The case for sexual abstinance

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Slopeshoulder
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

The case for sexual abstinance

Post #1

Post by Slopeshoulder »

In another thread..
His Name Is John wrote: Sexual activity should be reserved until marriage (I can explain why if you so want).
I'd be curious to see that. I can't imagine why. Every argument I've seen for abstinance falls flat IMO. Joyfully, I've never been impressed by them. But bring it on...

Assuming consent exists, puberty is in the past, and laws are upheld...
What is the case for abstinance before, outside of, or between marriage(s)?
What is the case for abstinance for any reason at all?

User avatar
Tex
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1944
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:25 am
Location: canada

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #31

Post by Tex »

McCulloch wrote:Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.� But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.


Tex: Wow...You and Saint Paul seem the same.
(The reason I wrote this is because in the NT there is a chapter where Saint Paul said pretty mush the same thing. However, I know that he did take it from the NT and so the sarcasm :)
And anyone who reads this will also know.

User avatar
Slopeshoulder
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #32

Post by Slopeshoulder »

Tex wrote:
McCulloch wrote:Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.� But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.


Tex: Wow...You and Saint Paul seem the same.
(The reason I wrote this is because in the NT there is a chapter where Saint Paul said pretty mush the same thing. However, I know that he did take it from the NT and so the sarcasm :)
And anyone who reads this will also know.
Either way, why should we listen to it? It's one or two references in a list about another topic by a premodern dude with an agenda. And no exegesis, just literalisms. Where's the "case"? Why care? My arguments seem better than Paul's.

User avatar
Tex
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1944
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:25 am
Location: canada

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #33

Post by Tex »

Slopeshoulder wrote:
Tex wrote:
McCulloch wrote:Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.� But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.


Tex: Wow...You and Saint Paul seem the same.
(The reason I wrote this is because in the NT there is a chapter where Saint Paul said pretty mush the same thing. However, I know that he did take it from the NT and so the sarcasm :)
And anyone who reads this will also know.
Either way, why should we listen to it? It's one or two references in a list about another topic by a premodern dude with an agenda. And no exegesis, just literalisms. Where's the "case"? Why care? My arguments seem better than Paul's.
Which "agenda" are you talking about? The one where he was trying to get killed;or the one where he was serving God, or the one where he was getting rich from preaching?

Plus .....If I follow your argument are you saying that I will be in heaven when I die?

Yahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Atlanta

Post #34

Post by Yahu »

SilenceInMotion wrote: For someone who allegedly has all this education, your interpretation is shallow and conflicted beyond repair. You should just go back to the fundamental aspects of morals and rebuilt your theology.
I started out in a fundamental denomination when I was spiritually immature. I have learned and grown beyond that.

I once had a judgemental self-righteous Presbyterian pastor's daughter that attacked me over differences in doctrinal positions on sexual activity. She disliked the rape counseling I gave to her acquaintance. This is the prophetic word that came for her:

My precious daughter,
See them as I see them.
See them filtered through the blood.
See them for the glory they can achieve.
Weep! Weep for my lost children.
Weep as I weep for them.
Love them as I love them.
I didn't call you to be an accuser of your brethren.
I called you to love one another and draw them unto me by that love.


She repented and stopped attacking those that didn't live up to her standards. She even left her own father's fundamental denomination as a result because she finally realized just how evil the 'kingdom now' doctrine is. It was her justification to attack anyone that didn't measure up to her standards in an attempt to make the world more righteous. The problem was she was using the tactics of hell to try to force people to be more righteous and punishing those that didn't.

User avatar
dusk
Sage
Posts: 793
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:38 am
Location: Austria

Post #35

Post by dusk »

From oatmeal series "What they should have taught you in the last year of high school."
Image
Wie? ist der Mensch nur ein Fehlgriff Gottes? Oder Gott nur ein Fehlgriff des Menschen?
How is it? Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders?

- Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
PREEST
Scholar
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:51 am
Location: Incheon, South Korea

Post #36

Post by PREEST »

Felix wrote: Avoiding sexually transmitted diseases (some kill)

Avoiding unwanted pregnancy (kill, or have a big responsibility)

Avoiding emotional traumas (sometimes causing people to kill themselves)

Avoiding Hell (you're wagering our soul)

Strengthening the bond between you and your spouse, and potentially having a level of intimacy that is impossible for others to have.

I see a couple threads around here on Christopher Hitchens, who eventually died a slow and miserable death resulting from his futile effort to find happiness in the bottom of a bottle and a pack of cigarettes. Atheists insist they're happy, but their lifestyles don't show it. Sex provides only a moment of pleasure, and they don't even get as much sex as someone who respects the institution of marriage.
Yea, because all christians are fit and healthy right? Just like all atheists are fat, sick, alcoholics who are unhealthy? Christopher Hitchens found happiness in writing and passionately fought theocracy. The reason christopher hitchens made so many theists angry is that he made arguments they could not answer. I think they realised there was a lot of truth in what he said.

Why do christians demonize sex? In fact, all religions do. We are made to feel disgusted by our sexuality. Young pubescent boys are made to feel bad for having sexual thoughts. I.e thought crime. By their very nature they are sinful and disgusting and lustful beings, not developing young men discovering their sexuality for the first time...

When I was a christian I used to go to homegroup and I raised the question of masturbation (as I was a teenager) and if god thinks it's wrong. My home group leaders and peers all told me it fuels lust and that I should never do it. I felt horrible because I KNEW masturbating was not something I could stop doing. I was VERY sexually curious. I felt so guilty just because I was having sexual thoughts.

As to your implication that happiness comes from god (I talk of your example that Hitchens sought happiness in a bottle not in god). I can answer that with full conviction. I was a christian and struggled with all the big questions, with faith, with why god left us shoddy evidence for his existence, with why we were so judgemental of people, with the fear of going to hell, and so after I left the faith I had never felt so relieved and free. It was like a weight of my soldiers, I didn't feel controlled or bound. I could now have MY OWN opinions and convictions, not what was chosen for me or what was written in a 2000 year old book. I could think for myself. I am the happiness I have ever been now, I have a beautiful girlfriend and we have an amazing sexual relationship. Not one part of me thinks that what I am doing is wrong. I love her and she loves me.

Sex is beautiful, sex is wonderful and the sooner this religious induced stigma around sex is removed then we can never fully appreciated the amazing physical act of love.
You can't tell a loving adult couple that they must not have sex because they don't have a piece of paper that says they love each other.


What did the cavemen do? Get married and have sex?

User avatar
dusk
Sage
Posts: 793
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:38 am
Location: Austria

Post #37

Post by dusk »

Why do christians demonize sex? In fact, all religions do.
Not true. Some religions like some Indians are very cool with sex. The Greeks and early Romans had no problems.
All Abrahamic religions though have a fairly disturbed relationship with sex. It is a pathological.

There are some reasons for it.
They are all moot today though. The mental illness sits deep though.
Wie? ist der Mensch nur ein Fehlgriff Gottes? Oder Gott nur ein Fehlgriff des Menschen?
How is it? Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders?

- Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
PREEST
Scholar
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:51 am
Location: Incheon, South Korea

Post #38

Post by PREEST »

dusk wrote:
Why do christians demonize sex? In fact, all religions do.
Not true. Some religions like some Indians are very cool with sex. The Greeks and early Romans had no problems.
All Abrahamic religions though have a fairly disturbed relationship with sex. It is a pathological.

There are some reasons for it.
They are all moot today though. The mental illness sits deep though.
It used to really bother and disturb me that christians, mostly the one's I knew, cared about and even condemned what I did in the privacy of my own bedroom. The thought that because my girlfriend and I love each other and have a loving relationship in all aspects, including sexually, was sinful behaviour and that we were to feel ashamed or that we were dishonouring god was a huge part of my becoming disillusioned with christianity and religion. If you're a christian you're made to feel sex is only for reproduction. The way sex is demonized is horrible in the church. Now, I am guilt free and don't need worry about what other people think of me having sex.

The church condemns you for having sexual thoughts. They say that lust is sex in the mind and therefore sinful. I was told this all the time. I was told not to masturbate because it fuels lust. So what is a young teenager supposed to do? Somehow never think about sex, never relieve himself and only after he is a grown man and married will he see his own ejaculate for the first time? What about wet dreams...I asked this too my home group peers and leaders and they said 'that's different'.. It's all nonsense. christianity has a stigma around sex.
Last edited by PREEST on Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PREEST
Scholar
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:51 am
Location: Incheon, South Korea

Post #39

Post by PREEST »

PREEST wrote:
dusk wrote:
Why do christians demonize sex? In fact, all religions do.
Not true. Some religions like some Indians are very cool with sex. The Greeks and early Romans had no problems.
All Abrahamic religions though have a fairly disturbed relationship with sex. It is a pathological.

There are some reasons for it.
They are all moot today though. The mental illness sits deep though.
It used to really bother and disturb me that christians, mostly the one's I knew, cared about and even condemned what I did in the privacy of my own bedroom. The thought that because my girlfriend and I love each other and have a loving relationship in all aspects, including sexually, was sinful behaviour and that we were to feel ashamed or that we were dishonouring god was a huge part of my becoming disillusioned with christianity and religion. If you're a christian you're made to feel sex is only for reproduction. The way sex is demonized is horrible in the church. Now, I am guilt free and don't need worry about what other people think of me having sex.

The church condemns you for having sexual thoughts. They say that lust is sex in the mind and therefore sinful. I was told this all the time. I was told not to masturbate because it fuels lust. So what is a young teenager supposed to do? Somehow never think about sex, never relieve himself and only after he is a grown man and married will he see his own ejaculate for the first time? What about wet dreams...I asked this too my home group peers and leaders and they said 'that's different'.. It's all nonsense. christianity has a stigma around sex.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The case for sexual abstinance

Post #40

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 1 by Slopeshoulder]
What is the case for abstinance before, outside of, or between marriage(s)?
What is the case for abstinance for any reason at all?
This saddens me that a person really wouldn’t know this. First, to reduce sex to the rubbing together of the genitals is to seriously dismiss the reality of sex – and that is based on science. The ability to literally create new life – another human being is one of the natures of the sexual act. Not exactly “No big deal� In addition to that sociology shows the emotional and psychological significance of sex to the human person. Studies after studies show the difficulty (especially for women) is separating the physical from the emotional when it comes to sex. Research also shows increased happiness/satisfaction in loving committed sexual relationships. Then of course there is the emotional as well as physical health consequences regarding the increased number of sexual partners.

So, yeah . . . quite a few cases for abstinence. LOL!

Post Reply