we truly are: not material beings, not sexual beings, but spiritual beings who are in control of the physical side of our nature and who can thus find true happiness living in conformity with God’s will. There is a possible explanation of why God has made it so hard, because if it were too easy, it wouldn't be worth anything. Or put another way, because only by being challenged can we really prove our love for God.

Then don’t eat food that taste good, don’t have a relaxing nap or enjoy fellowship with friends, don’t take a relaxing bath or do anything that brings you enjoyment if you actually believe that dying to self means being a miserable ascetic.

God gave us a 1000 ways to enjoy life on this world while commuted to doing his will in this world. I will continue to enjoy the many gifts of creation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then don’t eat food that taste good, don’t have a relaxing nap or enjoy fellowship with friends, don’t take a relaxing bath or do anything that brings you enjoyment if you actually believe that dying to self means being a miserable ascetic.

God gave us a 1000 ways to enjoy life on this world while commuted to doing his will in this world. I will continue to enjoy the many gifts of creation.

I see nothing wrong with enjoying what there is to enjoy in this world, and neither does Baha'u'llah.
Baha'is are enjoined not to be ascetics.

“Know ye that by “the world” is meant your unawareness of Him Who is your Maker, and your absorption in aught else but Him. The “life to come,” on the other hand, signifieth the things that give you a safe approach to God, the All-Glorious, the Incomparable. Whatsoever deterreth you, in this Day, from loving God is nothing but the world. Flee it, that ye may be numbered with the blest ......​

​

Should a man wish to adorn himself with the ornaments of the earth, to wear its apparels, or partake of the benefits it can bestow, no harm can befall him, if he alloweth nothing whatever to intervene between him and God, for God hath ordained every good thing, whether created in the heavens or in the earth, for such of His servants as truly believe in Him. Eat ye, O people, of the good things which God hath allowed you, and deprive not yourselves from His wondrous bounties. Render thanks and praise unto Him, and be of them that are truly thankful.” ​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 275​

As individuals we can only know about ourselves what intervenes between ourselves and God. In the past, sex intervened between me and God and thus I want no part of it. I have had enough sex to last a lifetime. If I ever get married again I might have sex since most men want sex but one advantage to not remarrying is that I won't ever have to worry about it again.

For me, God's wondrous bounties consist of all of nature, especially animals, and cats in particular. I also like beautiful scenery. I enjoy a good meal but I don't live for it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Those Bible verses applied to another age in history when the planet was underpopulated.

With a total human population of 2, that's the understatement of all time.

Still, that means it was His responsibility to be specific about the limitations -- "Be fruitful and multiply... but once you get to about... oh, let's say a billion, you should probably ease up..."

That is true, but when people use them for purposes 'other' than what they were designed for it often reaps havoc and destroys lives and society.

The same could be said for most things... are things inherently "good" or "evil," or does it all depend on how they are used?

That's true. I opt out on the ones I consider chores.

Most Christians tell me that's not an option... (not that it stops them from doing likewise)

 

[Trailblazer]

With a total human population of 2, that's the understatement of all time.

Still, that means it was His responsibility to be specific about the limitations -- "Be fruitful and multiply... but once you get to about... oh, let's say a billion, you should probably ease up..."

True, but people don't tend to let up.

The same could be said for most things... are things inherently "good" or "evil," or does it all depend on how they are used?

Yes, I think it depends upon how they are used. It depends upon who is using them and how they use them.
I could think of all kinds of examples. For example, last night I almost got mowed down by a giant picup truck who was looking for a parking spot to watch the fireworks. The pickup truck is not inherently evil, it is the misuse of it that I consider evil.

Most Christians tell me that's not an option... (not that it stops them from doing likewise)

That all depends upon which religious obligations you are referring to. Do all Christians attend church?
When I said I 'opt out' I meant I opt out of attending religious activities.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Anything to get laid.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's probably correct. You wrote, "this man was not sexy-looking at all, so why does he expect to get a sexy woman?" That made me think that you understood his disinterest in you was about looks. I'm sure that you're a fine looking woman, but even relatively physically unappealing women can generally find a willing sexual partner if she's willing.

Do you think that 'relatively physically unappealing women' can generally find a willing sexual partner who is physically attractive just because she is 'wiling' to have sex?

He likely said no thank you to abstinence in a committed relationship and not to your appearance.

He could not have known that there would be abstinence in a committed relationship since I never indicated that.
There would not be abstinence in a marital relationship, if the man wanted sex, but most men want sex before marriage, which I consider hypocritical if they call themselves Christians, since that goes against the Biblical teachings.

A little later, you wrote, "Many women might continue having sex if they are married or in a partnership, but that doesn't mean they desire sex for themselves." That's what disinterest in sex without aversion to it looks like - you don't pursue it or avoid it. According to your comment, you actively avoid sex because you see it as having an adverse effect on you.

I actively avoid sex because I am not married and I don't believe in sex outside of wedlock. But even if I actively avoid sex because I see it as having an adverse effect on me, that does not mean I have an aversion to sex. I might verey well enjoy it physically but as I said, sex represents attachment to the things of the physical world and I do not want to be attached. Been there, done that.

You mean none that said so. You wouldn't expect to be able to determine that until you had been in a relationship with somebody for long enough to determine what his motives were. The commonest ones would be sex, companionship, being served (cooking, cleaning), and/or being supported.

No, I would not know until I at least talked to men more than I have. and I would not really know unless I met the man in person and was dating.
You are probably right about those being the commonest motives. If I was married I would be a companion and i would have sex, but I would not be doing more than my share of cooking or cleaning and I would not support a man financially. No men I have met ever expected financial support or even cooking and cleaning, they all seem to want only sex and companionship, as if one could not have companionship without sex.

I think it is perfectly normal for younger or even middle-aged men to consider sex a high priority in a relationship, but I don't think it should be a high priority for older men. Whether we were created by God or not, we all know that men's sexual 'abilities' taper off as men get older, and if men have to take hormones for libido or medications for erectile dysfunction they are going against the normal process of aging. This canot be compared to taking other medications for health purposes as people get older since sex is not necessary to live, whereas heart and lung and other medications are necessary. Of course I am sure you know that since you were a physician.

I simply do not understand why I am the only person who can see what is so obvious? Are they that blinded by their sexual desires?

You seem to disapprove - to consider that an insufficient reason to pursue sex.

I think "they want sex because it feels good" is fine in marriage if the partner also wants it, and if they have no religion with laws it is okay outside of marriage. But let's not pretend this desire is harmless because it isn't. Sex can cause heart attacks in older men and it carries the risk of STDs at any age. Sex out of wedlock also results in adulterous affairs leading to broken marriages.

If a man who wants companionship with sex can find it, why should he settle for celibacy?

I don't think a man should settle for celibacy in a relationship if he is still interested in sex and able to have sex. That is not much different from me not settling for a man who doesn't want to live with cats. I am not going to settle for that since I am not giving up my cats for any man, and if that mean I never marry again so be it.

It's a deal breaker for many, but might be one of many, and one he'd compromise on if necessary. If he had to choose between a drug addict who gave him sex and stable partner who didn't, he might choose the latter, but not until he gives up on finding a stable sexual partner.

Call me a hopeless romantic, but I think men and women should enter a relationship because they love the person, and in that case sex would naturally follow, unless one of the partners had a physical or psychological problem that precluded sexual activity, or unless one of them does not believe in sex outside of wedlock, which can be easily remedied by getting married.

What I am saying is tat I don't think a man should be looking for sex first, I think he should be looking for love first, knowing sex will follow.
Of course sex would have to be discussed prior to marriage.

Maybe all she wants is protection or somebody to call an ambulance if necessary and all he wants is regular sex and to be in the company of a woman.

I see nothing wrong with that as long as it is mutually agreed upon. That is the key, communication, openness and honesty. If I can find a man I am physically attracted to and get married he can have all the sex he wants if he will help me with home maintenance and yard work and assist me with cat grooming.

There doesn't need to be love for sex to be a spiritual experience. Respect will do.

That's true, since everyone experiences spirituality in their own way. We are all different, so for me there would need to be love for me to even have sex, and then it may or may not be a spiritual experience.

Nor does sex need to be a spiritual experience to be worth pursuing.

I agree. There are many reasons people pursue sex, and I cannot say that I pursued it for the spiritual experience.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you think that 'relatively physically unappealing women' can generally find a willing sexual partner who is physically attractive just because she is 'wiling' to have sex?

Yes. Do you have a different opinion?

He could not have known that there would be abstinence in a committed relationship since I never indicated that.
There would not be abstinence in a marital relationship, if the man wanted sex, but most men want sex before marriage, which I consider hypocritical if they call themselves Christians, since that goes against the Biblical teachings.

OK. Then I guess I don't know what your potential suitor was referring to implying that it wouldn't work out with you if not looks or your rejection of premarital sex.

even if I actively avoid sex because I see it as having an adverse effect on me, that does not mean I have an aversion to sex. I might verey well enjoy it physically but as I said, sex represents attachment to the things of the physical world and I do not want to be attached. Been there, done that.

OK. We use the word aversion differently. You seem to limit it to repulsion. I include all deliberate avoidance. Your usage might be more common.

If I was married I would be a companion and i would have sex, but I would not be doing more than my share of cooking or cleaning and I would not support a man financially.

My point was that according to a local acquaintance, many men she meets are looking for what she called a nurse or a purse. I'm surer that most also want sex and companionship, but that's not enough and not what they want or need most in a live-in relationship.

No men I have met ever expected financial support or even cooking and cleaning

That's unexpected, but you have a limited experience of men and the dating scene after decades of a monogamous marriage that ended recently. Those men are out there. I know of a few where I live. They're broke and living from one Social Security check to the next. Finding sex isn't their problem.

I think it is perfectly normal for younger or even middle-aged men to consider sex a high priority in a relationship, but I don't think it should be a high priority for older men.

That's going to depend on their libidos, not your preferences for them.

men's sexual 'abilities' taper off as men get older, and if men have to take hormones for libido or medications for erectile dysfunction they are going against the normal process of aging. This cannot be compared to taking other medications for health purposes as people get older since sex is not necessary to live, whereas heart and lung and other medications are necessary.

OK, but so what? It's not about survival. It's about quality of life. I'm all for "going against the normal process of aging" when doing so improves life. Isn't that what taking life-saving cardiopulmonary medications does? Isn't wearing a hearing aid also "going against the normal process of aging"?

But let's not pretend this desire is harmless because it isn't. Sex can cause heart attacks in older men and it carries the risk of STDs at any age. Sex out of wedlock also results in adulterous affairs leading to broken marriages.

This sounds like your argument against homosexuality. The antiabortion people do the same - saving the mother from herself with references to metal health consequences of abortion. But these are all insincere arguments, like a suitor who doesn't like cats telling you about toxoplasmosis. It's not what informs or motivates his position, and it's too small a risk for you to care about when deciding whether to have cats.

I don't think a man should settle for celibacy in a relationship if he is still interested in sex and able to have sex. That is not much different from me not settling for a man who doesn't want to live with cats. I am not going to settle for that since I am not giving up my cats for any man, and if that mean I never marry again so be it.

You seem to have reversed yourself. Weren't you just lamenting such men who won't settle for a sexless marriage, who might say that they aren't giving up sex for any woman?

Call me a hopeless romantic, but I think men and women should enter a relationship because they love the person

Yes, you're a hopeless romantic. If I outlive my wife, I probably won't be remarrying, but I might live with a woman. I might fall in love with her eventually, but that wouldn't be necessary for a successful and constructive relationship.

I see nothing wrong with that as long as it is mutually agreed upon.

That was in response to, "Maybe all she wants is protection or somebody to call an ambulance if necessary and all he wants is regular sex and to be in the company of a woman." Now it seems you're reversing your opinion about a loveless relationship of mutual convenience. I just described a transactional relationship - quid pro quo.

 

[ppp]

I believe that love is spiritual, but sex is not love, so sex is not spiritual. I believe that sex for the purpose of procreation is spiritual, since it is sex out of love for a potential new being that will be created, but aside from procreation, sex is a physical act that is engaged in to gratify the desires of the flesh in order to experience physical pleasure.

On the Spiritual Singles dating site there is a Profile question about sex, and men can choose between Not Important, Somewhat Important, Important, or Extremely Important. The bulk of men I have viewed say sex is Extremely Important. Why does a man who claims to be spiritual say that sex is ‘Extremely Important’ in a relationship? Often the same man also says that spirituality is ‘Extremely Important.’ I consider this contradictory since the man is saying two things that cannot both be true, since they are in conflict with each other.

Why pretend that sex is spiritual? Anyone who has ever read the Bible knows that sex that is engaged in to gratify the desires of the flesh is not spiritual because the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

1 John 2:16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.

Galatians 5:16-17 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.

So what? Love without physical expressions may as well not exist. Such love is useless, meaning and utterly banal. And no, I don't just mean sex. Remove all words and deeds and love is sterile.


Btw, You think that sex without procreation is only a "physical act that is engaged in to gratify the desires of the flesh in order to experience physical pleasure?" WTF? I guess I have been doing it wrong all these years. One more reason to avoid the poisonous spiritual talons of religion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe that love is spiritual, but sex is not love, so sex is not spiritual. I believe that sex for the purpose of procreation is spiritual, since it is sex out of love for a potential new being that will be created, but aside from procreation, sex is a physical act that is engaged in to gratify the desires of the flesh in order to experience physical pleasure.

On the Spiritual Singles dating site there is a Profile question about sex, and men can choose between Not Important, Somewhat Important, Important, or Extremely Important. The bulk of men I have viewed say sex is Extremely Important. Why does a man who claims to be spiritual say that sex is ‘Extremely Important’ in a relationship? Often the same man also says that spirituality is ‘Extremely Important.’ I consider this contradictory since the man is saying two things that cannot both be true, since they are in conflict with each other.

Why pretend that sex is spiritual? Anyone who has ever read the Bible knows that sex that is engaged in to gratify the desires of the flesh is not spiritual because the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

1 John 2:16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.

Galatians 5:16-17 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.

What I wonder is why on earth can't some people just "get it on," enjoy themselves, pleasure their partners -- and forget about "spirituality" for a second. I'll bet you don't worry constantly about spirituality when you're taking a dump (just another natural function of life).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Btw, You think that sex without procreation is only a "physical act that is engaged in to gratify the desires of the flesh in order to experience physical pleasure?" WTF? I guess I have been doing it wrong all these years.

What, you're determined to make a baby every time? A lot of your sex life must have been tragically disappointing!

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? Love without physical expressions may as well not exist. Such love is useless, meaning and utterly banal. And no, I don't just mean sex. Remove all words and deeds and love is sterile.

I fully agree.

Btw, You think that sex without procreation is only a "physical act that is engaged in to gratify the desires of the flesh in order to experience physical pleasure?" WTF? I guess I have been doing it wrong all these years. One more reason to avoid the poisonous spiritual talons of religion.

No, I do not believe that. Sex without procreation can be more than a physical act engaged in in order to gratify the desires of the flesh. It can be an expression of love. I never had children in marriage but I had plenty of sex. There is no taboo on sex in the Baha'i Faith as long as one is married and sex only in marriage only pertains to Baha'is, not to anyone else.

 

[Trailblazer]

What I wonder is why on earth can't some people just "get it on," enjoy themselves, pleasure their partners -- and forget about "spirituality" for a second.

Did I say they couldn't? I was just being philosophical.
Get it on!

No, I was not thinking about spirituality back in the days when I was having sex.

 

[ppp]

No, I do not believe that.

You literally started off this thread by saying that you believe those words

 

[Trailblazer]

You literally started off this thread by saying that you believe those words

That was then and now is now.
Then was on December 22, and it is now July 5. 2023.
Some people change their opinions over time.