• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why does God hate sex?

There is no biblical passage that supports the idea that "God hates sex". That would be counter-productive to the purposes of both society, which human beings created, and biology, which from a Judeo-Christian perspective, God created.

From the Genesis exhortation to "Be fruitful and multiply", to the Song of Solomon (included in Catholic Bibles), to the bit from Proverbs which Radrook posted above, sex within the context of marriage is consistently described or addressed in all the various books of the Bible as necessary and pleasurable.

Extra-marital sex and licentious behavior is as consistently rebuked, punished and proscribed against. The reasons for this are multiple, some of which have been brought up in this thread, but they boil down to 1) social cohesion and 2) protecting the human heart from distress.

In the ancient world, religious law was a necessary underpinning to secular law; without the former the latter had no provenance or rationale. Before the advent of science, there were only guesses in the dark, and it was more efficient and effective to tell the masses: "God said you should be nice to each other and not rape your neighbors" rather than explaining the complex realities behind such a pronouncement. Those realities -- unwanted pregnancies, venereal diseases, marital dissolutions, etc. -- might not even have been understood by those making the pronouncement, except insofar as such behavior was clearly, in the long run, destructive to society.

My point is that the OP and some of the thinking in this thread have been unreasonably polarized. "God hates sex, and theists are stupid for obeying an imaginary sky-daddy" seems to be the gist of much skeptical and atheistic thought. That oversimplified position ignores the ancient societal (and sometimes, personal) need for the idea of "God" to inspire human beings to follow the law and to be kind to one another.

Ultimately, the facts and the texts speak for themselves: "God", as that thought-form is conceptualized in the pages of the Bible, does not "hate sex". "He" expressly tells us to have it. But "He" also forbids any act or behavior, including sexual acts and behavior, that might lead to a dissolution of social fabric, or that will harm or distress an innocent.

We might not need such rules today, but in the ancient world they provided a necessary normative force.
 
Sorry.
Which explanation were you referring to?

Oh my... Let's try it like I was explaining it to some 2-year old with a mental disability, maybe you get it.

First, AdinDraco made a joke.
Maybe it's like his kryptonite. Remember when he tried to kill moses, but was stopped in his tracks by a foreskin forcefield? (I wish I was making that up - Exodus 4:24-26!)

brantc thought it was funny.
Superfunny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D

You replied with a link to an explanation of the passage AdinDraco was referring to.

I gave an alternative explanation.
Here's another one: it's ridiculous ******** made up by primitive men.

You apparently cannot understand basic conversational English.
How can the author of the articler be a primitive man? Are you saying he is a throwback? LOL!

After this, I pointed out that I wasn't talking about the author of the "article" you linked, but about the bible passage. Again, you fail to understand.

There's nothing left but for me to conclude that you're either trolling or mentally challenged.
 
Why does the Govt hate sex?

They dont let under xx get married nor have sex, some dont let homosexuals get married, you cant and can have more then 1 wife in some places, you cant have sex in public, creating clones with balls and ovaries... yea and whateva else lol.
 
Okay, so God likes sex within marriage, for the purpose of procreation. Why therefore is marriage necessary for this purpose? I have a son, but I am not married. I did not see any reason to "marry" in order to procreate. Why should some kind of formalisation be necessary, especially since so many marriages deteriorate and break up?

Marriage is an institution designed to ensure I don't have sex with other people. Why is that desirable, especially in this age of reliable contraception?
 
a question for the ladies here, if you had a chance to sleep with Jesus/slash God, holy spirit.. would you say no?


I'm gay, so I get to answer this question, too.

Hell, no.

Neither one deserves the great joy (however short-lived) that I've been known to give.

Also, I have a reputation to maintain. I won't 'sleep' with just anyone.

(why did he spell out 'slash'? freaky little wackjob)
 
Last edited:
I'm gay, so I get to answer this question, too.

Hell, no.

Neither one deserves the great joy (however short-lived) that I've been known to give.

Also, I have a reputation to maintain. I won't 'sleep' with just anyone.

(why did he spell out 'slash'? freaky little wackjob)


Maybe you haven't noticed how 'well hung' Jesus is?
 
Why does the Govt hate sex?

They dont let under xx get married nor have sex, some dont let homosexuals get married, you cant and can have more then 1 wife in some places, you cant have sex in public, creating clones with balls and ovaries... yea and whateva else lol.

Ya know, I hear this claim a lot. Mostly from kids whining that the police won't let them have sex. And they are as misinformed as you are. But they are kids. What's your excuse?
 
There is no biblical passage that supports the idea that "God hates sex". That would be counter-productive to the purposes of both society, which human beings created, and biology, which from a Judeo-Christian perspective, God created.

From the Genesis exhortation to "Be fruitful and multiply", to the Song of Solomon (included in Catholic Bibles), to the bit from Proverbs which Radrook posted above, sex within the context of marriage is consistently described or addressed in all the various books of the Bible as necessary and pleasurable.

Extra-marital sex and licentious behavior is as consistently rebuked, punished and proscribed against. The reasons for this are multiple, some of which have been brought up in this thread, but they boil down to 1) social cohesion and 2) protecting the human heart from distress.

In the ancient world, religious law was a necessary underpinning to secular law; without the former the latter had no provenance or rationale. Before the advent of science, there were only guesses in the dark, and it was more efficient and effective to tell the masses: "God said you should be nice to each other and not rape your neighbors" rather than explaining the complex realities behind such a pronouncement. Those realities -- unwanted pregnancies, venereal diseases, marital dissolutions, etc. -- might not even have been understood by those making the pronouncement, except insofar as such behavior was clearly, in the long run, destructive to society.

My point is that the OP and some of the thinking in this thread have been unreasonably polarized. "God hates sex, and theists are stupid for obeying an imaginary sky-daddy" seems to be the gist of much skeptical and atheistic thought. That oversimplified position ignores the ancient societal (and sometimes, personal) need for the idea of "God" to inspire human beings to follow the law and to be kind to one another.

Ultimately, the facts and the texts speak for themselves: "God", as that thought-form is conceptualized in the pages of the Bible, does not "hate sex". "He" expressly tells us to have it. But "He" also forbids any act or behavior, including sexual acts and behavior, that might lead to a dissolution of social fabric, or that will harm or distress an innocent.

We might not need such rules today, but in the ancient world they provided a necessary normative force.

Very reasonable.
 
Okay, so God likes sex within marriage, for the purpose of procreation. Why therefore is marriage necessary for this purpose? I have a son, but I am not married. I did not see any reason to "marry" in order to procreate. Why should some kind of formalisation be necessary, especially since so many marriages deteriorate and break up?

Marriage is an institution designed to ensure I don't have sex with other people. Why is that desirable, especially in this age of reliable contraception?

In the ancient world, marriage was necessary for social cohesion and to protect the human heart from distress, which in its way also maintained social cohesion.

In brief and very simplistically, if everyone in the neighborhood is jealous of all the other people schtupping their spouses, nothing can get done, no one trusts anyone, everyone is angry at everyone else, and society breaks down.

Also, marriages in ancient times were not the huge, expensive and demonstrative ceremonies that they are today. "Common law" marriage is a vestige of how things used to be done, for the most part, among the lower classes: live with someone for awhile, have a child with them, and you're considered married. A blessing from a priest could seal the deal and make it public, but this was not required except for the upper classes, the ruling classes with their big state weddings of pomp and circumstance.

After that, the other pressures from society, among these the differing roles of the sexes and the requirements of child-rearing, kept people together in a way that is no longer strictly necessary -- hence the reason "so many marriages deteriorate and break up". IOW, marriages break up today because they can; people have the freedom to leave one another. This was not true until very, very recently.

For these reasons, God as conceptualized in the big book of law and social structuring, the Bible, forbade extra-marital sex.
 
Oh my... Let's try it like I was explaining it to some 2-year old with a mental disability, maybe you get it.

First, AdinDraco made a joke.


brantc thought it was funny.


You replied with a link to an explanation of the passage AdinDraco was referring to.


I gave an alternative explanation.


You apparently cannot understand basic conversational English.


After this, I pointed out that I wasn't talking about the author of the "article" you linked, but about the bible passage. Again, you fail to understand.

There's nothing left but for me to conclude that you're either trolling or mentally challenged.

LOL Wow! Temper!~ Temper! Please keep in mind that what might appears to you as perfectly clear can actually be unintentionally conveyed in an ambiguous fuzzy way. But if indeed you feel that I can't follow you-which might be true, then OK, no problem. I don't like talking to irate people anyway.


Peace!
 
Last edited:
a question for the ladies here, if you had a chance to sleep with Jesus/slash God, holy spirit.. would you say no?

You are confusing the pagan Greek gods' accounts of materialization in order to rape and have consensual sex wsith human females with the biblical account which says nothing of the sort about the biblical God. The only reference to spirit creatures materializing and having sex with women is in reference to the disobedient angels mentioned in Genesis and the book of Jude who are later referred to as demons. Here again we find sexual relations restricted within strict parameters.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so God likes sex within marriage, for the purpose of procreation. Why therefore is marriage necessary for this purpose? I have a son, but I am not married. I did not see any reason to "marry" in order to procreate. Why should some kind of formalisation be necessary, especially since so many marriages deteriorate and break up?

Marriage is an institution designed to ensure I don't have sex with other people. Why is that desirable, especially in this age of reliable contraception?


There's much more to marriage than that. Marriage is the structure on which a stable family is based, and a stable family is the structure on which a stable society is based.
 
God began hating sex the minute his sex-orgy pantheons collapsed into monotheism.

Wouldn't you be a little grumpy if all you could do was masturbate for all eternity? He doesn't have a partner able to indulge his kinks, and given the contents of his holy books, we can safely assume those kinks are in Marv Albert territory.
 
Last edited:
LOL Wow! Temper!~ Temper! Please keep in mind that what might appears to you as perfectly clear can actually be unintentionally conveyed in an ambiguous fuzzy way. But if indeed you feel that I can't follow you-which might be true, then OK, no problem. I don't like talking to irate people anyway.


Peace!

You need to work on your Christian humility.
 
Well, that sure did shoot down my hypothesis, doesn't it? So it left man on the lurch for only the first 3400 years (from, say, BCE 600). How on Earth did Noah know what was righteous?


Not trying to shoot down anything. Just trying to inform. Anyway, why do you think that Noah new nothing about right and wrong? Enoch was a servant of God before Noah was and he was considered righteous. Which would indicate that there was communication which provided guidance in righteousness.

Total - from creation of man to flood 1656 Years. So there was plenty of time for instruction.

But it is still unargued that the laws "age" as society advances, and can often run afoul of their own good intentions as applied to unforeseen circumstance. What may have been appropriate for itinerant herders probably won't work for city dwellers. We do have the legal institutions to handle divorce (they even had that in the middle ages), and the medical to handle out-of-wedlock sex.

I agree. Not all instructions given to Israel are applicable to a modern society. They never were meant to be. However, the moral stipulations which are based on mankind's unchanging humanity are.

Official? Who's official? I'm sure we can find a whole spectrum of opinions on that, within sociology. That fact that religion, in our society has to rant to regain a bunch of it's lost ground in civil (marital) affairs indicates to me its usefulness.

No, you are wrong. The basic concept is that religion, as all other sociological institutional system, such as the military, educational system, the family, has a function which contributes to the enhancement of survival. Truthfulness or accuracy of beliefs is irrelevant to this usefulness.
Let me give you an example. The natives of certain Amazonian tribes fear the night and the forest because they believe that the spirit of the dead come out at night and might harm them. First, the belief in an afterlife assuages their fear of total oblivion at death. The religious rights at appeasement calms their fears of the night.


Another example: The ancients felt at the mercy of natural forces such as hurricanes, floods, volcanic eruptions. So they attributed these manifestations to gods which they could appease via sacrifices and other behaviors. This assuaged their feelings of helplessness and empowered them to face such forces wth more confidence. It brought order to an otherwise disorderly world where they would otherwise be at the mercy of blind forces.

Additionally religion provided social cohesion. It gave meaning anm purpose to an otherwise meaningless life. It comforted grief. It provided bravery in battle when battles had to be fought and the possibility of death grew near.

All sociologists agree on these basic concepts in regard to religion.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Radrook, well said. The societal and psychological underpinnings of religion often go overlooked in skeptical forums such as this one, which tend to dismiss any and all religious writings as anti-intellectual, unscientific, harmful nonsense.

But for the reasons we've both outlined on this page, the ancients needed religion to help them make sense of the world and to maintain order and cohesion in the social fabric. Part of this was forbidding overt and licentious sexuality.
 
God may hate sex, but his disciples don't. And they don't seem to have any personal issues with how young their partners are.
 
LOL Wow! Temper!~ Temper! Please keep in mind that what might appears to you as perfectly clear can actually be unintentionally conveyed in an ambiguous fuzzy way.

Please, do point out where the ambiguity was, or shut the **** up already and admit you made a mistake. It's not hard. Might want to try it sometimes.

But if indeed you feel that I can't follow you-which might be true, then OK, no problem. I don't like talking to irate people anyway.

Then don't. I gave you way more time than you deserve, trying to point out where you went wrong.

Maybe, just maybe, you could have just said something along these lines: "oops, misread you there, carry on...". That's something a honest person would have done.
 
a question for the ladies here, if you had a chance to sleep with Jesus/slash God, holy spirit.. would you say no?

Not a lady, but I imagine one would like to at least have the chance to say no, instead of some deranged angel announcing "you're pregnant but it's a-ok, it was god, so be happy"...
 

Back
Top Bottom