Why Does God Hate Sex?

[Skwim]

Quote-mining is not Illuminative.

Sorry they're so embarrassing that you evidently feel they should be dismissed.

.

 

[nPeace]

What on Earth ... ?

How about leaders of the Catholic Church? How are they with children?

What does that have to do with anything i said?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't you know, everything is God's fault, because God is Omnipotent?
Shame on you Ken for not knowing this....

Don't you know, humans never make any mistakes...
Problem is, humans are fallible and God is Infallible, kind of hard to get around that one and call yourself logical...

The other problem is that humans are not Omniscient so humans cannot know more than an Omniscient God...

The funniest thing is that atheists pride themselves in being logical but they do not understand the most basic logic.

Or, God doesn't exist and fallible human beings wrote the religious texts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What does that have to do with anything i said?

You went on about all ungodly people abusing children while completely ignoring the "godly" people who have systematically been sexually abusing children (and systematically covering it up) for 70+.

Have you read the news about the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania today?

 

[sojourner]

Sorry they're so embarrassing that you evidently feel they should be dismissed.

.

Not dismissed, just fully parsed out and in context. It’s the quote-mining part that’s embarrassing...

 

[Skwim]

Not dismissed, just fully parsed out and in context. It’s the quote-mining part that’s embarrassing...

As if preachers and such don't do the very same thing every Sunday morning. No, my citations stand on their own two sandals, and I believe you know it. Thing is . . .

You're contending that something in the passage that contains "the word of our God stands forever" somehow qualifies how god's word stands to mean something else. Fine, then let's hear it.

You're contending that something in the passage that contains "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it," somehow qualifies how god's word stands to mean something else. Fine, then let's hear it.

You're contending that something in the passage that contains "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words," somehow qualifies how god's word stands to mean something else. Fine, then let's hear it.

You're contending that something in the passage that contains "if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life," somehow qualifies how god's word stands to mean something else. Fine, then let's hear it.


So let's see how the Bible qualifies these pronouncements of god. That god doesn't really mean what he says here.

BALL'S IN YOUR COURT.

.

 

[sojourner]

As if preachers and such don't do the very same thing every Sunday morning

I don’t. Neither does any other preacher I know.

No, my citations stand on their own two sandals

Disparate texts never stand on their own.

You're contending that something in the passage that contains "the word of our God stands forever" somehow qualifies how god's word stands to mean something else. Fine, then let's hear it.

“Word of God” here doesn’t mean “Bible.” It means “truth.” This is a prophecy.

You're contending that something in the passage that contains "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it," somehow qualifies how god's word stands to mean something else. Fine, then let's hear it.

These are commandments given at the time — law for a particular context. I’d need the context to know specifically which commandments, and for what they were meant.

You're contending that something in the passage that contains "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words," somehow qualifies how god's word stands to mean something else. Fine, then let's hear it.

Proverbs. It’s poetic — this doesn’t mean “Bible.”

You're contending that something in the passage that contains "if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life," somehow qualifies how god's word stands to mean something else. Fine, then let's hear it.

Revelation. It’s a dream of a prophecy. Doesn’t mean “Bible.”

So let's see how the Bible qualifies these pronouncements of god. That god doesn't really mean what he says here

These aren’t “pronouncemensts of “God.” They’re pronouncements of people.

The Bible is multivalent. It rarely means what a simple, surface reading out of context shows it to mean.

 

[nPeace]

You went on about all ungodly people abusing children while completely ignoring the "godly" people who have systematically been sexually abusing children (and systematically covering it up) for 70+.

Have you read the news about the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania today?

Yes. I heard the news.
As you know, that has been going on for years.

I would hope though that persons do not get sidetracked from what I was saying.
My post was in response to the OP, which the OP(er) refused to consider, I believe because it addressed problems with his argument which he didn't want to consider.
However, I appreciate that you considered it.

My post was not about ungodly people (Perhaps you can point out where you got that impression), as it was not intended to be focused on that as much as it was about ungodly acts.
It simply addressed the erroneous assertions that were made in the OP about sex being hated by God, and what seemed to be encouraging illicit sex.

All I did was show that the title was not true, since sex was a product of God's design, since he created the sexual organs, and the sensual pleasure one derives from it. Then I went on to show that it was depraved mental thinking driven by Satan that caused men to worship sex and the sexual organs with sad consequences - some of those including rape of children, etc.

I did not include or exclude anyone, as far as I know.
I myself would be included, if I became a sex pervert, as most in the world is - including those in the church, taking the lead, or kissing the Pope's feet.

In fact, since you mentioned godly people, just let me make this point.
Apostle Paul's words...
2 Corinthians 7:8-11
8 For even if I saddened you by my letter, I do not regret it. Even if I did at first regret it (seeing that the letter saddened you, though only for a little while), 9 now I rejoice, not because you were just saddened, but because you were saddened into repenting. For you were saddened in a godly way, so that you suffered no harm because of us. 10 For sadness in a godly way produces repentance leading to salvation, leaving no regret; but the sadness of the world produces death. 11 For see what a great earnestness your being saddened in a godly way produced in you, yes, clearing of yourselves, yes, indignation, yes, fear, yes, earnest desire, yes, zeal, yes, righting of the wrong! In every respect you demonstrated yourselves to be pure in this matter.

One can see from this, that a godly person demonstrates by his actions that he is indeed godly.
To do otherwise means the opposite - he is ungodly.

So evidently, just because someone is in the church, or professes to serve God, it does not mean they are godly, or holy.

I hope that clarifies my position.

 

[Kenny]

Tell that to the Jews.

Actually, it was Jewish writers that told us.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, it was Jewish writers that told us.

Was it? Or was it gentiles.

 

[Kenny]

Was it? Or was it gentiles.

Jewish.

 

[sojourner]

Jewish.

Nope. Not all of them.

 

[Kenny]

Nope. Not all of them.

Enough of them. - the one that wasn't only transcribed what his Jewish masters told him about.

 

[sojourner]

Enough of them. - the one that wasn't only transcribed what his Jewish masters told him about.

There was more than one.

 

[Kenny]

There was more than one.

If you say so.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

These aren’t “pronouncemensts of “God.” They’re pronouncements of people.

The Bible is multivalent. It rarely means what a simple, surface reading out of context shows it to mean.

On that basis, added to the easily demonstrated fact that so many denominations and sects disagree vehemently with one another (to the point of war and horrifying punishment of "heretics"), I contend that the Bible cannot actually be understood properly at all.

And also, as you've said, since it contains the "pronouncements of people," why on earth should I be expected to hold those pronouncements in any more esteem than the billions and billions of other pronouncements by other people, many a lot smarter, a lot more cogent, a lot more erudite, poetic, understanding and compassionate, than those who pronounced in the Bible?

 

[1robin]

.

Excerpted from an interesting blog by Steve Mason in the Huffington Post

"Sex is funny in that you can live without it, but not without paying a mental/physical price. It’s a simple pleasure that grows all out of proportion when it’s denied. If Mother Nature were allowed to have her way, this would be a far better place. And who’s behind all the brouhaha? God? Actually, it’s religion.

In order to run a successful religion, you need to follow just one rule: Have more members coming in than going out. One way to achieve this is by gaining control of their sex lives. Try to think of a religion that doesn’t have anything to say about sex. Get a grip on that one single, chemically driven aspect of life and you will have a stranglehold on your flock. The more they try to avoid it, the more they’re going to be drawn to it, and the more they’re going to feel like sinners, and the more they’re going to need you to save them. Tell people sucking lemons is evil and they won’t suck lemons and they won’t need you. Tell people sex is evil and you’ll have them stuck in a revolving door.

Now here’s the rub and the real reason I get so provoked by people who have been bamboozled into believing that copulation without at least 50 strings attached is anything but normal human behavior. The truth is that violence seems to be inversely proportional to the availability of sex. Remember generations of coaches who told the team to avoid love so they’d be full of hate for the big game? Look at riots in the street and what do you see? Mostly young, testosterone-filled males throwing bricks. Look at guys flying planes into buildings. Would they do it if it weren’t for the 79 virgins? And why do you suppose there’s such a premium on virgins? The male’s lack of experience leads to a lack of confidence, and that, in turn, leads to a raging fury against experience and confidence — so let’s find someone with neither. The weird part is that so many terrorists truly believe America is swimming in sex. If they only knew that it gets so much attention only because there’s so little action.

British comedian Eddie Izzard does a very funny and very insightful routine that involves God laying down the laws of mating. The dogs are told to do it doggie-style. The dogs go away happy. The cats are also told to do it doggie-style. The cats aren’t really happy about that, but when are cats really happy about anything? The salmon are told about swimming upstream, struggling over dams and crashing into rocks only to die at the end. Bummer. And finally, the humans are told they can do it pretty much anyway they like — as long as they feel guilty. So I get comments from obviously guilty readers telling me how scary sex really is and providing laundry lists of things that can go wrong while rolling in the hay. That God ever invented sex in the first place was clearly a mistake, so they create caveats that will at least make it as unpleasant as possible.

However, if anything, it’s a lack of sex that can be deadly. The British Medical Journal reported on a long-term study of nearly 1,000 men between the ages of 45 and 59. In our culture of scary sex, it’s perhaps not too surprising that the findings have not received the attention they deserve. You see, the data showed that the amount of sexual activity enjoyed by a man is directly proportional to both his health and longevity. Men who reported twice as much sex were half as likely to die prematurely.
source

​

Thoughts?

Mine is a question. If god's attitude toward sex is truly not a concoction of religious leaders, but his very own, then what is his problem with it? According to the Bible god doesn't like prostitutes, homosexuality, bestiality, consensual adultery (all adultery is bad), marrying a divorced woman, premarital sex, lust, sensuality, semen, etc. etc..

.

God created sex, he obviously does not hate it but he does hate the misuse of what he created. Impure sexual acts cause more misery and death than I could possibly post, I would hope God would hate that. In most cases sin is the misuse of something that can be used for good.

 

[Deeje]

I'm not sure what you mean. Is your claim demonstrable in some way? Are you referring to something specific within the male of female body?
Plenty of people, including myself, have been with more than one person and have never contracted any sexual transmitted diseases whatsoever.

You are responding to the highlighted section here ....."So, far from hating sex....God wanted and needed to regulate it.
In the animal kingdom it is self-regulating, but in humans, moral issues come into the equation. Ignoring God's sexual laws also leads to sexually transmitted diseases. We are not physically designed to have more than one sexual partner, so the more partners we have, the more prone we are to contracting them. "

So yes, I am saying that in human physiology there is a mechanism that accommodates a single sexual partner, rather than multiple sexual partners. STD's are caused by having sex with multiple partners....consider how many sexual partners, your partners have had? When you have unprotected sex with one person, you are also having sex with every person they have ever slept with. Do you personally know their full sexual history? Who asks?

When AIDS Was rampant in the 80's it was spread through homosexual sex and even into the heterosexual population when bisexual people had sex with both genders. It decimated whole populations in some nations. Children were born with the disease when infected men brought it home to their wives. Following the Bible's moral standards would have prevented all that.

Sex with a single person who has never had sex with anyone else will never result in sexually transmitted disease. The Bible recommends that marriage takes place between two virgins. That speaks for itself IMO.

If you dodge the bullet of STD's these days it's more like playing Russian Roulette.

 

[Craig Sedok]

.

Excerpted from an interesting blog by Steve Mason in the Huffington Post

"Sex is funny in that you can live without it, but not without paying a mental/physical price. It’s a simple pleasure that grows all out of proportion when it’s denied. If Mother Nature were allowed to have her way, this would be a far better place. And who’s behind all the brouhaha? God? Actually, it’s religion.

In order to run a successful religion, you need to follow just one rule: Have more members coming in than going out. One way to achieve this is by gaining control of their sex lives. Try to think of a religion that doesn’t have anything to say about sex. Get a grip on that one single, chemically driven aspect of life and you will have a stranglehold on your flock. The more they try to avoid it, the more they’re going to be drawn to it, and the more they’re going to feel like sinners, and the more they’re going to need you to save them. Tell people sucking lemons is evil and they won’t suck lemons and they won’t need you. Tell people sex is evil and you’ll have them stuck in a revolving door.

Now here’s the rub and the real reason I get so provoked by people who have been bamboozled into believing that copulation without at least 50 strings attached is anything but normal human behavior. The truth is that violence seems to be inversely proportional to the availability of sex. Remember generations of coaches who told the team to avoid love so they’d be full of hate for the big game? Look at riots in the street and what do you see? Mostly young, testosterone-filled males throwing bricks. Look at guys flying planes into buildings. Would they do it if it weren’t for the 79 virgins? And why do you suppose there’s such a premium on virgins? The male’s lack of experience leads to a lack of confidence, and that, in turn, leads to a raging fury against experience and confidence — so let’s find someone with neither. The weird part is that so many terrorists truly believe America is swimming in sex. If they only knew that it gets so much attention only because there’s so little action.

British comedian Eddie Izzard does a very funny and very insightful routine that involves God laying down the laws of mating. The dogs are told to do it doggie-style. The dogs go away happy. The cats are also told to do it doggie-style. The cats aren’t really happy about that, but when are cats really happy about anything? The salmon are told about swimming upstream, struggling over dams and crashing into rocks only to die at the end. Bummer. And finally, the humans are told they can do it pretty much anyway they like — as long as they feel guilty. So I get comments from obviously guilty readers telling me how scary sex really is and providing laundry lists of things that can go wrong while rolling in the hay. That God ever invented sex in the first place was clearly a mistake, so they create caveats that will at least make it as unpleasant as possible.

However, if anything, it’s a lack of sex that can be deadly. The British Medical Journal reported on a long-term study of nearly 1,000 men between the ages of 45 and 59. In our culture of scary sex, it’s perhaps not too surprising that the findings have not received the attention they deserve. You see, the data showed that the amount of sexual activity enjoyed by a man is directly proportional to both his health and longevity. Men who reported twice as much sex were half as likely to die prematurely.
source

​

Thoughts?

Mine is a question. If god's attitude toward sex is truly not a concoction of religious leaders, but his very own, then what is his problem with it? According to the Bible god doesn't like prostitutes, homosexuality, bestiality, consensual adultery (all adultery is bad), marrying a divorced woman, premarital sex, lust, sensuality, semen, etc. etc..

.

To take a woman is to say farewell to freedom.

 

[sojourner]

I contend that the Bible cannot actually be understood properly at all

“Understanding” it isn’t the goal. Wrestling with it is the goal.

And also, as you've said, since it contains the "pronouncements of people," why on earth should I be expected to hold those pronouncements in any more esteem than the billions and billions of other pronouncements by other people, many a lot smarter, a lot more cogent, a lot more erudite, poetic, understanding and compassionate, than those who pronounced in the Bible?

I never said you should.