Why does God hate sex?

[arthwollipot]

1 Corinthians 7:7-9

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

 

[Radrook]

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![/quopte]


Yet there are interpretations that are flagrantly extreme and have to be rejected out of hand. Like cutting off ones hand and plucking out our eyes if these offend us by causing us to sin. Jesus spoke figuratively. He meant that we should pout away theft and wrong thoughts which made us look at things in a sinful way=the eye or lead to stealing=the hand.
A certain Catholic scholar interpreted this litarally and castrated himself. Other such figurative language taken literally can cause people to nburn others alive and even torture. So figurative lasnguage iSN"t open to all asnd any interpretation. Interpretation must be guided by context, immediate context, or historical social context.

If an interpretation contradicts any of these, then itis not acceptable. These are basic rules which people who interpret literature follow.

Rules of Biblical Interpretation
http://www.bible-truth.org/Principles.htm

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

I'll try to be more specific from now on. Please feel free to ask if there is any question regarding my response.

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.

The same applies to this idea. There aree strict rules which prevent us from proposing any and all ideas on scripture. True, there are unscrupulous people who couldn't care less about rules or don't know the rules. But under close scrutiny their ideas stand out like a sore thumb to those familiar with the required rules.

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.

Here is the answer to the question you previously asked.
Family stabilizes society
http://tagtag.com/sociologydegree/intensive_revision/intensive_family_1


====================================================================================================================================
The Cave

Plato used a cave as an example of ideas based on merely opinions. He tells us to imagine ourselves shackled by chains and being forced to face an illuminated cave wall. Behind us are persons casting shadows on those walls. Shadows of trees, people, objects,. If had never been outside the cave, we would be forced to accept those shadows as accurate representations of reality. It's only if we leave the cave and come into the real word of fact where the light reveals things as they are that we are no longer wrong in our views concerning such objects.

In short, if we say "I think!" "In my opinion!" " I heard that...." or "I was told that...." without researching the subject and making sure that it is true, then our conclusion remains a mere opinion and might very well be a misrepresentation, or a shadow of reality.
In short, Plato was telling us to make sure of all things before declaring them fact. Just his fancy way of getting that across dramatically. : )

Allegory of the Cave
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080330085456AAjK9LI

 

[Radrook]

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...

Well, you did me a favor since I was definitely wrong. Hey! No problemo!c Peace!

 

[AvalonXQ]

1 Corinthians 7:7-9

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Clarification: "burn" as in "burn with passion", not as in "burn in Hell".

 

[noreligion]

Clarification: "burn" as in "burn with passion", not as in "burn in Hell".

Always took that to mean if you can't contain your passion it is better to marry and 'release your passion' then it would be to 'release' out of wedlock and burn for your sin.

 

[arthwollipot]

The same applies to this idea. There aree strict rules which prevent us from proposing any and all ideas on scripture. True, there are unscrupulous people who couldn't care less about rules or don't know the rules. But under close scrutiny their ideas stand out like a sore thumb to those familiar with the required rules.

But again, these "rules" are only one opinion on how to interpret scripture. There are other opinions - some held by a minority, others by more.

Here's an example: Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith and good works? Acts 16:31 seems to suggest that faith alone is required for salvation. 2 Corinthians 11:15 suggests otherwise. Protestants believe in Sola Fide, Catholics believe in faith and grace. This is a truly fundamental rift in Christianity, and not something that can be simply swept under the carpet. It is a matter of interpretation of the Bible.

You make scriptural interpretation sound easy - just follow these rules and you're done. But what if someone disagrees with the rules? What if the rules lead to Sola Fide? Wouldn't Catholics then dispute the correctness of the rules?

Clarification: "burn" as in "burn with passion", not as in "burn in Hell".

I thought passion was for within marriage only. Oh, you mean the old definition of "passion" as "suffering". Gotcha.

See? Interpretation again. A Calvinist would say that it does mean "burn in Hell". How are we of the laity to know which is which?

I'm starting to have some sympathy with the Catholics here. Scriptural interpretation is not for the laity to engage in. We just rely on the authority of the clergy to tell us what the Bible says. Saves us the trouble.

 

[Radrook]

But again, these "rules" are only one opinion on how to interpret scripture. There are other opinions - some held by a minority, others by more.

Here's an example: Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith and good works? Acts 16:31 seems to suggest that faith alone is required for salvation. 2 Corinthians 11:15 suggests otherwise. Protestants believe in Sola Fide, Catholics believe in faith and grace. This is a truly fundamental rift in Christianity, and not something that can be simply swept under the carpet. It is a matter of interpretation of the Bible.

You make scriptural interpretation sound easy - just follow these rules and you're done. But what if someone disagrees with the rules? What if the rules lead to Sola Fide? Wouldn't Catholics then dispute the correctness of the rules?

Not trying to make all scriptural interpretation easy. Only saying that, as in all literary works, there are rules that need to be followed. For example, if we ignore the import of the original language we might propose a completely different view of what was really meant or might tend to become dogmatic of what we think it means. If we don't take historical context, cultural context, immediate scripture context, or writer intention into consideration then we might reach totally erroneous conclusions.

It's not that people who come up with wild ideas are necessarily ignorant of these rules. Some ignore them because they want to feel loved by God no matter how they behave. Others break then in order to FLEECE THE FLOCK. The purchase of less time in hell, is one example. Pope's cal for a crusade against the infidels in order to promote European political and religious unify is another. Following rules of interpretation becomes secondary when such issues are involved.

I thought passion was for within marriage only. Oh, you mean the old definition of "passion" as "suffering". Gotcha.

See? Interpretation again. A Calvinist would say that it does mean "burn in Hell". How are we of the laity to know which is which?

Easy, because the subject or context is clearly marriage and whether we should remain single and burn with passion or get married to relieve the passion.

I'm starting to have some sympathy with the Catholics here. Scriptural interpretation is not for the laity to engage in. We just rely on the authority of the clergy to tell us what the Bible says. Saves us the trouble.

I don't think that the text itself is the problem. The text is clear if we give proper attention to context. I had a fellow separating a phrase out from a whole page: "they do not sin..." and applying it to his whole life and ignoring everything prior or after it. That's unfair to the reader and to the book.


BTW
Have you ever systematically studied the Bible? You come across as if you are just choosing things at random without reading the surrounding text. That approach will only lead to gross misunderstandings and the erroneous impression that anything goes. Any book approached that way will give that impression.

 

[23_Tauri]

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?

IMO, you're absolutely right, Sledge. Adultery only leads to conflict, breakdown and unhappiness because we are culturally conditioned to think of it as wrong and as a betrayal.

A article that I found via the wiki article on polyamory cites a study by Rubin & Adams that showed no difference in stability between polyamorous relationships and monogamous ones:

http://www.polyamoryonline.org/articles/psychological.html#top

wiki on polyamory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#cite_note-58

In fact, when one looks at the level of divorce and general dissatisfaction with life-long monogamous relationships in the West, it strikes me that we are crying out for different model. The emphasis on communication, non-possessiveness and honesty in polyamorous relationships suggests, to me at least, that it deserves more attentions as a more widespread, alternative social model.

 

[sgtbaker]

Social conditioning is hard for some people to grasp. I want to argue that I wouldn't get jealous if the man I love was intimate with someone else just because society tells me. The truth is, I have never experienced polygamory as an acceptable practice. We are sold the idea that there is only one true love, for everyone, so I can't even imagine that there is another side of the coin, let alone examine it.

Have they even come to any conclusion, yet, on whether or not we are a species designed to mate for life? I've heard some studies fall on one side and some studies fall on the other. To my best understanding, we are only designed to feel that high, drug-like passion for a limited amount of time. Do we become immune to that sensation so we can go back to normal an actually concentrate on something other than the object of our affection or does it go away because it's time to move on?

 

[23_Tauri]

My opinion is that many of these prohibitions have social functions which keep society running smoothly. For example, adultery is a form of theft which can lead to a violent reaction from a spouse leading to violent encounters which can result in murder. It weakens the basic social unit of the nuclear family. Children grow up more psychologically stable in a family where both parents are present and have a smooth relationship and not one full of bickerings and suspicions. So the prohibition of adultery is definitely pro social stability. The same with all the other ones mentioned.

You're approaching this from the socially and religiously conditioned response that adultery is wrong and it is this belief that leads to the problems of conflict within the family to which you refer.

In 'The Anatomy of Love' Helen Fisher argues that humans are serial monogamists, as as such life-long monogamy is doomed to fail. If people are forced to stay together they will be unhappy and more likely to take this unhappiness out on their partner.

In such a scenario where both partners seek some level of satisfaction outside of their relationship then the open marriage, where both partners have an equal right to lovers outside of the marriage, would appear to be a solution. This would seem to me to be the best solution to the problems of stagnation and suffocation that occur when people feel trapped in a life-long, loveless marriage.

Historically, the aristocracy always took lovers (at least the men did, tragically the women were not treated equally to their husbands in this respect). Why? Because marriage was the stable unit within which families were raised and dynasties keep alive. It was taken for granted that the man would require sexual satisfaction outside of this arrangement. What works with human nature usually works out best for society.

 

[23_Tauri]

Social conditioning is hard for some people to grasp. I want to argue that I wouldn't get jealous if the man I love was intimate with someone else just because society tells me. The truth is, I have never experienced polygamory as an acceptable practice. We are sold the idea that there is only one true love, for everyone, so I can't even imagine that there is another side of the coin, let alone examine it.

Have they even come to any conclusion, yet, on whether or not we are a species designed to mate for life? I've heard some studies fall on one side and some studies fall on the other. To my best understanding, we are only designed to feel that high, drug-like passion for a limited amount of time. Do we become immune to that sensation so we can go back to normal an actually concentrate on something other than the object of our affection or does it go away because it's time to move on?

Hi sgtbaker.
I too am far from convinced that polyamory would be right for everyone, but I think it would have a role for some within a society that accepted a wide range of relationship models.

With regard to mating for life, see my post above. It's a long while since I read Fisher's book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anatomy-Love-Natural-History-Marriage/dp/0449908976
but I think the divorce rate alone would indicate that we are not designed from an evolutionary standpoint to mate for life.

IIRC, Fisher argues that the 'seven year itch' has an evolutionary basis. This is the amount of time it takes to pair up, conceive, and then raise a child to the point where the child can basically function independently, leaving the parents free to separate and pair with other mates, thereby maximising the spread of genes within the population.

 

[Radrook]

You're approaching this from the socially and religiously conditioned response that adultery is wrong and it is this belief that leads to the problems of conflict within the family to which you refer.

In 'The Anatomy of Love' Helen Fisher argues that humans are serial monogamists, as as such life-long monogamy is doomed to fail. If people are forced to stay together they will be unhappy and more likely to take this unhappiness out on their partner.

In such a scenario where both partners seek some level of satisfaction outside of their relationship then the open marriage, where both partners have an equal right to lovers outside of the marriage, would appear to be a solution. This would seem to me to be the best solution to the problems of stagnation and suffocation that occur when people feel trapped in a life-long, loveless marriage.

Historically, the aristocracy always took lovers (at least the men did, tragically the women were not treated equally to their husbands in this respect). Why? Because marriage was the stable unit within which families were raised and dynasties keep alive. It was taken for granted that the man would require sexual satisfaction outside of this arrangement. What works with human nature usually works out best for society.

Aren't you ignoring or minimizing the consequences of infidelity?

 

[arthwollipot]

Aren't you ignoring or minimizing the consequences of infidelity?

Infidelity merely means breaking the trust of the partner. In an open relationship, there is no agreement to be exclusive, therefore no trust to be broken.

 

[Nosi]

Infidelity is wrong not so much due to one having sex outside of a relationship but for dishonesty with one whom you claim to love. Then there is the dishonesty to the second sex partner (or third, forth, fifth, etc). If there are kids involved, that is a whole other layer of wrong. You could bring a disease home to unsuspecting partner(s) or leave a child in limbo with out support...

 

[arthwollipot]

Infidelity is wrong not so much due to one having sex outside of a relationship but for dishonesty with one whom you claim to love. Then there is the dishonesty to the second sex partner (or third, forth, fifth, etc). If there are kids involved, that is a whole other layer of wrong. You could bring a disease home to unsuspecting partner(s) or leave a child in limbo with out support...

*sigh*

Another one who doesn't understand poly. Seriously, we're where homosexuals were twenty five years ago.

 

[23_Tauri]

Aren't you ignoring or minimizing the consequences of infidelity?

It's not infidelity if both people in the relationship have agreed to having multiple partners.

ETA: sorry, arthwollipot has explained this quite succiently, I do not need to add anything to his well thought out posts.

 

[23_Tauri]

Infidelity is wrong not so much due to one having sex outside of a relationship but for dishonesty with one whom you claim to love. Then there is the dishonesty to the second sex partner (or third, forth, fifth, etc). If there are kids involved, that is a whole other layer of wrong. You could bring a disease home to unsuspecting partner(s) or leave a child in limbo with out support...

Did I mention infidelity? Nope. I talked about polyamorous relationships and open marriages. If everyone is open and honest about the dynamics of the relationship there is no infidelity. Do you get this?

 

[Robin]

The Cave

Plato used a cave as an example of ideas based on merely opinions. He tells us to imagine ourselves shackled by chains and being forced to face an illuminated cave wall. Behind us are persons casting shadows on those walls. Shadows of trees, people, objects,. If had never been outside the cave, we would be forced to accept those shadows as accurate representations of reality. It's only if we leave the cave and come into the real word of fact where the light reveals things as they are that we are no longer wrong in our views concerning such objects.

In short, if we say "I think!" "In my opinion!" " I heard that...." or "I was told that...." without researching the subject and making sure that it is true, then our conclusion remains a mere opinion and might very well be a misrepresentation, or a shadow of reality.
In short, Plato was telling us to make sure of all things before declaring them fact. Just his fancy way of getting that across dramatically. : )

Allegory of the Cave
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080330085456AAjK9LI

[/quote]
I think that the Cave Allegory is more generally regarded as a comment on the limits of Empiricism and the superiority of Noologism.

 

[Radrook]

I think that the Cave Allegory is more generally regarded as a comment on the limits of Empiricism and the superiority of Noologism.[/QUOTE]

Plato comments that in presenting his description of the cave he intends to, "..picture the
enlightenment or ignorance of our human condition..." One purpose of his description is thus to
demonstrate the differing ways in which humans understand the nature of reality. Specifically, Plato
wants to demonstrate that there is a fundamental difference between the everyday opinions of people
and true philosophical knowledge. Crucial to Plato's ideas is the distinction between non-philosophical
and philosophical understanding.
http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_15/philosophy_questions_1580.html

Plato on Opinion vs fact

Ignorance is the opposite of knowledge.

Conclusion from 1 & 2:
Opinion is subject to error, but knowledge is not.

Conclusion from 2 & 3:
Opinion differs from knowledge

Different faculties involve different "spheres" (areas they govern).

Conclusion from1 & 5:
Opinion involves a different faculty, and has a different subject-matter.

Particular objects are subject to "opposite names."
For example: The same house is beautiful to one person, ugly to another, and the same person is at one time young, at another time old.

Conclusion from 6 & 7:
Particulars are in the region between being and not-being.

Conclusion from 6 & 8:
Particulars are the subject-matter of opinion.

Conclusion from 3, 6, & 9:
Eternal and immutable natures are the subject-matte of knowledge.
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/MenoOutline.htm

The view I hold is more along the Humean line as expresssed here though I generally accept the Platonic opinion vs fact one for practical reasons.
http://thetimefortrusting.blogspot.com/2007/08/platos-opinion.html

 

[Nosi]

*sigh*

Another one who doesn't understand poly. Seriously, we're where homosexuals were twenty five years ago.

Poly isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about is more the Tiger Woods situation. Poly is a whole different situation.