Religion and Sexuality

[andrewgoogle]

There was a post by a woman who wanted to talk about religion and matters of sexuality. Sadly, she has since deleted her post. But I think it is a worthy topic for the Personals. People have so many hang-ups and feeling of guilt about their sexuality because of what they have been taught religiously. I think it is important to talk about the relationship between the two.

Now I don't want this thread to be just an anti-religious crusade. I hope that their are people of sincere faith who want to talk about their sexuality.

I am personally religious, though I haven't talked about it much on Lit. I studied theology in grad school.

So... anyone want to indulge in this topic? Post here or PM me. I'd love to talk to you.

Dru

 

[teacher78]

There was a post by a woman who wanted to talk about religion and matters of sexuality. Sadly, she has since deleted her post. But I think it is a worthy topic for the Personals. People have so many hang-ups and feeling of guilt about their sexuality because of what they have been taught religiously. I think it is important to talk about the relationship between the two.

Now I don't want this thread to be just an anti-religious crusade. I hope that their are people of sincere faith who want to talk about their sexuality.

I am personally religious, though I haven't talked about it much on Lit. I studied theology in grad school.

So... anyone want to indulge in this topic? Post here or PM me. I'd love to talk to you.

Dru

Well, I am a catholic christian and I had problems with my sexuality for years *also* because of that.
I mean, I don't go into anti-religious crusades, since I am STILL catholic christian, but being also a rational being I can assure that the way religion (at least my religion) sees sexual life is not right.

In the past years, I spoke about it wuth a Jesuist priest I know since long. He clearly explained me that a lot of tabooes were *inserted* into the society by the curch as measures against problems (eg: std plagues in the medieval), and that a lot of them are even NOT applied nowadays by missionaires when they approaches new cultures, where sex is lived - luckily - as a normal part of the life.

That said, I learn to think about my sexul life as something nice. There is no limit to it, at least in the sexual life I have with my wife.
As long as the person feels at ease with it, as long as the couple (if any) agress, there is NO boundary.

And no sin committed of course.

 

[jmarx20102012]

Not really into Religion but I find it sexy when a nude woman wears a crucifix between her breasts.

 

[teacher78]

Not really into Religion but I find it sexy when a nude woman wears a crucifix between her breasts.

Why sexy? I'd understood something like "I find it trasgressive"...but a crucifix is all but sexy, even between boobs :/
What am I missing?

Or where you masturbating in the infamous The Exorcist movie scene?

 

[TravellingWilly]

Why sexy? I'd understood something like "I find it trasgressive"...but a crucifix is all but sexy, even between boobs :/
What am I missing?

Or where you masturbating in the infamous The Exorcist movie scene?

That cross didn't go anywhere near her breasts too busy elsewhere freaking everyone out.

On topic, I am an aethist have been my whe life but don't shove it down peoples throats. I don't think looking at my life that it has affected me personally with regards sex and sexuality. Up bringing I think resonates more with regards sexuality especially parents, teachers etc. Who dress their own discomfort in the guise of religion.

I knew a girl from a very religious background we never dated but were close friends, she was homosexual which she had a hard time understanding as she went to church every sunday and surely being gay was punishment for something in her eyes. Took her into her early twenties before she finally confronted it and told everyone, she is still devout still.goes to church and is alot happier.

 

[TexasWild]

Thanks Andrewgoogle for starting this thread.

I think it would be great to have a conversation about sex and religion. I know coming from a Methodist/Baptist background, I always had struggles with the beliefs that I have been taught vs. the sexual wants, desires, experiences etc… that have occurred in my life

I would also hate for this thread to become an anti-religious bashing but it would be interesting and helpful for other people of faith to understand that they are not alone in trying to balance out their sexuality and spirituality.

Hopefully on this thread, people of faith can feel free to give their heart felt opinions on these important elements in their lives.

 

[teacher78]

That cross didn't go anywhere near her breasts too busy elsewhere freaking everyone out.

On topic, I am an aethist have been my whe life but don't shove it down peoples throats. I don't think looking at my life that it has affected me personally with regards sex and sexuality. Up bringing I think resonates more with regards sexuality especially parents, teachers etc. Who dress their own discomfort in the guise of religion.

I knew a girl from a very religious background we never dated but were close friends, she was homosexual which she had a hard time understanding as she went to church every sunday and surely being gay was punishment for something in her eyes. Took her into her early twenties before she finally confronted it and told everyone, she is still devout still.goes to church and is alot happier.

I don't actually think athat being Atheist can be thought of "religion". The topic should be about "Ethics and Sexuality" then but...it is not, right?

But you are right about the girl. That is one of those things that religions often are too close about.
Even being christian, I'm sure there is nothing bad about sexuality and nothign bad about being homosexual either...I am SURE that God (for those who belives) is happier if you live a nice and happy life, then if you live through it thinking about committing non-existant sins...

 

[desiresmore]

I have an interest in this topic, so I'd love to chime in. I come from a Christian protestant background. It seems to me that most people think of Christians in general as anti-sex and anti-freedom, etc. But from my understanding it seems the God of the Bible is actually quite pro-sex. There are just a few constraints in place to protect people from abuse and to make provision for those would be hurt by abusers. For example, polygamy is not condemned, in fact I've found references that show God himself saying that he would have given someone more wives and concubines had he desired it.

There are some other aspects to it as well but I don't want to sound preachy. Some things are considered wrong because sex without some kind of commitment and protections in place can *note has potential for* risk and damage to other people. So I don't really see religion (at least as far as traditional un-modified Christianity) as being a negative thing, it actually can offer quite a bit of security, freedom and safety to fully explore your sexual potential without risk.

 

[teacher78]

I have an interest in this topic, so I'd love to chime in. I come from a Christian protestant background. It seems to me that most people think of Christians in general as anti-sex and anti-freedom, etc. But from my understanding it seems the God of the Bible is actually quite pro-sex. There are just a few constraints in place to protect people from abuse and to make provision for those would be hurt by abusers. For example, polygamy is not condemned, in fact I've found references that show God himself saying that he would have given someone more wives and concubines had he desired it.

There are some other aspects to it as well but I don't want to sound preachy. Some things are considered wrong because sex without some kind of commitment and protections in place can *note has potential for* risk and damage to other people. So I don't really see religion (at least as far as traditional un-modified Christianity) as being a negative thing, it actually can offer quite a bit of security, freedom and safety to fully explore your sexual potential without risk.

Just, if you are starting from the bible, you are at least 2000 years behind, you lose most of your credibility. Or you are trying to say that the talion law is still something we should think of?

Ah...I know a religion where they adore penis and vaginas...I suppose they are not against sex too.

 

[LadyVer]

I think everyone would be happier if religion was kept out of sex as well as politics. just saying.

 

[sereneone4u]

Thanks Andrewgoogle for starting this thread.

I think it would be great to have a conversation about sex and religion. I know coming from a Methodist/Baptist background, I always had struggles with the beliefs that I have been taught vs. the sexual wants, desires, experiences etc… that have occurred in my life

I would also hate for this thread to become an anti-religious bashing but it would be interesting and helpful for other people of faith to understand that they are not alone in trying to balance out their sexuality and spirituality.

Hopefully on this thread, people of faith can feel free to give their heart felt opinions on these important elements in their lives.

I agree, TW.

 

[sereneone4u]

I don't actually think athat being Atheist can be thought of "religion". The topic should be about "Ethics and Sexuality" then but...it is not, right?

But you are right about the girl. That is one of those things that religions often are too close about.
Even being christian, I'm sure there is nothing bad about sexuality and nothign bad about being homosexual either...I am SURE that God (for those who belives) is happier if you live a nice and happy life, then if you live through it thinking about committing non-existant sins...

You are sure?

So God specifically told you that hey as long as you are happy and nice, He is totally cool with whatever you want to do...but what if your happy and nice infringes on someone elses' happy and nice.

Sins exist and He names them. People just focus on certain ones that they don't like while thinking the sins they commit are okay.

I believe that Christianity has a healthy pro-sex view or are suppose to, but people being the evil shits that they are twist it and make it something ugly....and you know that Satan guy.

 

[andrewgoogle]

Many Thanks!

I want to express my thanks to all who have contributed to this thread thus far. It is meant to be an open and frank discussion of "Religion and Sexuality." For those who are not of a religious bent, I encourage you to start a thread that would better meet your needs - like "Ethics and Sexuality," for example.

Let me share some of my own background. Some friends with whom I have PMed or emailed will find this familiar territory. I grew up in the South. My family was United Methodist, and we belonged to a very moderate church, theologically. My difficulties with sexuality are rooted in the cultural fundamentalism that surrounded me in my hometown - and in the persons of other members of my family, many of whom were strict Baptists - and more likely to be fundamentalists.

I grew up learning that masturbation was wrong, and a sin. Sex itself was not a beautiful act of love, but a means of procreation in marriage. Fantasies were bad and to be resisted because they led to lust.

Now, I still masturbated. My girlfriend and I made out (no intercourse). I got my hands on Playboys and Penthouse and had plenty of fantasies. But the sad thing was, I felt that I was sinning in doing these things at the time. So I had a lot of guilt for my indulgences.

I am now 52, and it has taken me many years to realize that I had no reason to feel guilty, and that sexuality is part and parcel of what it means to be created in God's image. That God intended for sex to be a gift and blessing.

I'm quite sure I am not alone in this journey. I hope others of you will share your journeys too. I'll share more later.

Dru

 

[mainegirl]

catholic

I'm catholic...just not a very good one

 

[andrewgoogle]

A Special Request and Invitation

I would like to especially invite church_girl82, a new member of the Lit community, to join in the discussion or to PM me. It was her thread that led to this one. Just want her to know that she's not alone and that this can be a place to discuss faith and sexuality.

Dru

 

[andrewgoogle]

I'm catholic...just not a very good one

Mainegirl, what do you mean by that? Just wondering...

 

[JasonDaniel]

There are no simple answers

To determine whether something is or is not a sin, (not just sex, but anything), a person first has to make some personal decisions. First being: Do humans have an immortal soul? And Secondly, Does this soul extend or exist beyond the point of death?

If man does not have an immortal soul that extends beyond the grave, then whether or not God exists, we cannot be judged or punished by God, and we are bound only by man's law. And if we no immortal soul, (and we are bound only by man's law and not subject to God's judgment), then nothing is a sin as long as we don't get caught.

However, if you believe man has an immortal soul, and at some point, we will be judged by God, (and perhaps punished), then it becomes a different story. If you do believe we have an immortal soul that extends beyond the grave, then a person has to decide what is God's law and what is church or canon law. And they are not always the same thing. To determine what is canon law and what is God's law, we have to look to the origin of the bible as we know it today. If you look only to the clergy for what is right and what is wrong, you have no way to know what is God's law and what is man's law; you only have the word of the clergy. The only place God's word, (or law), is found is in the bible.

The bible, (in the form we have today), was first compiled during the 4th century AD, (after 306 AD), by what is now the Catholic church. When Constantine became emperor of Rome in 306 AD, he granted legal status to the Christian religion, and the Christian church was formed. Before the Christian church was granted legal status in Rome during the 4th century AD, the Christian belief/church was fragmented; based on various teaching of the Apostles. Before this time, there was no uniform Christian doctrine or bible. During the 4th century AD, the newly formed church compiled the bible we have today from existing religious texts.

Why is it important to know this?

Because, when the Christian bible was compiled by the church in the 4th century AD, there was as much left out of the bible as was included. And to make it more confusing, canon law, (church doctrine governing the activities of its followers), was written into the bible by man and not God. To understand whether or not there is sin in any activity or thought, a person has to search through the bible and base their belief on what is believed to be God's actual word or law.

The point to this too lengthy post is to bring us to this passage: Hebrews 13:4 - "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

This passage comes from the King James Bible (Cambridge Ed. translated between 1604 and 1611 AD). The king James version of Christian bible is one of the oldest and most accurate translations of the 1st Christina bible, the Codex Vaticanus, which still resides in the Vatican in Rome. We can be reasonable certain this is an accurate record of God's actual word or law.

This passage does not say: Let marriage be honorable in all": it says "marriage *is* honorable in all." It also says: "and the bed undefiled." This can be interpreted to mean: What a man and wife does in bed, (or sexually), is without sin; however, if the couple is not married, the same act would be sin. This seems to say: what is sin for one person, may not be sin for another.

But then we have to determine: "what is marriage?" When determining what is sin and what is not sin, marriage is in the eyes of God, not necessarily in the eyes of church law or the law of man.

With that said: what about a threesome? A male/female/male, or a female/male/female? Three people cannot be in a marriage!

Not necessarily. In Genesis 4:19 - It says: " And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of the other Zillah." Also according to the bible, Abraham had 3 wives. Again, what may be sin in one context, may not be sin in another.

What about the most taboo of all: Incest?

Both church law and the law of man will condemn you to hell for incest, but what about in the eyes of God?

In Genesis 19:31 thru 36 -
31 - And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 - Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 - And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34 - And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 - And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 - Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Even drunk, I'm pretty sure Lot knew he was screwing somebody, and the only women around was his daughters.

But was it sin?

When God destroyed Sodom, (of Sodom and Gomorrah), God sent angels to lead Lot and his family from the city. God gave Lot a commandment: Neither Lot nor any of his family could look back at the city of Sodom as they left. When leaving, Lot's wife broke this commandment, and looked back at the city; for breaking this one commandment, God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. In other words, for this single sin, Lot's wife paid with her life.

God was not forgiving of Lot or his family, and if there had been sin in the act of incest between Lot and his daughters, God would have certainly punished them. But there is no record of either Lot or his daughters being punished.

Sex, sin and religion? Only the individual can determine that based on the law of God. If we do have an immortal soul, and if there is a God who will judge us, there will be no canon law to blame , nor clergy will stand up and suffer our punishment. It is God's law that each of us be responsible for our decisions in life. Perhaps the greatest sin of all is not taking responsibility for our own decisions.

A thought to keep in mind: When deciding whether or not something is a sin, if we do have an immortal soul, we're going to be in Hell a lot longer than we are on earth.

 

[desiresmore]

JasonDaniel, I appreciate your comments but that is not an accurate description of sin or the Bible. I have seen such stories propogated by atheist advocacy websites and some public figures, but that is not an accurate historical representation of how the Bible came to be. I don't have to post more about this right now, nor do I really want to get into a huge debate, but just wanted to throw that out there. This is a common misrepresentation that is easily refuted with just a little study.

 

[andrewgoogle]

JasonDaniel, I appreciate your comments but that is not an accurate description of sin or the Bible. I have seen such stories propogated by atheist advocacy websites and some public figures, but that is not an accurate historical representation of how the Bible came to be. I don't have to post more about this right now, nor do I really want to get into a huge debate, but just wanted to throw that out there. This is a common misrepresentation that is easily refuted with just a little study.

Agreed.

 

[iaag1234]

I find it funny that the "word of god" is always spoken by a man (or woman)
a god did not write the bible, it was written by mankind. That is it that is all. It is a set rules, regulations and laws to govern other people, for the betterment of those that wrote it (rulers and the heads of the churches) Not for mankind, just for them.

If you can't tell, I am against organized religion. And if there is a soul in this body, well, I'll deal with a god on my terms. I won't be going anywhere bad. I treat people the way I want to be treated, and that folks is the best law.

I have seen so many people be trampled by what the churches say the bibles said. Represive to say the least, and mostly, interpreted to be against sex, and passion.

It really is too bad. I'm glad I am free of a "cross to bear"

Churches are there for themselves, it is all about money.

 

[JasonDaniel]

Sources

JasonDaniel, I appreciate your comments but that is not an accurate description of sin or the Bible. I have seen such stories propogated by atheist advocacy websites and some public figures, but that is not an accurate historical representation of how the Bible came to be. I don't have to post more about this right now, nor do I really want to get into a huge debate, but just wanted to throw that out there. This is a common misrepresentation that is easily refuted with just a little study.

The sources of my opinion of how the current Christian bible came to be are based on these books/codices.

Vetus Latina - a collective name given to the Biblical texts in Latin that were translated before St Jerome's Vulgate Bible (382-405 AD).

Vulgate - a late 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible. It was largely the work of St. Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of the old Latin translations.

Codex Vaticanus - Dated from 325 - 350 AD, is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Greek Bible (Old and New Testament), one of the four great uncial codices.

Codex Sinaiticus - (330 - 360 AD) Discovered in the Sinai in 1844, and only partially translated, appears to be a copy of the Codex Vaticanus

I'm not sure we can post links here, but if you want to check my sources, go to Wikipedia and type in the names of these codices. Wikipedia has general information regarding these manuscripts.

When I have a question regarding Christian beliefs, I usually refer to the King James version, (Translated in 1611 AD). If there is some concern as to the accuracy of the passage, I try to compare it to either the Codex Vaticanus or the Codex Sinaiticus, both of which are available online. And no, I do not read ancient Greek or Latin, I have to refer to the English translation of these books.

I do not use translations like the New International Version (NIV - 1973 - 1978). I have found later translations of the Christian bible to be inaccurate.

When I refer to books/manuscripts being omitted for the Christian bible, I am referring to the Gnostic texts. The Gnostic texts are relevant because they contain information about the early Christian beliefs. There are more recently discovered books of Judas and Mary, which were also omitted from early Christian bibles. Who has the divine authority to say these manuscripts are not relevent to understanding Christian beleifs. Some preacher or college professor?

You cannot truly understand the Christian religion, (or any religion), if you do not consider all of the information available. This thread is about what is sin and what is not when it comes to sex, and in my opinion, whether or not a particular act is sin depends more on the context of the act, than on the act its self. If a person wants to know what is right and wrong, (in the Christian sense), he or she has to look to the teachings of the bible. If you ask a clergyman what is right and wrong, all you get is the opinion of someone who may not know any more about it that yourself.

You asked for my sources for the origin of the Christian bible, and these are my sources. You say: " This is a common misrepresentation that is easily refuted with just a little study", I would really like to see your sources. And don't give me modern retranslations like the NIV, or Joseph Smith's evaporating golden plates.

As for my beliefs, I am not an atheist, I am a Christian, but I do not take the word of the current church without question. Where my own immortal soul is concerned, (if it exists), and if I am to be judged by God, (if God exists), I will be judged on my own decisions life: not those of a church which has more concern for their own bank account than for my immortal soul.