Is sex really the greatest threat to Christianity?

[tugofwarstrum]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/removingth ... istianity/

So my understanding of sex within the compounds of Christianity is it is a very red hot nuke button, but to be the greatest threat I'm not sure of. I would argue that reason is more dangerous because with reason homophobia, racism, sexism, heck even the bible goes out the window. I say this because with sex being a red hot nuke button reason goes out the window as soon as it get's brought up. So my question for you is this, what do you think is the greatest threat to Christianity?

I want to quickly say fear mongering, debunking whether the christian god exists, or trying to edge someone into doing any of the previous is not the goal nor will I tolerate it.

[Wootah]

Neither? We don't have road rules because we care about driving. We have them because care about people's safety without undue burden on drivers or pedestrians. I certainly would not come to the conclusion that the government is pro-drivers from looking at road rules.

Oh great so we agree - substitute road rules for sex rules. It's about concern for people without undue burden.

Only agree up to a point. It is undue burden on unmarried couples and same sex couples. Undue burden would be something like practice safe sex, or have one sexual partner at a time.

So practicing safe driving is an undue burden?

The undue burden is yours. By asking people to give up on their self worth by asking them to not expect monogamy. By trying to define people by their biology, by convincing people that shameful things are OK they end up walking around feeling ashamed or worse feeling brazen and so they prove they are OK by sleeping around with more people. By having a litany of broken relationships serving as evidence of their lack of worth, by having them seek love in random encounters and substitute sex for love.

Honestly the fastest road to wealth is marriage for the majority of us. It provides a strong framework for mental health and encouragement - it puts one person solidly in your corner that you can trust and talk to.

Safe sex is so off the scales better for you. The sex is better, doing life with someone is better - I just don't think it should be underestimated.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 21 by Wootah]

Sorry for wasting your time. I made a mistake. I meant Reasonable burden would be something like practice safe sex, or have one sexual partner at a time. Undue burden would be sex only after marriage, or sex between opposite sex only.

Still, something you said stood out:

By asking people to give up on their self worth by asking them to not expect monogamy.

Why are you worth any less if your partner have other partners?

by convincing people that shameful things are OK they end up walking around feeling ashamed or worse feeling brazen and so they prove they are OK by sleeping around with more people.

Why is sleeping around shameful? Have you considered that it's acceptable? Isn't convincing people that normal things are shameful the real reason people end up walking around feeling ashamed?

[JehovahsWitness]

Why is sleeping around shameful? Have you considered that it's acceptable? Isn't convincing people that normal things are shameful the real reason people end up walking around feeling ashamed?

Why are you judging people for what they want to do with their bodies? If someone doesn't want to have sex with multiple partners because they feel it would be degrading why are you devaluing those ones based on their moral choices?

I suppose you think that those that value monogamy are somehow "less" than those that don't. Are you suggesting that those that don't want multiple partners are "wrong" in their life choice?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 22 by Bust Nak]

I think it's just economics. How much is something worth if everyone can have it versus if only 1 person can?

If I can get a coffee anywhere then the price of coffee goes down.

And in terms of economics how much should a person invest in another person who sleeps around? If I was going into business with someone how much could I trust them if they could start more businesses with other people on the side? Nearly all employment contracts have clauses to not do business on the side. Why would sex be any different?

As for the shame it's tied to all the above. Who wants to be worth less or who wants to be known as untrustworthy or worse trusted to cheat ?

[Bust Nak]

Why are you judging people for what they want to do with their bodies?

Loaded questions cannot be answered. The premise that I am judging people for what they want to do with their bodies, is false.

If someone doesn't want to have sex with multiple partners because they feel it would be degrading why are you devaluing those ones based on their moral choices?

Loaded questions cannot be answered. The premise that I am devaluing those who feel it is degrading to have multiple partners, is false.

I suppose you think that those that value monogamy are somehow "less" than those that don't.

No, whatever gave you that idea?

Are you suggesting that those that don't want multiple partners are "wrong" in their life choice?

No I am suggesting no such thing. Your entire post is a strawman fallacy. What I am suggesting is don't judge others based on them having multiple partners, somehow you read that as do judge others based on them having a single partner.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 24 by Wootah]

What you said is the direct result of treating sex as something sacred to begin with, i.e. the thing I was asking you to reconsider in the first place. The appeal to economics value disappears if sex is view as a casual entertainment. I wouldn't feel betrayed if my friends visit the cinema with someone else, nor would I feel less valued when they want to brining other friends along.

[JehovahsWitness]

My bad, I understood that you thought that it was somehow wrong for someone chose not to have multiple partners.


JW

[JLB32168]

So we are still left with the 20 centuries of Christianity demonizing all sexual activity that was not for procreation only.

Oh please! What a complete distortion of Christian ideas regarding sex and it certainly doesn’t apply to all Christian confessions.

The most stark example being Lev 21:18, which states that if a man and woman have sex during her menstruation (when procreation is not possible), they are to be cast out.

And why is Christian teaching and the NT never cited when trying to make claims about what Christianity teaches?