Highly Religious Couples have a better Sex Life, survey finds.

[ecofarm]

Possibly. Our culture pushes a myth that the more modern, urbane, secular lifestyle features more regular and more rewarding sex

Religious fanatics claim that. They claim the reason people engage in "modern lifestyles" is because the sex. They must think gay sex is the best thing since sliced bread. They're convinced it's so awesome, anyone could be lured into sensual sin.

Make no mistake. Fundies place pleasure at odds with God. And they believe that pleasure is to be found outside the church.

 

[CLAX1911]

Fair enough. That was pretty devious, I admit.



:shrug: I was using the terms interchangeably in the portion you responded to.



With broad strokes, sure - that's part of the moral teachings of any religion.

My point exactly. Arbitrary morality.

That, however, doesn't extend to "lie when pollsters ask you about how satisfied you are with your sex life", and I would be very much interested in whether or not you have any evidence that any religious community out there does



and whether you have any evidence whatsoever that this unique exogenous factor which, apparently, is not available to those who only sometimes attend religious services, is available to those attend them regularly, and in such quantities that it would dramatically shift a poll across multiple nations with a less than 1% Margin of Error and 99% confidence for a populace the size of the current living human species.


buuuut, I'm betting you don't have any.

I don't believe I made the claim that people lie to pollsters when they ask I believe my claim was they lie to themselves.

I don't feel responsible for providing evidence for claims I didn't make so I'm not going to.

People certainly have psychological feedback loops, sure. And so, if we teach ourselves to be happy where we are, and then are happier where we are than people who don't, I'd say we are happier where we are than they are .

Rose colored glasses.

No one at all has said "Get Lost". Quite the opposite - we are saying "Get Found". Get Saved. Get Rescued from being Lost.

if your church excommunicates or removes people from membership at absolutely does say "get lost.". You can tell yourself otherwise that's what I'm talking about when I say you're lying to yourself.

There isn't any love there without conditions. the more you insist that there is the more naive I think you are.

As I (dimly) recall, you used to belong to a Church. I'm guessing at some point your actively homosexual lifestyle ran afoul of their doctrine, and they didn't budge?

as I recall I ran afoul with you. And a whole host of other Christians on this board the tried to talk past me I don't doubt you're ready to do it again. So I'd like to steer the conversation away from that.

I am not sure I'd call "decision to disparage or try to undercut the reported quality of sexual lives of people who disapproved of me sexually" is wisdom. That sounds more like pain.

again I didn't say that they were actively engaging in subterfuge I said they lying to themselves.

There are wrong people to marry, certainly, but I suspect there is no "The Right" person to marry. Whoever you marry, focus on serving them instead of serving yourself, and you'll find the vast majority of times, that they are one of the Right ones .

this is fantastic advice and I agree with it, not sure what religion has to do with that.

Indeed it is. In particular, it's about the fact that we appear to be fairly average, given our religiosity.

It seems that married couples not only have sex more often, religious couples (which will be disproportionately married couples) are more happier with the sex they are having.

To wit I must ask, who are you trying to convince?

Cults do. As I pointed out to you earlier, attachment to a religion tends to have the opposite effect, and religious people are happier than the non-religious (and, apparently, much happier than cult members).

Cult members are religious people. Seems your pollsters didn't ask them.

Ah. So you actually don't know or have any supporting data, but are confident in your assessment that there must be a grand, international, conspiracy of hundreds of millions of people to give results you didn't like when polled.

Well, fair enough.

Still with that strawman huh?

I said they lie to themselves I've repeated that multiple times. No I don't have any proof that people lie to themselves, maybe I'm just wrong. It seems you have it figured out, so rest comfortably with your charts and statistics, l will continue being skeptical of such claims.

 

[SheWolf]

Bragging? Uh, it's the internet - who cares?

The point I would make here is that the popular culture seems to have sexuality pretty much backwards. Traditional views are more compatible with human happiness and flourishing.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I don't know what you consider popular culture. I have a feeling that people's attitudes towards sex is changing, but religious views towards sex are still short sighted. For example, most religious material I read suggests that once married, no such thing as a unwanted pregnancy could result. It goes back to old fashion thinking, that a unmarried, pregnant women is shameful.

As I said, I think the traditional religious attitude is that sex is dirty, a sin, and shameful. I believe views are progressing for the most part.

 

[cpwill]

I don't know what you consider popular culture. I have a feeling that people's attitudes towards sex is changing, but religious views towards sex are still short sighted. For example, most religious material I read suggests that once married, no such thing as a unwanted pregnancy could result.

I've read quite a lot of religious material, including a good bit on marriage, and I don't think I've ever seen any that claimed pregnancy only occurred when expected or desired after marriage.

It goes back to old fashion thinking, that a unmarried, pregnant women is shameful.

Well, in Christianity, at least, it is (assuming no rape, or anything like that); for her and the fella involved. Sex is only supposed to occur within marriage. I've felt that shame myself - my wife and I weren't married yet when we first got pregnant. I wouldn't trade my son for anything, but that doesn't mean it was right of us to do what we did.

The Christian response to that is Grace, and Christians fund, stock, support, volunteer at, and run umpteen pregnancy centers intended to show that Grace, but that doesn't mean that sex isn't supposed to occur within marriage any more than it means that Christians don't screw that up as well.

As I said, I think the traditional religious attitude is that sex is dirty, a sin, and shameful.

And, coming from that community, I think, respectfully, that you are working from a (false) stereotype (part of the popular culture I reference) rather than what that community actually thinks and says.



Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[uptower]

Yeah, lights out, under the covers, top half still on, get it over with.

The fact they do it more often doesn't make it 'better'.

 

[SheWolf]

I've read quite a lot of religious material, including a good bit on marriage, and I don't think I've ever seen any that claimed pregnancy only occurred when expected or desired after marriage.

I have read a lot of religious material from many faiths and denominations, and I can assure you, I have seen many materials address unplanned pregnancy only within the context of having sex outside of marriage. I agree that unmarried people often experience unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, but many faiths, like the Catholic faith or that Quiverfull stuff, they don't know how to compute that. I know a lot of Catholics who have tons and tons of kids, because the Catholic Church is against most forms of birth control.

Well, in Christianity, at least, it is (assuming no rape, or anything like that); for her and the fella involved. Sex is only supposed to occur within marriage. I've felt that shame myself - my wife and I weren't married yet when we first got pregnant. I wouldn't trade my son for anything, but that doesn't mean it was right of us to do what we did.

The Christian response to that is Grace, and Christians fund, stock, support, volunteer at, and run umpteen pregnancy centers intended to show that Grace, but that doesn't mean that sex isn't supposed to occur within marriage any more than it means that Christians don't screw that up as well.

I don't understand Grace in this sense. Pregnancy Centers are about stopping abortions. You had sex outside of marriage. You say you experienced shame, but you did not have an abortion. You apparently knew you wanted to have children, and you also married the girl you impregnated. I don't logically understand how you argue that your mistakes can be transferred into Grace by preventing abortions.

And, coming from that community, I think, respectfully, that you are working from a (false) stereotype (part of the popular culture I reference) rather than what that community actually thinks and says.

I really don't think it is a false stereotype. It's easy to observe it in human history and historical attitudes towards sex and even masturbation. I have been to Italy and have seen the convents where nuns, monks, and popes trained and focused on religious study. They had huge murals on their bedroom walls of demons and satan reminding them that temptation led to hell. They took vows of chastity.

In my honest opinion, your attitude towards sex could be a newer, modern attitude... that sex within marriage is not sin... but there is still a logical hurdle for me, because I heard Christians say that all children are created in sin (sex) and therefore born in sin, and sin is the nature of people, and it goes back to Adam and Eve consuming sin.

 

[SheWolf]

Yeah, lights out, under the covers, top half still on, get it over with.

The fact they do it more often doesn't make it 'better'.

Although the Bible does not mention sexual positions, from the 6th to 16th centuries, some Church authorities taught that intercourse should be face-to-face, man-on-top, primarily because they believed that semen flows with gravity, leading to conception.[9] Exceptions were made for couples dealing with illness, obesity, or pregnancy. According to John Bancroft's Human Sexuality and Its Problems, Thomas Aquinas believed that crimes against nature included intercourse in "unnatural" ways. Protestants did not communicate proper sex positions, and the Catholic Church eventually abandoned its discourse on the topic.[68] Simon Hardy wrote that the missionary position was used to distinguish "bestial and civilized sex."[69]
Missionary position - Wikipedia

There has been actual religious texts written on how to have sex in a "civilized way" :2razz:

 

[cpwill]

I have read a lot of religious material from many faiths and denominations, and I can assure you, I have seen many materials address unplanned pregnancy only within the context of having sex outside of marriage.

Ah. Then I think you are confusing discussion of one thing with the refusal to accept the reality of another thing. I would say that unexpected pregnancy within a marriage is much less of an issue, because the child is already inside the best possible form of care for it (a two-parent household where both parents are biological), and therefore certainly less of an issue. Additionally, children are supposed to be born within marriage (which is not the same as saying that marriage is a failure unless it produces a child, lest again you take the argument for the negative from the argument for the positive).

I agree that unmarried people often experience unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, but many faiths, like the Catholic faith or that Quiverfull stuff, they don't know how to compute that.

:shrug: I know plenty of Catholics (and Mormons. And Protestants) who have a bunch of kids, some of whom were unplanned. My brother and his wife just had their fourth - I think two of them were conceived on birth control; that's pretty much the definition of a pregnancy that wasn't intended.

I don't understand Grace in this sense. Pregnancy Centers are about stopping abortions

Pregnancy Centers are about serving vulnerable young mothers who feel they have little where else to turn and their children. Saving babies who might otherwise have been killed is certainly a major motivation, but it's hardly the only thing going on there.

You had sex outside of marriage. You say you experienced shame, but you did not have an abortion.

Correct. We were both ashamed, and our child was not responsible for it. Killing him because we were embarrassed that we hadn't exercised self-control would have been totally unjustified and evil.

You apparently knew you wanted to have children

Quite the contrary - I most definitely did not want to have a child at that point in my life, and I wasn't planning on getting married that quickly, either. Then Life happened, and it's a wonderful life . He's an amazing kid, and (though we started hard and rocky) our marriage is a deep, rich, blessing and source of pride, and grace, and strength.

I don't logically understand how you argue that your mistakes can be transferred into Grace by preventing abortions.

Because you're chopping off the first half of what I said. My (then) girlfriend and I had sex outside of marriage, which was wrong. I was in Iraq and the people at the pregnancy center showed my (then) girlfriend grace and love and care. It wasn't about stopping her from aborting (she was never going to do that); it was about giving her the love and care she needed.

I really don't think it is a false stereotype.

:shrug: I live, learn, and teach in the community you are trying to describe, and yes, it is.

have been to Italy and have seen the convents where nuns, monks, and popes trained and focused on religious study. They had huge murals on their bedroom walls of demons and satan reminding them that temptation led to hell. They took vows of chastity.

Temptation can lead to hell. Vows of Chastity are part of one way of consecrating your life to serving Christ. That is not the same as being against sex - just a couple of paragraphs ago you were talking about how Catholics had so many kids.

In my honest opinion, your attitude towards sex could be a newer, modern attitude... that sex within marriage is not sin...

It has never been a sin - that's how Jesus described marriage, as the physical union between a man and a woman where they become one.

but there is still a logical hurdle for me, because I heard Christians say that all children are created in sin (sex) and therefore born in sin....

AH. That's the problem. Well, that's an easy fix - that's not what Christians believe at all, nor is it ever what they have believed

The doctrine you are referring to is the doctrine of Original Sin - that there is none of us who are naturally perfect, that all of us have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, and were sinners from our birth. That sinful nature is something that is inherent to the human race - it isn't part of the sexual production of new humans at all (babies fertilized through the invitrio, for example, aren't free from original sin, even if both their parents remain virgins). It has nothing to do with sex whatsoever, except, of course, that lust - like greed, like hatred, and all the rest - is often a way in which that sin nature expresses itself.

 

[Lursa]

Looking at the graph in the OP it could just mean religious people expect much less from sex :shrug:

I was kinda thinking the same thing. If they just stick to the basics, good ol' missionary position and no oral for instance, and dont do alot more...they may not even know what they're missing! Some women may not even know what a true orgasm is and based on some Biblical attitudes, the men wouldnt care if she did or not.

 

[Lursa]

A man at risk of losing half his stuff, possibly alimony and his kids is going to respond "My sex life is perfect in every way!" if his wife is within earshot.

Why is it all his stuff? Doesnt half seem fair?

If she gets the kids...dont they need somewhere decent to live? Arent the kids's needs most important? Of course, I support the man having joint custody too.

 

[MMA_Influenced]

This it the problem with polls/surveys. You can prove anything you want. For instance what constitutes "better". That is totally subjective as to what you believe is a "better" sex life. If what you like is salacious hot sex, the highly religious are highly unlikely to deliver. If you are looking for a monogamous sexual relationship without any kinks then that is where you would look.

My opinion of a better sex life and someone else could be totally different. This survey determines for itself what is best and then tries to find it.

 

[SheWolf]

Ah. Then I think you are confusing discussion of one thing with the refusal to accept the reality of another thing. I would say that unexpected pregnancy within a marriage is much less of an issue, because the child is already inside the best possible form of care for it (a two-parent household where both parents are biological), and therefore certainly less of an issue. Additionally, children are supposed to be born within marriage (which is not the same as saying that marriage is a failure unless it produces a child, lest again you take the argument for the negative from the argument for the positive).

First of all, don't try to control my reality. I can have my own thoughts and opinions, and everything you're saying, is most likely influenced by your Christian theology and pro life values. It's not a matter of reality vs denying reality. Married people are living in all different sorts of realities, have different marriages, have different issues, some marriages are even abusive, some women have health issues, etc. And on top of that, some people find divorce as acceptable, and others do not.

Everything you're saying, is first and foremost, a product of your religion, and not everybody's reality.

Pregnancy Centers are about serving vulnerable young mothers who feel they have little where else to turn and their children. Saving babies who might otherwise have been killed is certainly a major motivation, but it's hardly the only thing going on there.

Preventing murder would be the first and foremost concern, and most CPCs are fine with spreading unfounded health myths like abortion causes breast cancer, but they do it for the sake of trying to save a life.

Correct. We were both ashamed, and our child was not responsible for it. Killing him because we were embarrassed that we hadn't exercised self-control would have been totally unjustified and evil.

Do you realize how hyperbolic and crazy a statement like this sounds to a person like me?

First of all, your posts are proving my point... that most Christians talk like being a marriage is a solution to abortion.

But in my version of reality, suggesting that murdering your son to cover up the fact you had sex outside of marriage is... unthinkable... unreasonable... I mean... who would even think about having an abortion to cover up some kind of shame for having sex?

That's a horrible reason to have an abortion, or even entertain the idea.

Christian pro lifers always use the most hyperbolic and emotional language when it comes to abortion. The Muslim and Jewish people I know, don't call abortion murder like this. We still think it's wrong, and abortion does end a life, but once you start making accusations of murder, you just sound emotional and unreasonable. It's really hard to take such rhetoric seriously.

 

[SheWolf]

Quite the contrary - I most definitely did not want to have a child at that point in my life, and I wasn't planning on getting married that quickly, either. Then Life happened, and it's a wonderful life . He's an amazing kid, and (though we started hard and rocky) our marriage is a deep, rich, blessing and source of pride, and grace, and strength.

Most teenagers know if they want to have kids at some point in their life, and I think you probably knew you wanted and were willing to be a good parent. If you were not going to accept being a father at any point in your life, you would have taken other actions IMO.

:shrug: I live, learn, and teach in the community you are trying to describe, and yes, it is.

You only speak for your own community. There are other Christian communities, and I don't believe I am spreading a false stereotype.

Temptation can lead to hell. Vows of Chastity are part of one way of consecrating your life to serving Christ. That is not the same as being against sex - just a couple of paragraphs ago you were talking about how Catholics had so many kids.

There is a difference between being a member of the Catholic clergy and a member of the Catholic church. Only one group traditionally takes a vow of chastity.

I don't think I ever said that Christians are against sex, as in, they are against having it. I think most Christians think it's necessary to procreate within marriage, but Christianity has a history and teachings that try to judge sex and even sexual positions during sex as civil, uncivil, acceptable, perverted, etc. or desiring sex as lust or temptation. American Christians still have dated views on masturbation and viewing porn IMO.

I think masturbation is normal... :shrug:

It has never been a sin - that's how Jesus described marriage, as the physical union between a man and a woman where they become one.

It's part of the human's sinful nature, and it's linked to lust, temptation, and other vices. I understand there are different schools of thought. There are reformed Christians and others, but I feel the very old fashion Orthodox and Catholics believed it was mostly for procreation, and therefore, sterilization is forbidden.

The doctrine you are referring to is the doctrine of Original Sin - that there is none of us who are naturally perfect, that all of us have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, and were sinners from our birth. That sinful nature is something that is inherent to the human race - it isn't part of the sexual production of new humans at all (babies fertilized through the invitrio, for example, aren't free from original sin, even if both their parents remain virgins). It has nothing to do with sex whatsoever, except, of course, that lust - like greed, like hatred, and all the rest - is often a way in which that sin nature expresses itself.

I am referring to many different doctrines including teachings of Thomas Acquaints. You saying that sex for procreation has nothing to do with the sinful nature of humans, that's just your opinion, because I have been told otherwise. Adam and Eve were naked and not even looking at each other sexually until the fall. You also keep failing to admit that sex is discussed in the context of sin and shame, and if you have sex outside of marriage, you're weak and irresponsible... you fell to lust and temptation. If you masturbate or watch porn, you have also committed a sin. Once your married, temptation and lust doesn't end.

 

[cpwill]

First of all, don't try to control my reality.

That's because there is no "your reality". There is Reality. We can try to understand and describe it, but it isn't determined by us - it exists independently of us.

I can have my own thoughts and opinions, and everything you're saying, is most likely influenced by your Christian theology and pro life values.

Well, yes. That, after all, was sort of the point - you were trying to claim that a certain viewpoint was that of Christianity's, when it was not. That it is best for a child to be raised by two, biological, married parents, however, is pretty thoroughly established by social science.

None of this:

It's not a matter of reality vs denying reality. Married people are living in all different sorts of realities, have different marriages, have different issues, some marriages are even abusive, some women have health issues, etc. And on top of that, some people find divorce as acceptable, and others do not.

Everything you're saying, is first and foremost, a product of your religion, and not everybody's reality.

however, even addresses, much less answers the point that the claim that Christianity views sex as inherently sinful (it certainly can be done sinfully, as can many things that are not inherently sinful) is incorrect.

Preventing murder would be the first and foremost concern

Certainly - as it should be. You may be comforting someone who is dealing with a personal crises, but if you look up and see a child drowning in a pond, you will rush to help them before returning.

Do you realize how hyperbolic and crazy a statement like this sounds to a person like me?

You seem to agree with it, actually:

suggesting that murdering your son to cover up the fact you had sex outside of marriage is... unthinkable... unreasonable... I mean... who would even think about having an abortion to cover up some kind of shame for having sex?

That's a horrible reason to have an abortion, or even entertain the idea.

I wholeheartedly agree.

First of all, your posts are proving my point... that most Christians talk like being a marriage is a solution to abortion.

There is no "solution to abortion" any more than there is a "solution to rape" or a "solution to jealousy-killings". It's not as though single women need to kill their children and married women don't, any more than it is true that poor men need to kill their parents and rich men don't.

Christian pro lifers always use the most hyperbolic and emotional language when it comes to abortion.

No, we accurately describe what is going on, and, that upsets people, because it's easier to abuse the rights of others when you dehumanize them first ("Africans are less evolved N-----s" "Jews are a Parasites" "Chinese are Logs" "Babies are Fetuses") and then use clinical language to describe and remove yourself emotionally from the process of what's being done ("Final Solution" "Peculiar Institution" "Dilation and Extraction" "Cleansing"). It's harder and more upsetting to come face to face (even verbally) with it. I would say emotions are about evenly spread out amongst all sides. Hyperbole, though, Hyperbole I would definitely give to the side that claims that ending infanticide is literally a dystopia where women are forced to become sex slaves to a small class of aristocratic men in a theocracy that has replaced self-government in the United States.

The Muslim and Jewish people

I care a bit about what the Jewish people think when it comes to whether or not we should respect the life of others, but, generally, I care precisely nothing about what Islam thinks. I've visited too many Muslim countries for that. That Christianity is better than Islam when it comes to defending the rights of the most vulnerable of

once you start making accusations of murder, you just sound emotional and unreasonable.

No, I am being accurate. It is emotionally upsetting to others because I am forcing them to deal with that point blank.

It's really hard to take such rhetoric seriously.

No, it's simply emotionally easier to dismiss and not deal with that point head on.​

 

[cpwill]

Most teenagers know if they want to have kids at some point in their life, and I think you probably knew you wanted and were willing to be a good parent. If you were not going to accept being a father at any point in your life, you would have taken other actions IMO.

I most definitely did not want to be a parent at that point. I was unequipped emotionally, financially, or in terms of my ability to be physically present. My actions were simply short-sighted, and came with the risk that I could become a parent nonetheless. I did, and I'm actually very joyful that it did, because my son is an amazing human being, and I love being his dad.

But as to the idea that I secretly wanted my then-girlfriend to get pregnant..... no.

You only speak for your own community. There are other Christian communities, and I don't believe I am spreading a false stereotype.

I've lived in several Christian communities, across the United States and overseas. I've also studied the historical theology of the church in the West (couldn't tell you much, honestly, about the Eastern Orthodox post-split), and you are wrong. Mainstream Christianity does not teach that sex is inherently sinful.

There is a difference between being a member of the Catholic clergy and a member of the Catholic church. Only one group traditionally takes a vow of chastity.

Sure, in order to devote themselves fully to serving Christ's church, instead of being distracted by the needs of taking care of a family. It's not the Protestant path, and it wasn't the Catholic past for a majority of Church History (It was decreed in 1139, and the decision itself was driven not by a fear of sex, but rather in response to priests setting themselves up as aristocracies, complete with inheritance of posts in the Church). If an Anglican priest is married and crosses over into the Catholic Church, he stays married.

I don't think I ever said that Christians are against sex, as in, they are against having it.

You described the idea that sex within marriage is not sinful as a new, modern attitude among Christians, that traditional Christianity thought sex as inherently sinful, and thought that the Doctrine of Original Sin derived from sexuality's inherent sinfulness.


So.... if you don't think that, then, respectfully you did a very, very, poor job of getting that across, because that sounded exactly like what you were saying.

American Christians still have dated views on masturbation and viewing porn IMO.

It's not that American Christians do. It's that Jesus did:

Matt 5:28: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I think masturbation is normal... :shrug:

I agree, it is normal. I would not even say it is necessarily inherently sinful - though it can easily become so, and often is.

It's part of the human's sinful nature, and it's linked to lust, temptation, and other vices.

It is certainly linked to them, which is not the same as it being wholly of them.

 

[cpwill]

I am referring to many different doctrines including teachings of Thomas Acquaints.

No, the idea that all people are born into a state of sin is called the Doctrine of Original Sin. That's why I hyperlinked it for you. (I think you meant "Aquinas") You believed that the Christian argument was that this state of sin was passed on via the sexual intercourse of the parents, but that is not Christian teaching.

As for Thomas, if you will read him, you will see that he, too, believed that there was both sinful and non-sinful ways to have sex (Adultery, bad. Sex within marriage, good.)

You saying that sex for procreation has nothing to do with the sinful nature of humans, that's just your opinion, because I have been told otherwise.

Fascinating. :roll: We can make up doctrine, ignore two thousand years of Church History, and ascribe a view to the Christian community that it doesn't hold.... because you either misunderstood what someone was telling you, or they told you something that was incorrect.

Adam and Eve were naked and not even looking at each other sexually until the fall.

On the contrary - God ordered them to procreate in Genesis 1:28. Sexual reproduction is described as something God-given in Genesus 4:1.

And, again, you can carry that line all the way through to Jesus, who described marriage in terms interwoven with sexual union:

Matthew 19: 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason? 4 Haven't you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

And, it's worth re-pointing out that Jesus doesn't describe this order as emanating from "Now, because you people are a bunch of awful sinners, this is how it had to change from the beginning", but rather places the origin of that sexual union in marriage in the beginning.

You also keep failing to admit that sex is discussed in the context of sin and shame, and if you have sex outside of marriage, you're weak and irresponsible... you fell to lust and temptation.

On the contrary - I haven't failed to admit that having sex outside of marriage was a result of being weak and responsible - indeed, I've discussed it openly and been open about my own failures.

If you masturbate or watch porn, you have also committed a sin. Once your married, temptation and lust doesn't end.

If you are married, then watching porn is indeed probably wrong - it certainly seems to violate the "looking at another woman with lust in your heart", and porn is a pretty ugly industry. That doesn't carry over completely to masturbation, which does not have to include looking at other women with lust. You are certainly correct, however, that our sinful natures are not magically cured by marriage - though the urges that we sometimes satisfy with them have a healthy and Godly outlet.

 

[SheWolf]

That's because there is no "your reality". There is Reality. We can try to understand and describe it, but it isn't determined by us - it exists independently of us.

There are people who try to control reality for others. It's very common in brainwashing and cults, and it's part of manipulation and personality disorders. There is also perception, and your Christian perception plays a huge role in how you're trying to define reality in this discussion. You are trying to define reality by asserting what is and isn't reality, and what is truth and can't be debate. You do it a second time in this response. You're actually trying to assert your perception as reality.

Well, yes. That, after all, was sort of the point - you were trying to claim that a certain viewpoint was that of Christianity's, when it was not. That it is best for a child to be raised by two, biological, married parents, however, is pretty thoroughly established by social science.

Here you go. No such thing is established by social science that I know of. This is most likely your Christian philosophy talking. I can recall studies showing parents who adopt kids can have a healthy relationships and family dynamics, and relations with an adopted child can be no different than with a biological child

snip.

Every sexual encounter may not be a sin. If you're doing it in only missionary, Acquinas says you are civil and not perverted. You also apparently shouldn't masturbate yourself during the act, or watch porn. However, the state of human sexuality is part of the sinful nature of humans

You seem to agree with it, actually

No, actually, you entertained the idea of having an abortion to hide the shame of having sex. I wouldn't be surprised if people from extremely religious communities did short for those reason, and it's warped. That's why people like Bristol Palin attack themselves for getting pregnant. It's probably also a lot easier to talk about her first sexual encounter like it was rape in some kind of passive, it's not a big deal attitude.

No, we accurately describe what is going on

.

This is an emotional argument. Abortion isn't murder until it's murder, and murder is a criminal charge. That means for abortion to be murder, it has to indeed be murder, and females who abort should be charged and treated as so. There is a huge logical disconnect in the Christian community concerning this issue. You all had the word enotionally, but seem to be divided when it comes to logically following through with it.

and,

I try to not demonize anybody, including the unborn. The problem is pro lifers can get carried away demonizing women, and saying they deserve to die for trying to murder their baby.

But it's not hardwired in the prolife. I can t help but notice this forums pro lifers are the ones demonizing people at the boarder. Calling them invaders, criminals, funded by Soro. Even Trumps admin has a horrible record. One guy went to the detention camps, and said when he looked into the eyes of those kids all he saw were future MS13 gang members. And when anybody dies at the boarder, it's there fault. When a sick child dies in a U.S.center, they blame the parent. Trump has planned a huge role in demonizing peope, and they all support.

Another thing I have read, is a lot of soldiers demonize groups they are at war with. Studies say, it makes it easier to kill them. It makes it easier to see them as enemies, deserving harm. Have you taken the labor to really look into yourself, and question if you have done that yourself ? Because I can't help but notice you your attitude towards all Mus!ims, and you brought it back from a war zone.

care a bit about what the Jewish people think when it comes to whether or not we should respect the life of others, but, generally, I care precisely nothing about what Islam thinks. I've visited too many Muslim countries for that. That Christianity is better than Islam when it comes to defending the rights of the most vulnerable of

As you probably realize, what I said is true. The three religions don't approve of abortion, but only your religion is super militant about it. You guys are so inflammatory with the rhetoric, and it's not going to lead to anything great legally. A woman in Alabama is charged for fetal death, because she got shot. I am fully aware of the facts of the story, but the emotional urgency of the movement and lack legal analysis deserves be called out.

What Muslim countries have you been too, and Why do you judge all Muslims world wide for what you saw in war zones run by dictator? There are many "civilized" Muslims in America and other countries.

 

[SheWolf]

I most definitely did not want to be a parent at that point. I was unequipped emotionally, financially, or in terms of my ability to be physically present. My actions were simply short-sighted, and came with the risk that I could become a parent nonetheless. I did, and I'm actually very joyful that it did, because my son is an amazing human being, and I love being his dad.

Saying you did not want to be a parent is different from saying that you didn't feel ready. I went to school with Christian kids, and they were getting pregnant very young, and getting married. To me, it looked like they were just getting married, because they got a person pregnant. You're saying, you didn't want to be a parent, but you also married.

If you really didn't want to be a parent, you made a huge commitment to be a father and husband. And since you say, you like being a father, I kind of doubt it was a shoot gun wedding, where you did it, just because everybody was pressuring you. I have seen males in the position, and you can tell; they don't want to be there; they don't care about the wife or kids. It's all in the attitude.

You made the choice to be a father and a husband, because you wanted to. Maybe it wasn't easy, but I think you ultimately wanted it to work and wanted to do it.

But as to the idea that I secretly wanted my then-girlfriend to get pregnant..... no.

When did I say that? You just wanted to have premarital sex, and if you didn't get her pregnant, you could have ended up marrying a different person. That's what I think.

I've lived in several Christian communities, across the United States and overseas. I've also studied the historical theology of the church in the West (couldn't tell you much, honestly, about the Eastern Orthodox post-split), and you are wrong. Mainstream Christianity does not teach that sex is inherently sinful.

I have lived in a lot of different places and countries too. Again, I am not claiming all sex is inherently sinful. I am claiming that sex is inherently part of the human's sinful nature, and many churches have stated so and have taught followers sexual ethics. Is your position that "anything goes because it's my wife?"

Sure, in order to devote themselves fully to serving Christ's church, instead of being distracted by the needs of taking care of a family. It's not the Protestant path, and it wasn't the Catholic past for a majority of Church History (It was decreed in 1139, and the decision itself was driven not by a fear of sex, but rather in response to priests setting themselves up as aristocracies, complete with inheritance of posts in the Church). If an Anglican priest is married and crosses over into the Catholic Church, he stays married.

And like I said, sexual desire or even desire to masturbate was treated like a ultimate sin where they trained. And you don't think that the Catholics or Orthodox didn't look up to such leaders, because they are considered so pious and righteous. Did Jesus himself have sexual relations? Did Jesus sin? It's taught that he did not. It's taught for followers to try to pious and upright, and it's a struggle, because it's against your nature. The apostle Peter was even celibate for a long time.

It's not that American Christians do. It's that Jesus did:

so Jesus says it's adultery to masturbate?

I agree, it is normal. I would not even say it is necessarily inherently sinful - though it can easily become so, and often is.

Well, you say it's not necessarily a sin, but based on what... because there is debate about this in Christianity. Do you acknowledge that?

This Roman Catholic Theologian says:
Christian spouses may not use any type of unnatural sexual acts in their marriage, neither oral sex, nor anal sex, nor manual sex, nor the use of sexual devices ("sex toys"). All these things are unnatural, and contrary to the will of God expressed in Sacred Scripture, properly understood.
What Does the Bible Say about Oral Sex?

 

[SheWolf]

No, the idea that all people are born into a state of sin is called the Doctrine of Original Sin. That's why I hyperlinked it for you. (I think you meant "Aquinas") You believed that the Christian argument was that this state of sin was passed on via the sexual intercourse of the parents, but that is not Christian teaching.

I never said that the state of sin is passed to children through sexual intercourse of the parents. The sinful nature of humans is passed down from Adam and Eve.

As for Thomas, if you will read him, you will see that he, too, believed that there was both sinful and non-sinful ways to have sex (Adultery, bad. Sex within marriage, good.)

No, it wasn't as simple as sex within marriage was all good. That's not the history of religious teachings either. Thomas Aquinas didn't say, "anything and everything goes, because you're married." I have already posted many of his teachings, and a lot of it had to do with positions and being civil, not uncivil and perverted.

Fascinating. :roll: We can make up doctrine, ignore two thousand years of Church History, and ascribe a view to the Christian community that it doesn't hold.... because you either misunderstood what someone was telling you, or they told you something that was incorrect.

You're the one ignoring thousands of years of debate, and taking my words out of context... :shrug:

On the contrary - God ordered them to procreate in Genesis 1:28. Sexual reproduction is described as something God-given in Genesus 4:1.

Procreating is not a sin. I have never heard that procreating is a sin. I know there is split in where some groups think the purpose of sex is procreation, and it should never been done for joy or pleasure. A lot of catholics I know, they believe in super strict teachings on birth control. They don't use birth control at all. At most, the women may use a basal monitor to try to predict when they are ovulating and least likely to get pregnant. Their attitude towards sex is, just do it, and whatever happens, happens.

I never said procreation was a sin. The sexual nature of Adam and Eve changed, because of the Fall. They knew they were naked, and felt lust and shame. God also cursed Eve to have labor pains as part of procreation, but no where has procreation and continuing the human species ever been taught as a sin.

And, again, you can carry that line all the way through to Jesus, who described marriage in terms interwoven with sexual union:

No doubt, all Christians teach marriage is important, but Jesus didn't say, "now that you're married, anything goes."

And, it's worth re-pointing out that Jesus doesn't describe this order as emanating from "Now, because you people are a bunch of awful sinners, this is how it had to change from the beginning", but rather places the origin of that sexual union in marriage in the beginning.

This doesn't address my actual position...

On the contrary - I haven't failed to admit that having sex outside of marriage was a result of being weak and responsible - indeed, I've discussed it openly and been open about my own failures.

If your kids have sex outside of marriage, are you going to be ashamed of them? Chances are, they most likely will, right?

If you are married, then watching porn is indeed probably wrong - it certainly seems to violate the "looking at another woman with lust in your heart", and porn is a pretty ugly industry. That doesn't carry over completely to masturbation, which does not have to include looking at other women with lust. You are certainly correct, however, that our sinful natures are not magically cured by marriage - though the urges that we sometimes satisfy with them have a healthy and Godly outlet.

I feel like these are your personal opinions, and there is some kind of denial where you can't admit that religious leaders and official teachings have said, masturbation is a sin. Lust and desire is a sin, and that's what masturbation is. Perhaps you could say, the church once taught it, but you don't agree with it.... :shrug:.. but there are religious leaders who say, it is sinful and even a form of fornication to masturbate yourself during sex with your wife. It's also wrong to ejaculate anywhere but inside the vagina, and that especially goes for the Catholics and Orthodox who believe birth control is wrong, and we should not prevent God's will of procreation.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

this comes from lack of communication and being afraid that their partner might not like or be freaked out.

guys are only as freaky as our women allow us to be.
it is important that women communicate what they would like and
not be afraid about what their guy might think.

Women are only as freaky as guys allow them to be.
And...if and when you ever learn just how freaky a woman can be, it might scare the crap out of many of you.
Personally, having "the crap scared out of me" by a woman's freakiness is a very good thing.
It's enjoyable.

No, not especially religious over here.

 

[RAMOSS]

Women are only as freaky as guys allow them to be.
And...if and when you ever learn just how freaky a woman can be, it might scare the crap out of many of you.
Personally, having "the crap scared out of me" by a woman's freakiness is a very good thing.
It's enjoyable.

No, not especially religious over here.

It's also amazing how often you find just how religious a woman is. I have heard 'Oh Jesus oh Jesus Oh Jesus' more than once.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It's also amazing how often you find just how religious a woman is. I have heard 'Oh Jesus oh Jesus Oh Jesus' more than once.

"And Lord, I'd like to thank for that waitress in South Bend. You know who she is, she kept calling your name."

All I can say is, when I hear that "deeply religious couples have a better sex life" I think of a guy saying "Of course we have a better sex life, don't we dear?", whereupon the wife dutifully answers, "Why yes dear, whatever you say."

Yeah, right...like she's going to contradict. Deeply religious wives SUBMIT to their husbands, which means they don't have a say. So of course the husband speaks for both of them.

That said, it is true that some of the deeply religious are huge horn-dogs. Joseph Smith made up an entirely brand new religion based on his wet dream of having endless celestial sex with multiple wives.

 

[cpwill]

There are people who try to control reality for others… and your Christian perception plays a huge role in how you're trying to define reality in this discussion… You're actually trying to assert your perception as reality.

On the contrary - my perceptions have proven incorrect on many things throughout my life.

However, what we were discussing here was specifically the Christian worldview, particularly it's approach to sexuality. So to respond with "but you're responding by describing the Christian worldview" isn't exactly much of a criticism, but rather a backhanded way of saying I was correct in outlining the general Christian worldview, but then complaining about the topic.

That it is best for a child to be raised by two, biological, married parents, however, is pretty thoroughly established by social science.

Here you go. No such thing is established by social science that I know of.

Ah. Well. Let's delve into it.

It turns out that three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being.

The Left-leaning Brookings Institute and Princeton College note that reams of social science and medical research convincingly show that children who are raised by their married, biological parents enjoy better physical, cognitive, and emotional outcomes, on average, than children who are raised in other circumstances, and helpfully suggest that:

For recent comprehensive reviews of this research, see Paul Amato, “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation,” Future of Children 15, no. 2 (2005): 75–96; Susan Brown, “Marriage and Child Well-Being: Research and Policy Perspectives,” Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (2010): 1059–77, doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00750.x; Sara McLanahan, Laura Tach and Daniel Schneider, “The Causal Effects of Father Absence,” Annual Review of Sociology 39 (2013): 399–427, doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145704; David Ribar, “What Do Social Scientists Know about the Benefits of Marriage? A Review of Quantitative Methodologies” (George Washington University, 2003); Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New York: Broadway Books, 2000); Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American Values, 2011).​

Etc., so on, and so forth. Children children who lived with their own married parents ive longer, healthier lives both physically and psychologically, do better in school, are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, are less likely to live in poverty, are less likely to be in trouble with the law, are less likely to drink or do drugs, are less likely to be violent or sexually active, are less likely to be victims of sexual or physical violence, and are more likely to have a successful marriage when they are older.

Per your earlier question about unplanned pregnancy and marriage, it's also worth noting that the (again, left-leaning, certainly not Conservative Christian in orientation) Brookings Institute found that not only are women in marriages less likely to have unplanned pregnancies, marriages also provide a more stable platform for child-rearing than cohabitation or other relationship models.

This is most likely your Christian philosophy talking.

:shrug: I would say that, as it was God who designed humans, we shouldn't be surprised that He knows best how they should live. That being said, the social science reflects that Christian teaching is, in this case, dead accurate.

 

[cpwill]

Every sexual encounter may not be a sin.

Contra your earlier claims about the Christian approach to sexuality, no one is saying that it is.

If you're doing it in only missionary, Acquinas says you are civil and not perverted. You also apparently shouldn't masturbate yourself during the act, or watch porn. However, the state of human sexuality is part of the sinful nature of humans

Yes, the command from Jesus is not to look at other women with lust and commit adultery in your heart, any more than you should commit adultery with your body. Yes, people sin sexually. No, that doesn't mean that all sex is inherently sinful in Christian doctrine.

No, actually, you entertained the idea of having an abortion to hide the shame of having sex.

No, my point was that doing so would have been horrendous, atrocious, and murderous. You agreed it would have been a horrific thing to do. We didn't consider doing it then.

That's why people like Bristol Palin attack themselves for getting pregnant.

:shrug: if she says it was wrong for her to have sex outside marriage, then she is only accurately reflecting Christian teaching. I suppose she's "attacking herself" there as much as I am, but the admission that one is a sinner is sort of Step One in Christianity.

This is an emotional argument. Abortion isn't murder until it's murder, and murder is a criminal charge.

Ah. You mean is it legally murder? No, it is not, any more than destroying someone's property by killing off a slave for the fun of it might have been in the early 19th Century. Both remain murder nonetheless. The Law =/= Reality.

That means for abortion to be murder, it has to indeed be murder, and females who abort should be charged and treated as so. There is a huge logical disconnect in the Christian community concerning this issue. You all had the word enotionally, but seem to be divided when it comes to logically following through with it.

Actually we are pretty consistent that the murdering agent here is the individual performing the actual abortion.

I try to not demonize anybody, including the unborn.

You are misreading me. I did not say that people demonize the unborn (though there may be a bit of that going on as people attempt to build justifications), but de-humanize them.

Another thing I have read, is a lot of soldiers demonize groups they are at war with. Studies say, it makes it easier to kill them.

That is absolutely true. Dehumanizing people is immensely helpful in getting through the psychological impacts of killing them, both in war and outside of it.

Have you taken the labor to really look into yourself, and question if you have done that yourself ? Because I can't help but notice your attitude towards all Mus!ims, and you brought it back from a war zone.

I have, actually, and you would be correct if you were to say that it's a not-uncommon attitude to bring back from a warzone. I'm fortunate in that some of the best Marines I served with were Muslims, and so this was less of an issue from the get-go for us, even before reconsideration.

You guys are so inflammatory with the rhetoric, and it's not going to lead to anything great legally… A woman in Alabama is charged for fetal death, because she got shot. I am fully aware of the facts of the story, but the emotional urgency of the movement and lack legal analysis deserves be called out.

I like how you did that.

[deliberately inflammatory and misleading description of the events]
[statement that one is aware of the actual order of events that produced that charge]
[accusation that the other side is acting emotionally]

She isn't being charged because she got shot and her baby died. She is being charged because she assaulted another woman, continued to do so when the other woman attempted to retreat, and the violence that she instigated resulted in the death of a child.

However, again, if your argument is "Christianity is more willing to face up to brutality in this world and stand in defending the vulnerable from abuse by the strong than Islam or Judaism", well... I will accept the accusation happily.

 

[cpwill]

Saying you did not want to be a parent is different from saying that you didn't feel ready. I went to school with Christian kids, and they were getting pregnant very young, and getting married. To me, it looked like they were just getting married, because they got a person pregnant. You're saying, you didn't want to be a parent, but you also married.

If you really didn't want to be a parent, you made a huge commitment to be a father and husband. And since you say, you like being a father, I kind of doubt it was a shoot gun wedding, where you did it, just because everybody was pressuring you. I have seen males in the position, and you can tell; they don't want to be there; they don't care about the wife or kids. It's all in the attitude.

You made the choice to be a father and a husband, because you wanted to. Maybe it wasn't easy, but I think you ultimately wanted it to work and wanted to do it.

I wouldn’t say other’s pressured me into it – I did it, because it was the right thing to do. It was right to give my son married parents, it was right to give my pregnant girlfriend a husband, and it was right to accept the responsibilities to both that I had placed on myself with my decision to engage in sexual intercourse.

You are correct that it was a huge commitment; that, however, didn’t alter what the right thing to do was. Did I want to get married and become a father? Nope. I wanted that day to be off a bit. But my own decisions led me to where I found myself, and I couldn’t exactly blame anyone else.

And, again, I’m incredibly blessed to have done so. My family is a rich source of joy for me, my life is a thousand times better, my community is better because of my marriage, and the world is better with my son in it.

But as to the idea that I secretly wanted my then-girlfriend to get pregnant..... no.

When did I say that?

That seemed the apparent implication of your statement. If you instead meant something else, I apologize for the misunderstanding, and please outline what you intended to be saying.

I have lived in a lot of different places and countries too. Again, I am not claiming all sex is inherently sinful.

I am not stating that you are claiming this. I am claiming that when you accuse Christianity of having held or taught that position, you are incorrect.

Is your position that "anything goes because it's my wife?"

That depends on what you mean by “anything goes”. If, for example, my wife wanted to bring a third person into the bedroom, that would still be adultery, and wrong. If you are referring to positions, etc., however, then yes, Sex within marriage is designed to be an outlet for the natural desire placed in us by God.

And like I said, sexual desire or even desire to masturbate was treated like a ultimate sin where they trained.

That does not address my point at all. As I pointed out and described to you, the later requirement for new monks of vows of Chastity were not due to the opinion of the Church that sex was inherently sinful, and the Catholic Church (or, any other mainline branch of the Christian Church) does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that sexuality is inherently sinful. The idea that the physical and sexual is inherently sinful, in fact, would have been part of some of the early heresies that the Catholic Church worked to stamp out.

Did Jesus himself have sexual relations? Did Jesus sin? It's taught that he did not.

Jesus also did not play the guitar. That does not compel Christianity to argue that guitar-playing is inherently sinful.

so Jesus says it's adultery to masturbate?

No. Jesus said that to look on another woman with lust in your eye was to commit adultery in your heart.

I think you are conflating the physical act of masturbation with watching porn, or fantasizing about other people.

Well, you say it's not necessarily a sin, but based on what... because there is debate about this in Christianity. Do you acknowledge that?

There has been, largely because people have made similar conflations to the one you made above.

This Roman Catholic Theologian says:
Christian spouses may not use any type of unnatural sexual acts in their marriage, neither oral sex, nor anal sex, nor manual sex, nor the use of sexual devices ("sex toys"). All these things are unnatural, and contrary to the will of God expressed in Sacred Scripture, properly understood.
What Does the Bible Say about Oral Sex?

Okedoke. In no way does that back up the claim that Christianity teaches that sex is inherently sinful.