10/02/2002                                                                                       View Comments

Sex was made for pleasure -- Oh Really?

I have been in an internet email group discussion with a Christian who maintains that GOD SAYS that sex was not just made for procreation but also for pleasure.

While I would never mean to imply that I don't enjoy sex immensely, I will say that my wife and I do not plan on having any more children, so have taken the measures to insure that does not happen. What I challenged him on is his belief that the Christian position is one in which sex for pleasure is revered and honored. Now I too was an evangelical believer, so I am quite familiar with the modern day rhetoric on how good and honorable the marriage bed is, when undefiled and all that. However, the historic position of Christianity for centuries has been one that looked with disdain on the act of copulation, considering it base, earthly, sinful or at least much less appealing than celibacy. Coition is only tolerated when it results in impregnation. If you have sex for fun, even with your own spouse and use birth control, you are sinning.

Once again I reiterate, I realize that the modern evangelical mind does not think about sex this way, but that does not alter the easily proven fact that Christians for hundreds of years prior to our enlightened times found sex to be a detestable distraction to serving the LORD.

Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Churches teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.

Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

The Bible mentions two forms of contraception specifically and condemns both. One, coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, artificial contraception has historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Deuteronomy 23:1 condemns birth control by sterilization: "He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord." These were the methods of male sterilization available in those days.

Paul took the fun out of the consummating a marriage. In the eyes of Paul, the advantage of marriage was that sexual lust could be satiated in marriage, avoiding the sexual promiscuity of the pagans. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, "I wish that all were [celibate] as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." Paul also wrote, "If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his fiancee, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his fiancee, he will do well. So then, he who marries his fiancee does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better."

In one of Paul's least quoted, but maybe most profound statements, he writes, "Those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that." I believe Henny Youngman paraphrased this statement centuries later when he said, "Take my wife. . . please."

Now in fairness to Paul, his warning about marriage was due to a belief in the imminent Second Coming of Christ. He wanted people to be spiritually prepared and saw the affairs of marriage requiring worldly attention. However, sex was clearly a worldly desire in Paul's mind. There was nothing spiritual in the expression of human sexuality. Not even in marriage.

Over time, Paul's attitudes about sex came to dominate the church. Celibacy among priests and nuns was at first encouraged, then later required. Sin and sex were nearly synonymous. During the Protestant Reformation, the reformer priest Martin Luther established his position on celibacy by marrying a nun. Luther believed that earthly pleasures, when used properly, were a gift from God. John Calvin wrote that God's intention for us as sexual persons goes beyond procreation and includes the fundamental need for loving companionship. However, the Puritan movement, so influential in the development of our nation's ethic, moved back to Paul's devaluation of sex. Sex was just another worldly desire that separated one from God. It was not talked about or taught in the schools. As we saw in our look at birth control, the puritanical view of sex resulted in the Comstock laws that classified birth control information as obscene. This ethic dominated public discussions of sex until the 1960's sexual revolution.

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are cited in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)

Now finally in conclusion, if I were to bring to your mind an image of Jesus having sex with a cute woman, even within the bonds of marriage, would you think it normal and good, or blasphemous? Think about Christ getting it on in the bed room, bringing his spouse to heavenly euphoric spasms of orgasmic oblivion, just for fun. Think about him having a vasectomy, or wearing a prophylactic with spermicidal jelly inside it. Think about the Son of God seed staining the sheets as it runs down the leg of his lover.

Of course this is a very graphic description and the cartoon is a bit much, but I think you get my point that even a neo-evangelical has a problem with Jesus having a good blow in bed. He supposedly was all man as well as all god, so he must have been fully functional with hormones surging in his blood. I am sure he must have awakened from sleep with a holy hard-on from time to time. If he dreamt at all, then getting an erection was part of his experience as that is just a physiological response to entering REM sleep. Funny how Christians just can't picture a holy god doing it, while maintaining that it is a holy act for couples.

So I say, if you are a true Christian, you should be fighting against your base sinful lusts, and save your sperm and ovum for just that special few days a month when babies are sure to be made.

64 comments:

Chris said...

Jesus was married and did have sex. Haven't you read the Da Vinci Code? Don't you know anything?

;P

Andrea77 said...

Sex was created by God and to be enjoyed.

But how can Jesus of had sex, if Jesus is God and God is our Father this would be saying that God our father had sex with his childeren.

.:webmaster:. said...

Well, Jesus' father impregnated Mary, and Mary was HIS daughter, so that must make Jesus HIS son and HIS Grandson, and HIMSELF too.

Believing in myths is silly.

Dano said...

Andrea77 wrote:
"Sex was created by God and to be enjoyed.But how can Jesus of had sex, if Jesus is God and God is our Father this would be saying that God our father had sex with his children"

You would be surprised at how many people who are having a relationship with Jesus cannot grasp the rediculousness of that concept!

Dan in NC retired "rationalist"

webmdave said...

I didn't read the entire article, so if you've covered this, forgive. However, the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon would disagree with you vehemently, as well as the New Testament passage: "Do not forsake coming together as husband and wife except for a little while" That is very paraphrased, but it's in there. The Catholic Church tries to maintain that it has authority even prior to the Bible, which it does not. If other Christians have followed them this way, then sad for them. As far as your challenge about Jesus having sex. If he was married, it wouldn't bother me, but I think Jesus had more important things to think about than robbing a woman of her life as a wife. He knew he would die, so to marry someone would have been cruel. And I am not of the opinion that Mary remained a virgin either. Cheers. By the way, I'm not going to debate you. Just wanted to say this.

webmdave said...

Fantastic article. There need to be more like these. There are so many "sins" that the neo-evangelicals try to rationalize for modern day society. They want to make their faith "cool" again. That's why you have mega churches playing The Beatles' music when 50 years ago they were trying to ban it. They are just hypocrites who don't really want to live by the nonsense that is in their so called holy book so they twist things and try to make Christianity into this very liberal and enlightened philosophy instead of a strict and cruel religion. 

And Guest all you did was point out more of the bible's contradictions and inconsistencies.

webmdave said...

Jesus says that I'll go to hell just for having sexual thoughts about women, without acting upon them. If I have to go to hell for that reason, I'll feel really cheated. ;)

webmdave said...

 I suffered far too long the agonies of christianity.  I was so scared of the evils of sex, I couldn't look at a girl without being consumed with guilt.  Screwed me up bad.  On one hand I felt that the desires I had for women were natural and good, but the book and the preacher said it was a sin and to avoid it.  I nearly killed myself at 40, still a virgin. I got help, but to lose my best 25 years to some perverted lie makes me furious. I was actually surprised when the psychologists and counselors didn't push god down my throat as a cure for my depression.  
I believe the divorce statistics speak volumes.  We are not monogamous creatures.  We CAN love just one person all our lives, but why do we limit ourselves to one love and one sex partner (neither is necessarily mutually exclusive)?  Religion has dealt us a horrible injustice here. I don't say that just to justify the desire, but because there is nor good reason to deny ourselves.  We could be really happy. Now if I could just convince my current partner...

webmdave said...

We have scientific studies which show that in men, at least, you can't isolate sexual health from the rest of your body. A Danish study found that sperm quality, for example, predicts men's health & longevity. We wouldn't have this squeamishness about sex in a rational society which has entered the "Jesus who?" era.

webmdave said...

Re-posting over here, WebMDave.

Thanks for reviving an old post that is still very relevant today.  For centuries Christianity has sought to control people's sexual lives.  The more guilt you can pile on to people the better you can control them.  The Catholic religion seems to have making people feel utterly guilty down to a science.

The Bible is tailor made to repress people but since we all are sexual beings it is easy pickings to make people feel guilty about sex.  Even having a sexual thought is cause for guilt.  If you have lusted in your heart you are just as guilty as someone who actually has done the deed!  How crazy is that?

I really didn't know that the Protestants were just as bad about the sex only to have children B.S. though I suppose I just didn't think about it.  After all, it is said that women used to be told to lay down and think about their country.  Very patriotic but not very erotic. Fun wasn't involved at all, in the ideal sexual situation.  The Catholic church has been terrible on this issue.  Their no condoms ever is causing much grief in Africa where AIDS is a huge problem.  The sanctity of human life seems to only extend to sperm, eggs and  as yet to be born babies.  

The Protestants, as you noted, are loosening up a lot.  This whole sexual activity should be fun is definitely becoming more common.  There are even Christian sex toy sites available.  Wow, I was totally shocked.  

What would Jesus do?  I bet he'd think that this was a fantastic idea.  Hot sex for all!  Why didn't he think of that?

webmdave said...

I think monogamy is possible, it just depends on the individuals.  In other words, both have to want it.

Either way, Christianity has poisoned and distorted sex so much, and destroyed many people's healthy sexuality with unnecessary guilt in the process.  It is a genuinely tragic states of affairs.

webmdave said...

Sex, then.

In the household I grew up in, we were Catholic until I was about 12, then we converted.  My mother's Catholic upbringing informs her view of sex to this day.  All the time I was growing up, I only ever heard her speak about sex in a negative manner.  The fact that my dad, who she later divorced was her only ever partner didn't help either.  So the only man she ever "knew" was a man she never loved.  This obviously hasn't helped her dour view of sex.

She went to a Catholic school as a kid and the nuns used to impress the virtue of virginity to them; and whenever she talks about stories of her youth, she makes a point of bragging about how she avoided having sex  with every man she met.  To this day, whenever she talks about "sin" and evil in the world, she obsessively focuses on so-called sexual sins.  Basically ANYTHING to do with sex is bad to her, she has it so twisted that she even conflates things like rape and child abuse (which are arguably more about violence and domination) with sex between two consenting adults.  To her, some sick fu(k abusing a child is no different from two unmarried adults getting it on.  Her reasoning is that it humans are so wicked, sinful and consumed by lust that they have to screw anything that moves and don't care who or what it is. 

As I was growing up, she used the bible and Christianity to try and suppress my own sexuality.  It worked on my sister, but it didn't work on me, but for a long time, it made me feel guilty for looking at girls or wanting to get involved because there was always a "danger" that such involvement could descend into sex.  To get around this, she painted a view of god that was unduly concerned with my sexuality to the point that he would literally go out of his way to stop me going anywhere near women if there was a danger of things becoming sexual.  It didn't work either way, but it took years to shake the complex, which haunted me at every turn and ruined many of my past relationships.

To this day, it seems perverse to me that anyone could be so fixated on sexual purity this much.  It's almost pathological.

webmdave said...

Monogamy is the most common form of marital relationship around the world and in most cultures but there is a lot of variations through out cultures.  Myself, I think I like being married to one guy but I rather admire the South American Indian culture that tells men that jealousy is childish and that women should have suitors even after they are married:)  The women miss the old days when they felt really special to more than one man but of course the missionaries changed they old ways into the new cover up your boobs and be monogamous ways.

webmdave said...

Yes.  For being such a rock solid single universal TRUTH, it sure changes a lot.  Someone on here a number of months back noted how attitudes within the church about various issues changed over time/generations.  While still a xtian, that was a big red flag to me.  Just added to the whole notion that it didn't all add up.  I smelled a rat.

webmdave said...

Wait... what? Christian sex toy shops?  Really?  Do they sell lube made with water from Lourdes or maybe dildos with a fragment of the True Cross in them? That makes as much sense as Christian nail polish.  Once you get it home, who's gonna know?!?  Of course, it could be really good business move for raking in the bucks.... but... sheesh... I just can't wrap my head around the idea of sexually repressive Christians checking out fuzzy handcuffs or cock rings.  Or porn....

Talk about cognitive dissonance....

webmdave said...

Ok... reposting here.  Don't wanna be the Lone Ranger on that other page.....


Sex and religion is a bad (stupid) combination.  And completely ridiculous too.  Christians claim that their god made everything according to some all-encompassing plan, yet the same god condemns people for being horny, just like he made them to be.  They also like to say how inferior and stupid and ignorant and useless women are and in the same breath condemn women for "tempting" men into sex.  Guess those Holy Men Of God aren't too superior if they can be so laughably, easily swayed by the lure of pink kryptonite.  Every time a woman has her period she is shedding an unfertilized egg.  Is there some sort of hell for her to go to as well? If a couple has sex and she does not conceive, is that also a sin since the sperm were wasted?  What if the couple has sex and she is pregnant already but they don't know yet?  Do they both go to hell for wasting precious seminal fluid?  And if spilling sperm wastefully is such an damnable, evil thing to do, they why doesn't the RCC do something to all those child raping priests they have? They are gung-ho to damn the common folk for it but apparently think that sauce for the goose won't be good for the gander when it comes to the clergy.

I read somewhere that the ancient people thought the semen was made from the spinal column fluid and that there was limited amount of it, so their idea of "waste" makes more sense with that tidbit of trivia.  Given what we know now about human reproduction, the religious views of it is even MORE antiquated.  The entire taint on sex is more damaging to human reproduction than the indulgence in it could ever be.  Well, barring the numerous STD's that we have, thanks to Noah's family. ;)

From a scientific standpoint, sex with multiple partners is a good thing as it ensures genetic diversity and therefore survivability of the resulting children.  Biologically, the sex drive is what helps keep a species going so to demonize it is beyond foolish.  Personally, I don't fancy multiple partners in a session and I am quite happy in my monogamous marriage.  However, when it comes to what other people are doing I could care less.  As long as it involves consenting adults, what people do in their bedrooms shouldn't be my or anyone else's f*cking business...pun intended.

webmdave said...

Check it out, Bruce at the FallenfromGrace blog had this article with links to Christian sex toy shops.

http://fallenfromgrace.net/2011/09/13/one-million-moms-and-their-campaign-against-sex-toys/

webmdave said...

if you gonna reply to an article with any miniscule form of credulence...It would be nice to have read the thing!

webmdave said...

I had to comment on this. I agree with Discordia (nicely said, BTW). But I just have to add, somewhat tangential to Dave's post, that "the sins of the fathers", as articulated in the Bible, is meaningless. Sperm are produced rapidly, but a baby girl, by the time she is born, has ALL of the eggs she will ever have in her lifetime already in her ovaries. In other words, her future children are not only inside of her, they are inside her mother. Therefore....if you're doing the proverbial math, *you* were once inside your *grandmother*.

So, shouldn't the Bible talk about the "sins of the mothers", then, since sperm have no such life?

There. That feels better. I've been keeping that inside since first year anatomy and it's bugged me ever since.

webmdave said...

> artificial contraception has historically been known as "Onanism," 

This made be laugh. One of the Japanese words for masturbation is onani.

webmdave said...

Nude0007,
you poor soul, I really feel for you... and I'm glad you consulted with professionals. Indeed the gospels teachings about sex are very troubling and not a bit realistic.  As for monogamy, I think it is a decision to be made (for whatever reason) between the privacy of a couple, and as for any other decision we make in our lifetime, we try to stick to it. It is not always easy but some people succeed. Good luck with your partner. ;)

webmdave said...

I went to catholic school as well, nuns... the poor dears tried very hard to convince us girls to avoid boys at all cost and keep chaste both in our deeds and in our thoughts. Masturbation could get us blind, kissing was the cause of acne, frenchkissing would cause all sorts of disease, and when they were forced to explain the birds and the bees, the dangers of pregnancy were stressed to the point of terror. Good thing that there were other sources of information out there.

webmdave said...

Silly person! Don't let scientific fact stand in the way of dogma designed to maintain male dominance....  (and by that, I am referring to the small-minded, insecure individuals that wrap themselves in the cloak of religious self-righteousness)

And I wonder why more people don't follow a matriarchal line instead of a patriarchal?  The one question you never ask a pregnant woman is "Who's the baby's momma?"  I think that is why there was such an obsession with male dominance of women back then.  While everyone knew who the momma was,  they could never be absolutely sure who the father is.  Well, NOW we can what with all those fancy DNA tests and whatnot, but you know what I mean.  And further, biologically, when a pair is raising offspring, it is in the interest of both to be raising their own offspring, and not someone else's.  It does not serve the basic purpose of reproduction for a creature to spend its energy ensuring the survival of offspring that it does not have a genetic link with.  This is why male lions will kill all the cubs in a pride when it takes over.  It knows it did not sire them so it doesn't want them around.   Humans have enlightened self-interest, generally anyway, and do not have such issues with adopting children they are not biologically related to.  We can recognize the higher goal of survival of the species over that of a specific genetic line.  Still, I cannot think of any man who would be happy to suddenly learn that the child/ren that he had been raising for years were not his.  I know I would be pissed.And thanks, Positivist!  Welcome to the show.

webmdave said...

Very interresting article, thank you for posting it again! I do not have anything to add except to paraphrase Monty Python's Meaning of Life:
                 "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
......             If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate."

webmdave said...

[If you don't want pictures in your head, don't read this:]

Thats just damned creepy.  Shocking is a good word too.  Talk about something catching you broadsides.    Not something I ever expected to hear about.  Its right on up there with a gay Pope getting married in the Vatican to his partner of three years.

I went to the Christian Nympho site and while I approve of these women reclaiming their sexuality, its turned my stomach when they spoke of submitting their sexual drives to their husbands to keep it all good with God.  They are still slaves, tho they just have a longer leash.  "God told me to tell you to tie me down and tease me for half an hour before you ride me like a stolen camel, so you gotta do it or we will go to hell for not obeying him."The article on Book 22 is annoying.  They say that they "live our lives very openly in front of Jesus..." Well, no shit, Sherlock.  If God is everywhere then EVERYTHING you do is open in front of Jesus, including which hand you use before you get off the toilet.  And they "pray about things before adding them to the site."  ----Dear God, please tell us which vibrating dong we should purchase.  We were thinking purple because its a royal color and Jesus is King of Kings.  Oh and for the flavored lubricants, is grape and strawberry OK??  We know that you don't approve of oral sex but if it gets some dude hard so he can plow his wife and get her pregnant, we don't think you will mind.  In the Name of Jesus Christ.  Amen.----The site, My Beloved's Garden sells anal stimulators. Anal?? WTF?  I thought God didn't approve of anal, what with all those homophobic laws and all....  But maybe thats because dudes can't get other dudes pregnant and they are just wasting sperm, like Onan did, but anal is actually OK as long as its with a girl who will get pregnant?

What's the word? Ludicrous? Dumbfounding? Baffling?  Stunning?  Hypocritical?  Oxymoronic?

webmdave said...

I can see how Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene sounds plausible. All four of the confused gospel accounts of "the empty tomb" place MM on the scene. Jewish culture had strict taboos regarding both the handling of corpses, and physical contact between unmarried men and women. Yet the gospels show that MM felt comfortable with the prospect of "anointing" Jesus' naked corpse, which suggests that she already knew the territory, so to speak. 

webmdave said...

Yep, just amazing.  Hate the part where Biblegod is watching everything you do.  I won't even have photos of the relatives in my bedroom since it seems like it would be icky to have sex in front of Grandma and the nieces.  Yuck:(

Not having Biblegod watch your every sexual move is very liberating!

webmdave said...

How can god be a father without having sex?

webmdave said...

Wow! Discordia!

I Jesus ever existed he must be turning in his (empty) tomb!

Pun intended, I could not resist the temptation.

webmdave said...

"...which suggests that she already knew the territory, so to speak."

Very tactful.

webmdave said...

Sex is probably the easiest way to install guilt, especially when it's planted in children's minds.  Children have no vested interest in sex (yet) and probably still think the whole idea is gross anyway.  Therefore, why would they question when told it is bad.  They just accept the judgement and go back to their Xbox.  When their bodies begin to mature and the natural biological drive kicks-in, the previously accepted, general rule becomes an issue of personal shame.  Wouldn't it be much better to just tell kids the truth sooner, and include guidance regarding personal dignity, self-control, and respect for the same in others?

As for me, I think the best summation of human sexuality comes from the TV show Absolutely Fabulous...

"By the way, sweetie, people have-it-off."

webmdave said...

I've noticed some gaps in Jesus' healing ability. He could raise people from the dead*; restore sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf; cure leprosy; cast out "demons"; and restore mobility to cripples.

But could Jesus also restore people's bad or missing teeth; amputated limbs; or male sexual functioning, like the ability to have erections, ejaculate healthy sperm cells and father children?

By contrast, Jesus apparently did have the ability to treat gynecological problems, like the Rogue-like mutant woman with the chronic uterine bleeding who could draw "power" from Jesus and immediately cure herself just by touching his garment. 

*We have to assume that these people all died again, otherwise in 2011 we could find them alive somewhere on our planet like characters from Highlander.

webmdave said...

"He knew he would die, so to marry someone would have been cruel."

We all know we will die!

webmdave said...

if you gonna reply to a post ... it would be nice to have noticed that it was posted 1 year ago.

webmdave said...

"*We have to assume that these people all died again, otherwise in 2011
we could find them alive somewhere on our planet like characters from Highlander."

One would think that God would have kept them alive to serve as eyewitnesses, not to mention proof of miracles.

webmdave said...

I agree, Discordia! And don't even get me started on Judeo-Christian (in)fertility myths and sexual differentiation of the zygote. Mothers are blamed for barrenness and female offspring, and fathers praised for virility and sons. Both of these are based in ignorance and myth. I feel for the women who have labored (pun intended) under this misogynistic falsehood.

webmdave said...

Yum!  Misogyny: Anything that makes the male looks bad is the female's fault.

As if any woman would CHOOSE to bear a daughter even though she know she will be beheaded if she does not bear a son.  Its like a pick-up game, except they were just picking up rules as they went along.I feel for the real Men who have also lived under misogynistic falsehoods as well.  Imagine being a guy married to a woman who fully buys into the inferior woman thing.  How frustrating could it be for a man to be with someone who keeps HERSELF down even when the he is trying to pick her up?  I can see that becoming a vicious circle/self-fulfilling prophecy.  She believes she sucks and acts like she sucks so even when someone tries to help her she refuses the help.  Finally, the would-be helper gets tired of banging their head against a brick wall and quits, so TA-DAA! proof that she really does suck because no one wants anything to do with her.

webmdave said...

You know, there is a form of sexual fetish where someone gains pleasure from just WATCHING other people engage in sex.  Does that sound like any divine figures we are familiar with?

webmdave said...

Hey, I just call it like I see it....  and that god vs sex thing looks pretty f*cking stupid from where I am standing.

webmdave said...

Sounds very similar to what my mum went through by the ounds of it.

On a related note, am I alone in finding nuns really scary?

webmdave said...

Many people find them scarry, but not me. In fact I liked most of them. My best math teacher was a nun, she tried very hard to look scarry but in fact, she was fair and very efficient as a teacher.

webmdave said...

totally agree with you, but I found it also tremendously funny.

webmdave said...

Excuse the typo, I meant to write:

IF Jesus ever existed he must be turning in his (empty) tomb!

and this was in relation to the christian sex toys. too much funny imageries pop up to my mind, I can not share here.  Good laugh!

webmdave said...

That sheds a different light on the famous: " Oh god, oh god, oh god!"

webmdave said...

...and now the ushers will come forward to take up the offering.  Not only does the believer get screwed out of their time, energy, and money, they get in return unmitigated self doubt and loathing.  Whada deal.

webmdave said...

Ha! Ha! Ha!  You so made me laugh.  I am thinking "She did not say that.  Oh yes, she did:)" Ha! Ha! Hee! Hee!

webmdave said...

Well well well!!! Look who is getting sued now!  This is long-overdue...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36103589/ns/world_news-europe/t/vatican-defends-pope-kentucky-lawsuit/

webmdave said...

Many years ago, a sociology professor provided me with a flow chart for sexual relations, ca. 11th Century, when the Catholic church really clamped hard. One could not have sex on Feast Days, Fast Days, Sundays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and (I think) Saturdays; couples were required to be in the dark, wear their clothes, and clean up after. There were about 54 days left for sex in the average year. The sociology professor explained this as (A) the pope clamping down on chastity rules due to embarrassing clerical fatherhoods (B) population control at a time Western Europe was booming (C) social engineering by a class (the clergy) that deliberately shunned the sexual impulse among themselves. It's funny how these medievalisms survive in modern times.

webmdave said...

God can be a
father without having sex because He is God.  On the 6th day of creation
he created man, making him the Father.  I know it doesn't make sense to
us, because our minds can't comprehend all God's power.  However, if we
take God OUT of the equation, that makes much less sense.  You're telling
me everything here happened by chance...scientifically, do you know the
probability of that happening?  We all know, everything is made up
of proteins, which are made up of amino acids.  The likelihood of 1
amino acid forming out of chance is (1/20) raised to the 200th power ~ for
non-math people, that is1 divided by 20 times 20 200 times!  That’s
just 1 amino acid!  The typical protein
has between 200-300 amino acids… You are saying that it is harder to believe
God can use His power to become a father without having sex than it is to
believe that the simplest things on Earth formed with the odds they have?!  And once 1 protein formed it somehow mutated
better than what it was all by itself and pow! became a human?  Science is NOT Christianity’s enemy, but a
life partner helping to prove Christianity…if you don’t believe something in
this post, I charge you to look it up…your salvation is worth a 5 minute Google
search I promise!

webmdave said...

Karen,
 
So, if God can do anything because He is God; then He could choose to have never Existed :-)
 
Let’s not bias our imagination, it seems so limiting!
 
D8

webmdave said...

ANOTHER xtian here to bother us and threaten us with their hell.  Great. Just. Great.

(Like we never spent more than a "5 minute Google" with christinsanity!  Sheesh.)

webmdave said...

Karen:  "God can be a father without having sex because He is God."

Existential fallacy:  You have to prove your god exists before you start telling us what it can or cannot do.

"You're telling me everything here happened by chance..."

Actually, we are most certainly are *not* telling you that everything happened 'by chance.'

Matter is fairly predictable in its structure, and behaves in fairly consistent ways.  Subatomic particles become atoms; atoms aggregate into molecules; molecules aggregate into even larger molecules; and some of those molecules possess the ability to make clones of themselves, attracting more atoms to themselves in such a way that those atoms create another copy of the molecule.

"If you don’t believe something in this post, I charge you to look it up…your salvation is worth a 5 minute Google search I promise!"

No, it isn't worth it, Karen.  A god from whom one must be "saved" is simply not worth worshiping.

webmdave said...

The a posteriori probability of all this happening is, I believe, 1.0, because it HAS happened!

Science is certainly not christinsanity's enemy, however, christinsanity is mankind's.

webmdave said...

"The likelihood of 1 amino acid forming out of chance is (1/20) raised to the 200th power ~ fornon-math people, that is1 divided by 20 times 20 200 times!  That’s just 1 amino acid! [...] if you don’t believe something in this post, I charge you to look it up"

Okay.

"Abiotic synthesis of amino acids under hydrothermal conditions and the origin of life."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qx1362688894680q/

"Initial indications of abiotic formation of hydrocarbons in the Rainbow ultramafic hydrothermal system, Mid-Atlantic Ridge"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X01003971

"Amino acid detected in space"
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18059

Nope, amino acids seem to be fairly ubiqitous both on Earth and throughout the galaxy. Rather than being extremely unlikely as you suggest, they are readily created by natural processes. What you imagined was a miracle by (your) God, is - on checking - simple chemistry.

So I looked it up, as you suggested, and you are wrong, badly misinformed and pushing a fallacious argument. Thanks for the tip.

webmdave said...

Oh I know! The entire idea is just positively ludicrous.  Oh how the mighty have fallen...however, I understand there is a pill for that......

webmdave said...

Is that a trick question?  It's simple, really.  He goes into an ejaculatorium at the local sperm bank with some skin magazines and a fluid catcher thingy, spanks his monkey (no, I could not resist that--thanks Dave8) and BAM!!  Lots of daddy material is ready for the test tube!

webmdave said...

Are YOU saying that its easier to believe in a God who is so incompetent that he deliberately made humans to be flawed and then makes a Hell specifically to toss the flawed humans in because they are flawed just like he wanted them to be RATHER than just believing that life formed from ever-present amino acids and evolved over billions of years into all the forms we have around us right now?  You really prefer magic and wishes and fairy tales to reality? I bet you never run out of money, either, as long as you have checks in the checkbook, either, do you?

If you would bother to do a 5 minute search on The Impossible Voyage Of Noah's Ark you may learn how some of your "Christianity-proving" science pointedly shows that the idea of Noah's Ark is just a myth with absolutely no basis in real science.  Tell you what, I will post the link for you to save you some time so you can just start reading and, hopefully, learning.

http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

webmdave said...

I believe your analysis to be anachronistic.



Most of the technology you mention was unavailable in Judea under the Romans.


As far as I know, there is, as yet, no archaeological evidence that the Romans had invented and had access even to the turkey-baster!


;o)))))))))))))))))))

webmdave said...

...so that must make Jesus HIS son and HIS Grandson, and HIMSELF too. 

Thus neatly solving at least 66% of the mystery of the Trinity.

Collect you honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree later. You find it, handily perforated, and hanging close to a familiar piece of porcelain.

;o)))

webmdave said...

sorry, I'am not a science buff. your talk of protein and amino acids... are you talking about god'sperm?
He can come as much as he want.... hypothetically, but if god is spirit, as I think is a common belief amoungts christians, then he doesn't contain any amino acid and he lacks protein.... and the DNA necessary to cause the development of a boy.
 Being a spirit has its downfall, I guess.
Good luck with your fairy tales !

webmdave said...

Um...um... *boots old apologetic software* Well, if God is everywhere and in all places then God is in an alternate time line where he can get Captain Kirk to slingshot the Enterprise around the sun so he can go back in time with all the equipment necessary for artificial insemination and make it so. *apologetic software crashes*  But, then again, to quote Captain Kirk "What does God need with a starship?"

Yeah, God had to do it the old-fashioned way, just like Zeus did with Hercules and actually shag the old girl, NOT marry her and arrange for a step-father to take care of the baby.  At least he did that instead of leaving her alone.  But he knew his laws about stoning adulteresses so if she got stoned, his perfect plan would have been ruined.  And pity poor Joseph, too.  If God is a perfect as the christians claim to be, God had to be a hard act to follow.

webmdave said...

Ahhh...... well then, if it is modeled after God, then I can assume something about it.  Judging by God's insatiable need to have constant and eternal praise coupled with his most heinous ideas for torturing people who have never had a chance to hear his gospel, I must say that God is going to some extraordinary measures  to compensate for a lack somewhere.  And given what I have observed in the more phallic-oriented males of our species and given that God has already clearly established his obsession with penises, I can only assume that the "pecker dildo" in question comes with a 20x jewelers loupe so that one may actually be able to see said dildo.

Hung like a hamster, tongue like a rattlesnake?

webmdave said...

Why do we limit ourselves to just one partner, you ask? Because true love is choice - a choice to will the good of the other for their own sake. True love never uses another.  Having multiple sex partners is simply using another for your own sake. It's selfish, and only leades to problems.  We all know deep down when we're being used, and to have someone who claims to love us go out and express somehting very special and very personal with another outisde the bonds of a vow is wrong.  The body speaks a language, and that language is to make a sincere gift of oneself for the sake of the other, not merely for what we get out of it.

webmdave said...

Projectionists! Shake the complex, break the cycle. Good on you, thumbs up...