Why does God hate sex?

[arthwollipot]

Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, Universe spanning entity that is deeply and personally concerned with my sex life.

True dat.

 

[Sledge]

Hang on, surely adultery is only a problem because there are societal taboos against it? If God had said "Hey, I gave you genitals for a reason. Shag all you want with whoever you want. As long as you look after the resulting kids properly, I really don't mind," what would have been the problem?

 

[Radrook]

First point: adultery happens all the time, and society is as stable as ever.

You need to brush up on basic sociology and its stabilizing Institutions before we can continue this discussion.

Second point - it appears that your opinion pretty well coincides with what you say God's opinion is.

Straw-man.

 

[arthwollipot]

You need to brush up on basic sociology and its stabilizing Institutions before we can continue this discussion.

Care to educate me? Society seems pretty stable to me. Has been for an awful long time. Haven't seen a collapse of civilisation recently. How about you tell me why civilisation has been collapsing for the last two thousand years?

Straw-man.

Or, perhaps, the entire point of my argument. God thinks like you do.

 

[Harpyja]

This is a question that occurred to me while catching up on the "Love the Christian" thread. God hates sex. You can't have sex unless you are married - it's a sin. You can't have homosexual sex - it's a sin. You can't use birth control - it's a sin. You can't show bare skin in public - it's a sin. You can't masturbate - it's a sin.

In fact, according to God, you can only have sex with a married spouse, and only for the purposes of procreation. Ordained priests aren't supposed to have sex at all! What the hell does God have against sex?? And if it's bad, why the hell did he make it so damn good?

Note: keen readers will notice that I have mixed up sexual taboos from several different sects here and generalised the hell out of the whole argument. Deal with it.

Here's my theory:

Control and insurance that the meme will continue.

Masturbation - sexual pleasure without chance of reproduction
Homosexuality - sexual pleasure without chance of reproduction
Birth control - sexual pleasure without chance of reproduction

Sex until marriage/virginity - a chance that the child will have a father from outside of the fold. Also, it devalues the wife and places a spare burden on the father, as sick as it is - the father would have to spend resources raising the child that could go to his own children. It's the same reason why male lions that have succeeded in ousting the previous patriarch of a pride will kill his cubs.

As for why it's good, that's an evolutionary advantage. It's the same reason I find my calorie-packed mocha latte so tasty and why I'm attracted to brainy, talented men. It's all about survival and having a better chance of passing down your genes.

 

[Radrook]

Care to educate me?

Take sociology 101. That will do the trick. I'm not too keen on teaching.

Society seems pretty stable to me. Has been for an awful long time. Haven't seen a collapse of civilisation recently. How about you tell me why civilisation has been collapsing for the last two thousand years?

Plato's cave.

Or, perhaps, the entire point of my argument. God thinks like you do.

He does? Why, I'm honored!

 

[arthwollipot]

Take sociology 101. That will do the trick. I'm not too keen on teaching.

Yeah, like that's going to happen. I'm 40, never had tertiary education, don't plan to. How about you give me the crib notes?

Plato's cave.

Right. That makes... all kinds of sense.

Actually, let's forget about it and cut to the chase. God thinks like you do.

He does? Why, I'm honored!

Why yes, God thinks like you do. God thinks like everybody does.

According to Fred Phelps, God thinks like Fred Phelps. According to Pope Ratzi, God thinks like Pope Ratzi. According to Pat Robertson, God thinks like Pat Robertson. And according to Radrook, God thinks like Radrook.

Ever wonder why this is? Why it is that everyone seems to know exactly what God wants and how God thinks - and they happen to agree? It's because everyone has their own God! And everyone's God is different.

 

[AdinDraco]

"Plato's cave" - I think I know what this is. How about I throw a two word response at you that I've learnt in a book or course somewhere that you may not have heard of in an attempt to be smugly intellectually superior? Or you can stop showing off a basic education in philosphy - or at least a familarity with the appropriate buzzwords - and answer the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_cave

 

[arthwollipot]

Plato's cave is basically the earliest formulation of Jung's archetypes. Pure essences of which real things are the merest shadow. We see things only as shadows on the wall of the cave, while the object that throws the shadow is hidden from our view. Which doesn't actually have anything at all to do with civilisation collapsing.

 

[CriticalSock]

<snip>According to Fred Phelps, God thinks like Fred Phelps. According to Pope Ratzi, God thinks like Pope Ratzi. According to Pat Robertson, God thinks like Pat Robertson. And according to Radrook, God thinks like Radrook.

Ever wonder why this is? Why it is that everyone seems to know exactly what God wants and how God thinks - and they happen to agree? It's because everyone has their own God! And everyone's God is different.

Very neatly put.


god doesn't hate sex of course. God doesn't hate homosexuals, contraception, whacking off, the Sugababes. God doesn't hate anything.

And neither does Santa.

 

[arthwollipot]

Very neatly put.

Thanks. I got that from Philosophy for Dummies.

 

[CriticalSock]

Thanks. I got that from Philosophy for Dummies.

What more do you need!

 

[Radrook]

"Plato's cave" - I think I know what this is. How about I throw a two word response at you that I've learnt in a book or course somewhere that you may not have heard of in an attempt to be smugly intellectually superior? Or you can stop showing off a basic education in philosphy - or at least a familarity with the appropriate buzzwords - and answer the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_cave

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Radrook]

Thanks. I got that from Philosophy for Dummies.

I agree that people tend to create versions of their own God. Even within the same religious denomination you find great differences in understanding of basic text or in interpretation of more complex text, or even in the personality of the god they both supposedly hold in common. Some of these misunderstandings are justifiable. Other misunderstandings are inexcusable and are put forth based to ulterior motives such as material gain, political advantage, etctera. This thread speaks about how God hates sex. I responded that according to the Bible he doesn't. He only prohibits it under certain situations. I explained that this is the Christian view. You say that this proves nothing. That I am claiming to know the mind of God when all I claimed was to know what the Bible tells us is the mind of God. Then you ask me to defend that point which I indicated is strawman. I guess you misunderstood me. That's OK. My apologies if I came across as rude. Not my intention. Was only trying to be brief. My bad.

My reference to Plato's Cave was in response to your statement that society seems stable to you and therefore the family unite could not be the essential stabilizer I referred to. PLato would have seen that as mere opinion-or as a shadow and not the substance of reality. Anything that contradicts reality is a shadow on the Cave wall. That's what I was referring to. I should have been more direct. Sorry.

 

[arthwollipot]

I agree that people tend to create versions of their own God. Even within the same religious denomination you find great differences in understanding of basic text or in interpretation of more complex text, or even in the personality of the god they both supposedly hold in common. Some of these misunderstandings are justifiable. Other misunderstandings are inexcusable and are put forth based to ulterior motives such as material gain, political advantage, etctera.

Where do you draw the line between one and the other? Phelps' extreme Calvinism is justifiable to him, but inexcusable to everyone else. The Catholic church's ban on birth control is justifiable to them, inexcusable to everyone else. The problem is, there is absolutely no objective, independent interpretation of Biblical doctrine that can be properly demonstrated. All religion is subjective at best, and arbitrary at worst!

This thread speaks about how God hates sex. I responded that according to the Bible he doesn't. He only prohibits it under certain situations. I explained that this is the Christian view. You say that this proves nothing. That I am claiming to know the mind of God when all I claimed was to know what the Bible tells us is the mind of God. Then you ask me to defend that point which I indicated is strawman. I guess you misunderstood me. That's OK. My apologies if I came across as rude. Not my intention. Was only trying to be brief. My bad.

Yes, your brevity probably caused me to misinterpret your intentions.

But still, "what the Bible tells us is the mind of God" is itself dependent upon subjective interpretation. Pope Ratzi says that God hates contraception. Phelps tells us that God hates everyone and everything. The Imams in Iran tell us that God hates immodestly dressed women - all based on interpretations of the Bible (or the Qu'ran and Hadith in the case of the Imams).

You decide what the Bible tells you about the mind of God. So does everyone else.

My reference to Plato's Cave was in response to your statement that society seems stable to you and therefore the family unite could not be the essential stabilizer I referred to. PLato would have seen that as mere opinion-or as a shadow and not the substance of reality. Anything that contradicts reality is a shadow on the Cave wall. That's what I was referring to. I should have been more direct. Sorry.

Okay, I still don't get exactly what you mean by that, but it was not my main point anyway, so I'll drop the subject.

 

[noreligion]

This is a question that occurred to me while catching up on the "Love the Christian" thread. God hates sex. You can't have sex unless you are married - it's a sin. You can't have homosexual sex - it's a sin. You can't use birth control - it's a sin. You can't show bare skin in public - it's a sin. You can't masturbate - it's a sin.

In fact, according to God, you can only have sex with a married spouse, and only for the purposes of procreation. Ordained priests aren't supposed to have sex at all! What the hell does God have against sex?? And if it's bad, why the hell did he make it so damn good?

Note: keen readers will notice that I have mixed up sexual taboos from several different sects here and generalised the hell out of the whole argument. Deal with it.

God doesn't hate sex especially between family members or as sold by prostitutes. As a matter of fact he condones them so much he put a prostitute and a product of incest in the genealogy of his son/himself.

 

[sgtbaker]

I am sure someone with a better memory of the bible can name from which part I am pulling this, because I sure don't (I may even be remembering it completely wrong). Isn't there a part in the bible where man is advised to remain abstinant because he can focus more on god without the distractions of fleshly desires? Then it goes on to forgive man and his imperfect desires. It says something to the effect of; if he cannot avoid that distraction by all means, take a wife. I believe it's one of the apostles but I am not sure. My interpretation of that is; sex is bad because it distracts you from me but I forgive you.

 

[noreligion]

I am sure someone with a better memory of the bible can name from which part I am pulling this, because I sure don't (I may even be remembering it completely wrong). Isn't there a part in the bible where man is advised to remain abstinant because he can focus more on god without the distractions of fleshly desires? Then it goes on to forgive man and his imperfect desires. It says something to the effect of; if he cannot avoid that distraction by all means, take a wife. I believe it's one of the apostles but I am not sure. My interpretation of that is; sex is bad because it distracts you from me but I forgive you.

Paul says that but Paul was....Paul and he wanted everybody to be like him and unlike Mikey he didn't like everything

 

[AdinDraco]

Thanks for the advice.

Apologies. I broke my rule about stooping to a certain level. While I'm a believer in that Jefferson quote about ridicule (can't look it up at the moment), I was weirdly angry for some reason...

 

[sgtbaker]

Paul says that but Paul was....Paul and he wanted everybody to be like him and unlike Mikey he didn't like everything

Thanks! Didn't one of his letters say something about, "It's not that I can't get a date, it's that I don't want one."