Why do most Religions say that sex is bad?

This really confuses me. Sex is not a "desire", it is a necessary biological function. There is a theory that celibacy, or at the very least, forced sexual limitation, causes Neurosis (can't find the link, will post later). This would definitely explain why there is so much Pedophilia in the Catholic Church. It would explain what would drive someone to commit a suicide bombing, light themselves on fire, etc. And the evidence isn't just in religious radicals - people who commit cruel, extreme crimes are, 9 times out of 10, sexually frustrated.

I know a few girls who some would refer to as "sluts", and they are the most open minded, kind people I know. Come on, people, anybody who has had sex (with someone you care about (does NOT have to be a relationship, it can be a friend, too) is one of the best, if not the best feelings on Earth). And the people who judge them are those who limit themselves sexually for the sake of not going to "hell" and other wise tales; they are the most judgmental people I have ever known, and there are a lot of them. And, I'm sorry, but most of them are religious, either full time or causally. I thought one of the fundamental aspects of Religion was not to judge others? Hmm.

Personally I think the agenda behind Religion is simple: scare people into not enjoying their lives. Keep them afraid of punishment from some above force, that may or may not exist, so they are always obedient and desirable, until we don't need them anymore.

What are your thoughts?

reply to post by albertabound


reply to post by albertabound


What religion says sex is bad? I assume this is a bash Christianity thread though. The bible doesn't say sex is bad, it says it's a gift from God. It somewhat suggests not having crazy sex before your married, but it's mainly talking about women, not men in that regard. It always says stay away from wild sex orgies or gay sex orgies... But don't think any normal people are interest in either anyways.

Other than that it commands you to have non-stop sex... Remember the whole have tons of babies and spread out over the earth? How do you think babies are made?

Religions don't teach that sex is bad. They teach that sexual immorality is bad. Engaging in sex for pleasure only, instead of for procreation, is a sin (according to religion), because sex was created for one reason: to propagate the species.

/TOA

I'm not "religious" in the mainstream sense but I think there are good reasons to hold oneself to certain limitations. For one, there's a bond created in a sexual relationship that if broken will hurt a lot more. Two, there are health risks associated with being promiscuous. Three, sex is something special to share with a partner and knowing they've slutted themselves out to dozens of people before cheapens the experience. I'm not saying people shouldn't have the right to do as they please, but I also have the right to reject someone on the grounds that I please. It's a girl's right to be as promiscuous as she wants, and it's my right to reject someone as a potential romantic partner on those grounds.

I don't think that religions say that sex is bad, its lust that is bad. Lust takes away from the whole experience. Having sex with someone you love is one of the greatest gifts God has given to us. It was meant to be enjoyed as well as for procreation. apparently, you have never read the Song of Songs in the old testament...

[www.biblegateway.com...

Originally posted by albertabound

What are your thoughts?

LIVE AND BE FRUITFUL-

>
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.

Not saying go out and just sleep with any and everyone for there will be health concerns/risks. But the instructions were to REPRODUCE. I think there is a control factor related to insecurities with mates of the past who would go as far as putting chastity type controls on women, so some may have seen the POWER of religion and said LETS MANIPULATE AND USE FOR PERSONAL SERVICE. MANIPULATING THE MINDS INTO THINKING SEX IS BAD, BUT THOSE BEHIND THE SCENES FROM VARIOUS RELIGIONS PREACHING IT ARE DOING IT EITHER BY JUSTIFYING YOUTHFUL MARRIAGES BETWEEN GROWN MEN AND YOUNG WOMEN OR SICK SEX ACTS BETWEEN GROWN MEN AND YOUNG BOYS. So follow your hearts. I think reproduction makes more SOUL vessels for the human essence to get to this dimension to learn and ASCEND beyond. I also know how easy sex can be manipulated into IGNORANCE ect.

The Christian Bible and the Torah don't say sex is bad.

The Song of Solomon is all about how to have great sex. In the old Jewish tradition, people could not even read the Song of Solomon until they were 13 years old. Read it and you will see how steamy it is. Most versions use fruit to represent different parts of the body. Read it like a sex manual and you'll be surprised!

This is from Song of Solomon 5
3 "But I'm in my nightgown—do you expect me to get dressed?
I'm bathed and in bed—do you want me to get dirty?"

4-7 But my lover wouldn't take no for an answer,
and the longer he knocked, the more excited I became.
I got up to open the door to my lover,
sweetly ready to receive him,
Desiring and expectant
as I turned the door handle.
But when I opened the door he was gone.
My loved one had tired of waiting and left.

This is in Song of Solomon 7
The feelings I get when I see the high mountain ranges
—stirrings of desire, longings for the heights—
Remind me of you,
and I'm spoiled for anyone else!
Your beauty, within and without, is absolute,
dear lover, close companion.
You are tall and supple, like the palm tree,
and your full breasts are like sweet clusters of dates.
I say, "I'm going to climb that palm tree!
I'm going to caress its fruit!"
Oh yes! Your breasts
will be clusters of sweet fruit to me,
Your breath clean and cool like fresh mint,
your tongue and lips like the best wine.

This is in Song of Solomon 8
10 Dear brothers, I'm a walled-in virgin still,
but my breasts are full—
And when my lover sees me,
he knows he'll soon be satisfied.

They both say sex outside of marriage is "bad". Many if not most of the "restrictions" of the Torah and Bible are meant to keep a person healthy.

Sex outside of a monogamous relationship (not serial monogamy - being faithful to one person at a time, one after another) is not good for your health. Sexually transmitted diseases abound and even the condom doesn't protect against all of them.

For example, genital warts. They can be found in the areas where there is pubic hair and on the inner thighs, the condom doesn't cover those parts. They can cause cervical cancer in women and rarely penile cancer in men.

The restriction on sex outside of marriage is for your own protection and health. The bible is not against sex, nor say it is bad, to the contrary, the Bible and Torah say it is fantastic, in a completely monogamous relationship, marriage.


The Bible and Torah don't want people to be pinched sourpusses who suffer. They are full of commands to be joyful. To HAVE sex, ie song of solomon, to live life fully and with joy.

The things they say to abstain from are things that are unhealthy and can harm you or your loved ones. We as people want to do things that can hurt ourselves or cause disease or pain to others, because, they feel so good at the time we are doing it. i.e. getting drunk; gossiping etc.; having multiple sexual partners

reply to post by albertabound

Just like anything else... when someone tells you how not to do something, it makes it that much more exciting when you do it. Especially if you do it and realize you did it with integrity and respect (rather than guilt and deception).

The apple was meant to be eaten... it was the very act of saying "don't" that made it ESPECIALLY worth "doing".

If you can do anything you want without any taboo or inhibition, it really does lose its novelty after enough years. This doesn't mean it isn't still enjoyable, it's just not as potentially explosively liberating. You can't experience the high point of a roller coaster without having a "low" point to start at and return to.

Religious sexual taboos actually have a highly kinky undertone to them for those with the eyes to see. As well as a highly liberating offering for those who are currently contained by them when they realize the taboos can be broken and you can still be a good person with good people.

Being a jerk is being a jerk regardless of whether it's via sexual misconduct or business misconduct or anything else. It's all in how you view the other person and treat them, as well as how they view you and how you allow them to treat you. Love and respect work... deception and guilt don't.

Namaste.

Your opening post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Can you list the religions that state 'Sex is bad' and give references for these statements.

Thanks.

I think 1984 explains it the best, get rid of the sex drive and people become angry war mongering freaks. It s all about control, emotional control and population control. The ruling class has always sought after population control.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion


I am unsure what it is that you are attempting to say here, so I am going to try to sum up in effort to clarify. Are you saying, that in my religion because sex outside of marriage is forbidden that this somehow makes sex outside of marriage more tempting?

If so what exactly is the premise of your understanding? Is murder somehow more tempting because it is illegal in the United States? Is there an increased number of murder since it became illegal to commit murder?

Just imagine for a moment that what "most religions" are saying is not that sex is bad; rather, they are saying some form of this:


There is a part of your being, your self, which goes beyond the material world. That self cannot be measured or detected by any materialistic equipment or means, but it exists and is a part of you. As a matter of fact, it is the most important part of you. Depending on the religion, the teaching is that this non-material component of you will exist after your death, and may have existed before you were born into this body.

So this self, of 'dash of God-ness,' or soul or spirit or whatever, is who you really are.

And the forces of negativity (demons or dibbukim or efrit or sylph or whatever) don't want you to learn and grow in this beyond-the-material (or "metaphysical") mode.

These forces of negativity, whether demons or politicians or the human elite or illuminatti or whatever, they want to keep your from discovering your metaphysical side. They accomplish this by keeping you focused on the physical world. Buddha talked about how all pain comes from desire. These corrupt or negative forces will use both pain and desire to keep you from finding your spiritual home. In Christian parlance, they will try to tempt you with gluttony, with greed, with sloth, with rage, with ... lust..... they will use anything to keep you focused on the "real world" instead of the "immaterial" realms.

Face it, if you add up all the sex you have during a week, it adds up to less then an hour---and that's if you are a player. Sex is nice and fun and wholesome; but you spend less time doing it than you spend reading your email. So "they" want you to obsess about sex, to keep your mind stuck in the mud of "this world" or what St. Paul called "this present darkness."

Forces of negation will teach you that anyone who isn't obsessed with sex and power is somehow weird or dangerous. They must secretly be some kind of pervert or child-molester because sex is inevitable. Just like how they teach you that you cannot go through 40 days without masturbating--because "your" immediate pleasure is what matters most.


Here's the SECRET TRUTH you aren't supposed to ever hear:

This planet's controllers use Pavlovian Conditioning to control you. They reward you with pleasure when you conform; they punish you with pain when you step outside the bounds of their plan. And the reason that your controllers want you to hate spiritual people is this:

Training a materialist is like training a puppy. Puppies move away from pain, and move toward pleasure.

But spiritual people don't follow the rules. Spiritual people don't always move toward pleasure. And they don't always move away from pain.

This makes them impossible for the elites to control. It's why the current world vilifies anyone who denies himself, for whatever reason. It's why they hated Jesus (deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me), it's why they hated Buddha. It's why they hated Buddha (for the Middle Way, which even denies excess of denial!) and why they claim that most of his followers can't really reach his "level" of enlightenment for millions of years... And its why the one quote you've never heard from Mohammad is "What have I to do with worldly things? My connection with the world is like that of a traveler resting for a while underneath the shade of a tree and then moving on"

*****

If you are not practicing self-control, then someone else must be controlling you.

reply to post by tovenar


MashaAllah a very beautiful post!

reply to post by albertabound


My thoughts are that you're putting a blanket judgement on all religions. The only one's I know about that "breed" sexually frustrated people are the Islam, Catholic and Southern Baptist faiths. There may be more, but those are the one's I'm familiar with.

You are right though that certain religions push certain agendas when it comes to sex. All of them probably at the very least see sex as something that NEEDS to be done. That you shouldn't just go out and have it whenever with whomever. This is why I believe that religion in general, (the idea of it, not any particular one) is counter-productive to certain people living fully enjoyable lives.

Some people are meant to be with one person while others aren't. My thought behind that is that some people excel personally and professionally when they take only one partner, while others are more successful while being single and sleeping around. In either case, you're not going to fully enjoy having sex with with someone if you have that noose around your neck saying that you're doing it only because you HAVE to. Not because it makes you feel good.

I think the agenda that churches have almost always had is that they want you to foster more of a "personal" relationship with "Christ" than with your significant other. If there's one sure-fire way to put money in your collection plate and keep people emotionally apart at the same time, tell them it's bad to have sex if they WANT to. That they should only do it to have babies.

There is nothing more natural than the act of sex. Even the acts that DON"T make babies. It's how we ALL got here and it helps us know our partners even better than if we didn't have it. I can love the woman I'm with, but that love will only go so deep without sex. It gets deeper, more solid, when we both have sex. That's not my opinion either. That's a fact of life. Essentially, in my opinion, what certain churches are saying is that you should only get close to nature because you NEED to. You should only get close to your husband or wife.......because you NEED to.

Sorry, but I'm going to have sex because I want to and it makes me feel good. It's made the women I've been with feel good too. You want to go to heaven? I'll take you there. Trust me, you'll see the light of God. I'll even bring you back too. Free of charge..

Besides which, when you keep your love growing by constantly having sex with your partner and the time comes when the woman does get pregnant and has a baby, you can show that baby even more love than you could if you hadn't matured your relationship with sex and communication. If you want to believe in God, that's
fine. Just don't prioritize him ahead of your partner in regards to maturing your relationship and there won't be any problems.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Not more "tempting" no, at least not to *everyone*. You are overlooking the part where I pointed out the difference of breaking a taboo with integrity and respect for those affected by your taboo breaking, vs breaking it with negative intentions to others or yourself. Thus murder where it is a violent unwanted act wouldn't just be breaking a taboo, it's mostly being a jerk. That's what I meant by "being a jerk is being a jerk"... but breaking a taboo doesn't automatically make you a jerk. However... we know that there are cases where we do accept breaking the taboo on the taking of another life. It's always about context and the true honest nature of those involved.

In your religion's system of guidance, those who are naturally monogamous are going to naturally be very satisfied with this situation. Those who are not though, when they realize that they don't HAVE to adhere to the taboo and still be a good person will be enormously liberated when they finally break through if they do so with self respect and respect for everyone around them (especially when those people are being antagonistic to them finding their true selves).

It's no different than if a religion required multiple partners to be shared and a person was naturally monogomous. They would be liberated when they break out of the taboo and just focus on one partner.

It's about being honest and having mutual respect that the taboo has the positive impact. When we are deceitful and try to guilt people into "being like us" is when it goes off the rails. The taboo is neither particularly good or bad. It's positive for communities of like minded people to gather and lead similar lives (doesn't mean they all do the same thing... a community might be a "anything goes" or "nothing goes but what supreme leader says"). It's negative for a community to force someone who doesn't fit their style of living to adhere to their standards if they aren't attacking or threatening the community.

Hope that clarifies?

Namaste.

Originally posted by albertabound
This really confuses me. Sex is not a "desire", it is a necessary biological function.

Don't make the freshman's mistake of confusing your own culture with biology.

There exists a people of the Amazon who employ shamans to protect their communities. They believe that one of the requirements for becoming a shaman is to abstain from orgasm for a year. More progress is made, until the candidate develops what Westerners would call "psychic powers."

Interestingly, the possessors of strange powers in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism were all known for practicing abstinence. The folks who could miraculously heal others, or know what is taking place at a great distance, or even seem to levitate off the ground while in a state of ecstacy---all of them practiced sexual self-denial.

What could that possibly mean?

reply to post by tovenar


You should come by more often tovenar ( 400 posts in 7 years? ) You make sense. Have you ever heard the saying "Heaven is for those who don't want to go to hell and spirituality is for those who've been there"?

I'm gonna be following you when I can. I wanna see where YOU'RE going

If sex is so bad, as many overtly religious people will have us believe, and God is so perfect, why did 'he' make it so enjoyable?......Or is it another one of his 'tests'?

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Not more "tempting" no, at least not to *everyone*. You are overlooking the part where I pointed out the difference of breaking a taboo with integrity and respect for those affected by your taboo breaking, vs breaking it with negative intentions to others or yourself. Thus murder where it is a violent unwanted act wouldn't be breaking a taboo. That's what I meant by "being a jerk is being a jerk"... but breaking a taboo doesn't automatically make you a jerk. However... we know that there are cases where we do accept breaking the taboo on the taking of another life. It's always about context and the true honest nature of those involved.

In your religion's system of guidance, those who are naturally monogamous are going to naturally be very satisfied with this situation. Those who are not though, when they realize that they don't HAVE to adhere to the taboo and still be a good person will be enormously liberated when they finally break through if they do so with self respect and respect for everyone around them (especially when those people are being antagonistic to them finding their true selves).

It's no different than if a religion required multiple partners to be shared and a person was naturally monogomous. They would be liberated when they break out of the taboo and just focus on one partner.

It's about being honest and having mutual respect that the taboo has the positive impact. When we are deceitful and try to guilt people into "being like us" is when it goes off the rails. The taboo is neither particularly good or bad. It's positive for communities of like minded people to gather and lead similar lives (doesn't mean they all do the same thing... a community might be a "anything goes" or "nothing goes but what supreme leader says"). It's negative for a community to force someone who doesn't fit their style of living to adhere to their standards if they aren't attacking or threatening the community.

Hope that clarifies?

Namaste.

edit on 2012/6/6 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

well, to be fair I will address the midway first. My particular religion does not 'necessarily' teach monogomy, just that sex should be within a marriage, rather than with just anyone walking down the street.

As to the first part, since these laws are based upon integrety and respect of persons 'affected' by the "no sex outside of marriage taboo" I am uncertain how you determine the rightfulness or wrongfulness of this particular taboo, compared to say murder. Sex outside of marriage is and can be very injurous to parties other than yourself, so in effect all you can say with certainty is that within yourself you have yet to see any "harm" from breaking this particular taboo as opposed to other possible injurous taboos, like that of murder.

We see daily in America the injuries to children, to families, to communities, and society at large caused by the regular breaking of this particular taboo, one which some appear to believe my tax dollars should be paying for the indulgences of others where concerns this particular taboo.

That said, it is not my business nor my concern what others do, so long as they do not expect me to pay for it, no matter how round about that way might be. I however, have the higher intelligence to understand, some taboos, although may appear at first glance not to cause any "harm", just might in fact be the most harmful of all acts, to everyone, not only those involved.