The Jesus taboo: Sex.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

You don't believe its possible God provided him with one of the greatest blessings there is?

That being a mate...

I find it almost implausible to believe otherwise

edit on 3-6-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Not one wife, His Father provided His Son with millions. Every saved person who ever lived. We are the bride od Christ, He is the bridegroom.

That is SOOOO not what i meant... or close to the same

I know that's not what you meant, but that doesnt mean it's not true. This may shock you but you don't know everyting. What the Father gave to His Son was exponentially greater than one wife, He gave Him millions upon millions of "wives". From every tribe, nation, and culture on Earth.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Perhaps we should all have several wives like Jesus to follow in his footsteps then?

reply to post by WhisperingWinds


Of course not "from birth"....
neither do kittens, for heaven's sake! It's a hormone driven, biological process; that process cannot be stopped at will. ACTING ON IT is something else.

This is silly.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by WhisperingWinds

 

Of course not "from birth"....
neither do kittens, for heaven's sake! It's a hormone driven, biological process; that process cannot be stopped at will. ACTING ON IT is something else.

This is silly.

if you say.."of course not from birth", why did you make the statement in the following quote in your previous post?

Sex is an innate drive that is present from birth in all normally-developed human beings, just as it is in other mammals.

What is silly is you saying one thing in one post, and when questioned or rebutted on it, you do a turnabout, and try and make the other look silly for for debating the issue.

I'm just debating what you wrote, and now you seem to contradict yourself ?

reply to post by AllIsOne

God became man as the man Jesus to redeem us of our sins, through his sacrifice upon the cross.

He did not come here to have children as we are his creation and are already his when we accept him and live our lives as believers.

As for priest you are quit right God whose name is Jesus said for us to marry if we are unable to abstain from the desire sex.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Perhaps we should all have several wives like Jesus to follow in his footsteps then?

You aren't Christ. You couldnt keep 2 happy let alone millions upon millions.

reply to post by WhisperingWinds

if you say.."of course not from birth", why did you make the statement in the following quote in your previous post?

Perhaps I should've written: "we are born with the equipment, glands, hormones, and neurology that, as a human matures, results in a natural desire for sex."

I don't want to argue with you, Winds.....
I was thinking of another analogy. Take, for example, my two dogs. One is a Shepherd, the other is a Retriever (both mutts, adopted...so mixed breeding) and when we play outdoors, I throw the ball. The Retriever goes after the ball. The Shepherd goes after the Retriever.

THAT is instinct. I taught the Shepherd to ALSO go fetch the ball. It took some learning, but not much. Her instinct is to round up the other animals...but she learned to go after the ball rather than the other dog.

My point is that mammals are born with either female or male genitalia, and those genitalia combine systematically, with the onset of hormones at maturity, and the already-awakened sensory pleasure to ACTIVATE the instinct to have sex.

Recently in our backyard, Robins built a nest. We have been observing their behavior, and now also their hatchling's behavior. The baby robin instinctively knows to open its mouth very wide when it sees mother...that is how it survives, totally dependent on its parents (they both work at it) to feed and care for him.

That chick is not currently "activated" to behave like a mature adult.
Its mother does not sit in the nest with her beak wide open waiting for someone to drop a worm into it.
The chick is not out getting sticks and bits of fluff to build a nest.
The mother and father did that. They knew how. The chick doesn't. One day, if it survives, it WILL know how to behave as a mature specimen. If female, it will exhibit female nesting and courting traits. If male, likewise will it know how to court, find good territory, fight off invaders and compete for a mate.

The males arrive earlier than the females, to sort out all that stuff ahead of time. Then the females arrive.
Are newborn chicks doing these things?
Erm, no.

This is really not that difficult. I don't understand why the other member insists sex is not an instinct, when it's been established that humans (and here, dogs...) and any trainable animal can "learn" to suppress an instinct.

A futher example. My horses, had they not learned that it was okay, would not have ventured across the creeks on the trails. They would not have stood quietly while a train passed, or a dog chased and nipped at their heels. Or let me put a bridle and saddle on them, or handle their feet, or brush them. They were domestic horses, not wild horses, but if they'd never laid eyes on a human, they'd have been only slightly more likely to allow that human to approach them.

Their instincts would kick in. There is a huge separation between free will and instinct. The former CAN control the latter. It does not mean the latter is no longer an instinct!

Hope that helps. For purposes of this thread....religion can dictate whether, with whom, and when to engage in the sexual act....but it cannot ERASE the FACT that human beings are built to reproduce, and innately, instinctively, KNOW HOW.

Trying to shore up scripture by saying that humans don't have the instinct to have sex is silly. It's true that psychology is still as much an art as a science, but biology is pretty well established. There's no case for the premise that "sex" is not an instinctive behavior of human beings.


I found on Wiki the entry for "Instinct", and it talks about the other member's stance. There are semantic and interpretive arguments as to the differences between a "reflex" and an "instinct" . One can say that the infant's arousal is a reflex, but that does not change the fact that normal human beings have an inborn (from birth) disposition to have sex.

sigh

reply to post by wildtimes

Perhaps I should've written: "we are born with the equipment, glands, hormones, and neurology that, as a human matures, results in a natural desire for sex."

Yes, perhaps you should have. (its also good to remember everything you have copied and pasted if that is the case)

I don't want to argue with you, Winds.....

I'm not here to argue with you , just debating some of your points. I get called silly for referring to statements you made , when I choose to question them.

No arguing on my end, just trying to understand and debate some of what you clearly stated in some posts.

Getting back to the topic of the OP, I think its reasonable to say that Jesus wasn't brought to earth to condemn sexuality, by not marrying, but to teach us to respect it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by pheonix358
to all the Christians, serious question, was Mary implanted by a fetus or sperm. Is Christ half human no human.

Thanks

P

1. Neither, the Holy Spirit.

2. 100% Man. And 100% Son of God as well.

In my book that adds up to 200% ... Can you explain in your own words the paradox of the Trinity? Why would God, who knows everything, even bother to send his own son to earth and let him be tortured? God already knows the fate of every living soul. What did Jesus die for?

reply to post by WhisperingWinds

I'm not here to argue with you , just debating some of your points. I get called silly for referring to statements you made , when I choose to question them.

What? I was not calling "you" silly.......
My point was: to say sex is not instinctive in human beings is just plain wrong.
???????

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by pheonix358
to all the Christians, serious question, was Mary implanted by a fetus or sperm. Is Christ half human no human.

Thanks

P

1. Neither, the Holy Spirit.

2. 100% Man. And 100% Son of God as well.

In my book that adds up to 200% ... Can you explain in your own words the paradox of the Trinity? Why would God, who knows everything, even bother to send his own son to earth and let him be tortured? God already knows the fate of every living soul. What did Jesus die for?

For God to be able to forgive sin. Lets say there was a judge who constantly let people who admitted their guilt go free what would you call that judge? Just or unjust? Christ paid the full penalty so that His Father could forgive sin without compromising His righteousness.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Perhaps we should all have several wives like Jesus to follow in his footsteps then?

He can handle the headache, can you?

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Perhaps we should all have several wives like Jesus to follow in his footsteps then?

He can handle the headache, can you?

The only thing I love about Muhammad and the Quran is it says man can have as many wives as he can keep happy.. then it also says man can't even keep 1 woman happy or something to that effect.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You can lay golden eggs and they still wouldn't be happy.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by pheonix358
to all the Christians, serious question, was Mary implanted by a fetus or sperm. Is Christ half human no human.

Thanks

P

1. Neither, the Holy Spirit.

2. 100% Man. And 100% Son of God as well.

In my book that adds up to 200% ... Can you explain in your own words the paradox of the Trinity? Why would God, who knows everything, even bother to send his own son to earth and let him be tortured? God already knows the fate of every living soul. What did Jesus die for?

For God to be able to forgive sin. Lets say there was a judge who constantly let people who admitted their guilt go free what would you call that judge? Just or unjust? Christ paid the full penalty so that His Father could forgive sin without compromising His righteousness.

This is so childish, really! According to the bible God knows everything, so the term "forgiveness" doesn't apply. It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people play dumb when it comes to religion.

reply to post by AllIsOne


Hmmmm, Socrates understood the dillema, is he not smart enough either?

"It may be that the deity can forgive sins but I cannot see how." ~ Socrates

And God's omniscience doesn't excuse our actions. Judas was prophesied to betray Christ for 30 pieces of silver, yet Christ said it would be better had he not been born. He was still responsible for his actions.

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
I think its reasonable to say that Jesus wasn't brought to earth to condemn sexuality, by not marrying, but to teach us to respect it.

If you go back to the core teaching, using Luke perhaps as the accepted version, we can assure ourselves that Jesus was a very accepting and giving man. If we bound on even further and consider the Gospel of Philip, we find in that same teaching a core of 'love'. And not just commonplace everyday love, but love as a transformational force. In that most central of the Christian texts, Revelations, we find the accusation, 'you have lost the love you had', or in other translations, 'you have lost that loving feeling'. Sex, when consciously entered into, with love, has the power to heal and to transform, why would Jesus be against it? So yes, I agree with you, whether or not he partook in it himself, and I am still personally debating that, respecting it's power to transform in the spiritual sense, both positively, when accompanied by love, and negatively when accompanied by possessiveness and violence, must have been central to his teaching.

I just wanted to throw this in here since we are talking monkeys.

The bonobo is popularly known for its high levels of sexual behavior. Sex functions in conflict appeasement, affection, social status, excitement, and stress reduction. It occurs in virtually all partner combinations and in a variety of positions. This is a factor in the lower levels of aggression seen in the bonobo when compared to the common chimpanzee and other apes. Bonobos are perceived to be matriarchal; females tend to collectively dominate males by forming alliances and use sexuality to control males. A male's rank in the social hierarchy is often determined by his mother's rank.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe the men who created religions knew that. Less sex, more aggression and war. And war is always good for business ...

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Maybe the men who created religions knew that. Less sex, more aggression and war. And war is always good for business ...

Bonobos are indeed interesting in that respect, certainly when compared to Chimpanzees...

Observations in the wild indicate that the males among the related common chimpanzee communities are extraordinarily hostile to males from outside the community. Parties of males 'patrol' for the unfortunate neighbouring males that might be travelling alone, and attack those single males, often killing them.[43] This does not appear to be the behaviour of bonobo males or females in their own communities, where they seem to prefer sexual contact over violent confrontation with outsiders. In fact, the Japanese scientists who have spent the most time working with wild bonobos describe the species as extraordinarily peaceful, and De Waal has documented how bonobos may often resolve conflicts with sexual contact (hence the "make love – not war" characterization for the species). Between groups, social mingling may occur, in which members of different communities have sex and groom each other, behaviour which is unheard of among common chimpanzees.

I often wonder if polyandry would be a better societal basis from which to build peace, I think that males find it far easier to share, generally speaking, than most females do, and in the past, given the difficulties, until fairly recently, of successfully raising children to adulthood, that having more males as 'protectors' and providers would have made more sense. Perhaps, it is just possession or possessiveness that has been our undoing.

On a lighter note, this tickled me...

Bonobo males occasionally engage in various forms of male–male genital behavior.[33][34] In one form, two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing".[33][35]

reply to post by wildtimes

I tend to agree with Biliverdin and would have to say define instinct? And what do you mean by sex? because no its not instinctual to have sex per say, that is if your left by yourself from a young age with no one around I do not think you really would know what to do with your private parts. Other then essentials like peeing and what not, I think the rest is pretty much learned or conditioned.

But I suppose you could say sex is an instinct, because sooner or latter nature is going to hit you such as in puberty and you will be urged to have sexual stimulus. But really it may be hard to see this because pretty much all that you see in society today especially western society were you have sex basically driven into your mind all the time, from the time your young till your old, the world around you is always in one form or another blasting you with sex, anything from the TV, to the people you meet on the street, to magazines, to the latest gossip's, to even little things like banter, or the fashion of the newest idols, even in school playground there is an aura of sexuality that is brought, so whether they know it or not they and you have been conditioned to act in certain ways and certain things have been installed into there brain and minds from a very young age.

But you take all that away and you lets say look at the cases of feral children, some of them even when grown up they do not function normally some even do not learn to speak even after years among humans, or I think not at all. But basically if you take a child out of this ecosystem were we live in were he would life with none of the influences we grew up, least of all the sexual part. And I think you will find he or she will not know what sex is, because he or she has never been thought it or seen it.

Ok lets say that if it is a boy in that situation then sure sooner or latter he would have the urge, but that is all it would be, in fact he would not know what to do with it and probably experiment by rubbing it against a tree or something else or his hand, and since its pretty much urges that he can not control then for all you know or he knows or has seen or known then that is what he will always do when he gets the urge. In that case then ya I suppose you can call that instinct, but can you really call that sex, I suppose you can call that sex as well, it just depends on your definitions.

So all that you know of sex, is petty much learned and conditioned, and believe it or not even today in this day and age its conditioned much more so then in the past. Most people think that in the past it was more primal and such, but in a lot of cases it is not so. For instance in ancient Rome or Greece or even before then, as you know most of the people living then were really free in there sexuality, that is they slept around with both men and women and in fact in Greece and even to a lesser degree Rome the males in a lot of cases even famous cases like Alexander the great well they had gay relationships and only went to females for the purpose of mating and producing an offspring. And even sleeping around with young boys and other such things and no it was not seen as taboo then, some may not of approved but it was seen as normal to many.

In fact it was in some book years ago were I read something really interesting, I think it was a book by Cicero or one of the old Roman historians were he or somebody goes on a visit to old Sparta. And they talk about this very subject as kind of a curiosity and offshoot, and one of the things they said other then the desolation and how far Sparta has changed from her glory and that young boys were fighting in the street for scraps of meat. But the other thing was, due to there long practice on male to male relationships and the whole courtship based on that, well one of the things the person who visited Sparta remarked on was how the males in the area were much more beautiful then the females.

I kid you not, and there was commenting and talking about breeding such as basically for some generations in that place beauty and sexuality was placed on the males much more so then the females, and over time and generations that's what it became, basically the males looked much better physically then the females and took on that role and the females took on a more manly look and role. So ya a lot of it, and the whole sex thing is conditioned and learned, you just can not see it because you have been conditioned to not see it, for generations basically it has been conditioned to be certain ways and even then as you can see not everybody is the same in there sexuality and preferences and instincts.

And once again it all depends on what you mean by instinct, and what your definition of sex is basically. But who do you think implants and imparts your defintions of all that?