Why are Christians such prudes?

I'm a Christian and I don't consider myself a prude. I'm comfortable with my sexuality and neither feel guilt for being a sexual person.

That said, I'm not particularly sure how it's helpful to judge other people's sexual lives by referring to some as prudes. It would seem to me that how one wishes to express their sexuality as per their own conscience is primarily up to them.

Do I think your example of two grown adults feeling weird about holding hands surprise and confuse me? Yes. I've never been part of a religious environment where hand holding is considered scandalous.

However I think culturally we have a double-edged sword. On the one hand sex is considered so utterly "naughty" that many do feel guilty for simply being sexual animals; on the other hand because sex is so utterly "naughty" it's often denigrated to self-gratification.

That's a toxic environment either way.

I don't think many people even consider that those who may choose to dedicate themselves to celibacy are, in fact, expressing their sexuality the way they think is best. Celibacy is a way of expressing one's sexuality. It's not rejecting one's sexuality to be celibate (or, on the lighter side, be abstinent); that is how someone may choose to express their sexuality and no one should be judged as a prude for doing so.

People throw words like "sl*t" and "prude" far too easily.

I believe Christianity has a sexual ethic that is healthy by reminding us that it's not all about ourselves. Sexuality doesn't just happen in me, it happens in every one, and my sexuality and my sexual expression and my sexual needs are not of a greater priority to everyone else. This falls into the larger Christian ethic of love where my ego is tamed and I place myself at the service of others because as a Christian I am to be a servant to my fellow man.

Thus a Christian's sexual ethic should fall into the same area as all other areas of ethics in Christian life, and that is in Christ's Great Commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself."

-CryptoLutheran

seekingagnostic32 said:

America IS sexually repressed, go live in Europe. I'm not from the U.S. anyhow, thankfully.

Click to expand...

Perhaps because you don't live there, your assumptions are a little bit wrong.

seekingagnostic32 said:

Teen pregnancy is huge in the U.S. yet America is 90% Christian (as far as most polls go). How does that work? It is clear sexual repression DOESN'T work.

Click to expand...

Where is the stat that says that 90% of Americans are church-going, Bible-reading Christians who adhere to its principles and try to live it out?

US Religion Statistics

Also the "unaffiliated" category is the fastest growing group according to the above report.

I simply don't agree with your initial premise that America is sexually repressed. Nor do I agree that it is 90% Christian.

seekingagnostic32 said:

As Christians, we're told to hate our bodies, and everything natural.

Click to expand...

I also don't agree with this statement. I think you're getting your information from the wrong sources. How many Christians have you talked to personally about this issue?

seekingagnostic32 said:

I just don't understand. It reminds me of a death cult, no offense. In a death cult, people become obsessed with death, heaven/the afterlife, etc. and they shun anything that is focused on producing life. Sex is the ultimate life producing act, yet we are to hate it. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Christians are not to hate sex. I know some Christians who love sex A LOT. But they are married and monogamous.

Perhaps Christians are just more prudish in that they enjoy sex only in specific contexts rather than a free for all. I take "prude" as a compliment by the way.

I suggest separating your original concern into at least two parts.

First, Christians are concerned about using sex in the right way. Sex outside marriage is dangerous. There's some evidence that aside from the physical problems it makes problems more likely should you eventually get married.

But you say you understand that and you think there's more going on that just a concern about promiscuity. I agree. For that you need to understand history. Early in Christian history, two relevant things happened:

(1) An almost cultish admiration of virgins started. This seems to have been only part of a general admiration for "spiritual athletes", people who abused their bodies to focus on their "soul." You can argue that some level of self-discipline is a good thing, since it can help build self-control. But some of the monastics went way off the deep end, and were very popular among Christians for doing so. Abstaining from sex was part of the pattern. There are other things as well leading to this admiration for virginity.

(2) In the West, the biggest name in theology was Augustine. For personal reasons he was highly skeptical of sex. He never really said it was evil, but it seemed to him that because in sex things happen in your body that are not usually under conscious control, that sex was a failure of self-discipline.

This and other things led to a general attitude that while sex has its place, virginity is really better, and sex is intended only for procreation. This attitude has continued. Catholic ethics in particular considers that the only sex that's legitimate is when it is "open to procreation." The details are complex, because they don't want to prohibit sex between couples that are, e.g., beyond child-bearing age. But it can lead to weirdness like prohibiting certain fertility treatments because they require the husbands sperm, and there's no way to collect it other than masturbation, which is a type of sex that is not open to procreation. The same argument applies to birth control.

In addition, Jewish tradition has tended to take a narrower view of permitted sexual relationships than other ancient cultures. While they did not share the negative attitude towards sex described above, they did consider sex outside of marriage to be wrong. Since early Christians were Jews, Christian sexual ethics started from there. Paul's letters were in many ways more important to Christians than Jesus' teachings (though I'm not saying that they necessarily contradict each other), and Paul considered sexual sin particularly serious, and saw sexual purity as an ideal.

All of these things put together produced a tradition that has a strong commitment to sex only within marriage, and restrictive if not negative views of sex even then. You'll have to judge how much of this is essential to Christianity. Jesus himself didn't have the same focus as Paul on sexual sin. And his best-known comment is ambiguous. I think he was trying to refocus the discussion from who does what to whom to our attitudes towards the other gender. This is in many ways a very modern approach. However when interpreted from the background described above, his comments have been taken as prohibiting even thinking about sex except in limited ways.

Now not all modern Christians retain the tendency to negative views, but most Christians do tend to focus on sexual sins as particularly serious, and Catholics at least prohibit things I think are silly. Since most of us use Scripture as an authority, there is some basis for this in Paul's letters. However the Church took Paul's views and in my opinion pushed them a lot further than he did. So today we have a spectrum, ranging from the traditional over-the-top views, to something like Paul's very careful ethics, considering sexual sins particularly serious, to more liberal views that see Jesus as opposed to the kind of purity ideal that Paul seems to hold. The more liberal views are held both by the mainline churches and the more relaxed end of the evangelical movement.

Dear Seeking,
"Love thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul, and all thy mind." Jesus
Sound easy? If you think about it, one must almost become addicted to God to attain higher consciousness or the deep God connection. Everything in moderation means that sex or other things such as addiction to alcohol, can impede our spiritual growth and become more important than God. It took me a long time to understand this. I don't think we are necessarily prudes, but have learned that devotion to God/Jesus is the most important.

It's not just Christians, but religious people in general. I find they are very prudish when it comes to matters of sexuality, the human body and so on. Very repressed.

Click to expand...

And who decides what is repressed and what isn't? What's the standard here?

In countries where Christianity and religion are not dominant, the people experience a lot less guilt and repression over their human desires.

Click to expand...

Really? Do you have any hard research to back this up?

But in nations like America, where Christianity is the majority of the populace, sexuality is stifled, repressed and people are made to be ashamed of their bodies and carnal desires.

Click to expand...

LOL! I don't think so! I doubt there is a more sex-saturated culture than the American one!

The views of birth control being sinful, sex being sinful, the human body being sinful and needing to be covered up at all times is very real within Christianity and most religions in general. I don't understand it at all. I never have, even when I was a practicing fundamentalist Christian.

Click to expand...

I don't know about birth-control being sinful, but the Bible does say that the the man whose "quiver is full" (that is, he has many children) is blessed. God gives children, not as a curse or burden, but as a blessing.

I've also never heard any pastor teach that our bodies ought to be covered up at all times. It's really awkward taking a shower when you're fully clothed, y'know? In any case, I don't think traipsing around the beach in a thong bikini or a bulging speedo is doing much to foster modesty and purity and holiness.

I know grown adult Christian women that are fearful of holding hands lest it lead to... God knows what. How does that work? I don't know.

Click to expand...

THey probably don't, either!

But it remains that I have met many a Christian who think it's sinful and evil to even kiss prior to marriage.

Click to expand...

So? I think this effort to be chaste and pure is a good one.

Some may think it's cute; I think it's crazy. (Not to mention grossly unrealistic in our day and age! But that's another matter entirely.)

Click to expand...

Hey, that they don't enter into the corrupt sexual flow of the culture doesn't make them crazy, just strong and admirable.

I just want to know why Christians are so prudish when it comes to this aspect of life. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

You think they are prudish but perhaps they think you are promiscuous. I'd take a prudish mate over a promiscuous one any day! And I did!

Selah.

seekingagnostic32 said:

It's not just Christians, but religious people in general. I find they are very prudish when it comes to matters of sexuality, the human body and so on. Very repressed. In countries where Christianity and religion are not dominant, the people experience a lot less guilt and repression over their human desires. But in nations like America, where Christianity is the majority of the populace, sexuality is stifled, repressed and people are made to be ashamed of their bodies and carnal desires. I'm just wondering why that is exactly.

The views of birth control being sinful, sex being sinful, the human body being sinful and needing to be covered up at all times is very real within Christianity and most religions in general. I don't understand it at all. I never have, even when I was a practicing fundamentalist Christian.

I know grown adult Christian women that are fearful of holding hands lest it lead to... God knows what. How does that work? I don't know. But it remains that I have met many a Christian who think it's sinful and evil to even kiss prior to marriage. Some may think it's cute; I think it's crazy. (Not to mention grossly unrealistic in our day and age! But that's another matter entirely.)

I just want to know why Christians are so prudish when it comes to this aspect of life. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Hmm, well I'm against the inappropriate contentographication of culture, because it can get really deranged if people just act on all their lusts, unhindered. If you've read up on countries like Thailand, where prostituition is rampant, they're like modern day Sodoms. I really don't think any culture should become that degraded and that it should be actively resisted.

As far as kissing and holding hands goes, I don't really see a problem with that, as long as there's no sex involved. I think couples should be romantic with each other so that they can see if they're compatible or not.

Human nature has some very dark aspects of it, part of which is rooted in sexuality. I don't agree with the libertine view that acting on any every impulse constitutes freedom. Real freedom comes, arguably, by resisting impulse, because its harder and takes a stronger exercise of will.Acting impulsively is just taking the path of least resistance and really doesn't do anything to set a human being apart from a rock rolling down a hill.

There's a point where embracing raw sexuality too much makes man become animalistic. We know the difference between right and wrong, where animals don't, so being that that's the case, we have to deny our lusts to cease on the opportunity to spiritually grow. That's why I think abstinence and ascetic practices are the right way to go. The fact we have knowledge of Good and evil is an opportunity to evolve ourselves and culture. Following the voice of God, my conscience, and following his world, which is reflected in the Bible, will lead to the most positive improvements for us and the least degradation for our species. Conscience tells me to resist temptations of the flesh, and temptation tells me to give into temptation.

JNathanK said:

Hmm, well I'm against the inappropriate contentographication of culture, because it can get really deranged if people just act on all their lusts, unhindered. If you've read up on countries like Thailand, where prostituition is rampant, they're like modern day Sodoms. I really don't think any culture should become that degraded and that it should be actively resisted.

As far as kissing and holding hands goes, I don't really see a problem with that, as long as there's no sex involved. I think couples should be romantic with each other so that they can see if they're compatible or not.

Human nature has some very dark aspects of it, part of which is rooted in sexuality. I don't agree with the libertine view that acting on any every impulse constitutes freedom. Real freedom comes, arguably, by resisting impulse, because its harder and takes a stronger exercise of will.Acting impulsively is just taking the path of least resistance and really doesn't do anything to set a human being apart from a rock rolling down a hill.

There's a point where embracing raw sexuality too much makes man become animalistic. We know the difference between right and wrong, where animals don't, so being that that's the case, we have to deny our lusts to cease on the opportunity to spiritually grow. That's why I think abstinence and ascetic practices are the right way to go. The fact we have knowledge of Good and evil is an opportunity to evolve ourselves and culture. Following the voice of God, my conscience, and following his world, which is reflected in the Bible, will lead to the most positive improvements for us and the least degradation for our species. Conscience tells me to resist temptations of the flesh, and temptation tells me to give into temptation.

Click to expand...

But why is sex evil?

Is eating evil?

I suggest you try not eating for a few weeks then get back to me. Let me know how that works out for you.

leftrightleftrightleft said:

Perhaps because you don't live there, your assumptions are a little bit wrong.



Where is the stat that says that 90% of Americans are church-going, Bible-reading Christians who adhere to its principles and try to live it out?

US Religion Statistics

Also the "unaffiliated" category is the fastest growing group according to the above report.

I simply don't agree with your initial premise that America is sexually repressed. Nor do I agree that it is 90% Christian.



I also don't agree with this statement. I think you're getting your information from the wrong sources. How many Christians have you talked to personally about this issue?



Christians are not to hate sex. I know some Christians who love sex A LOT. But they are married and monogamous.

Perhaps Christians are just more prudish in that they enjoy sex only in specific contexts rather than a free for all. I take "prude" as a compliment by the way.

Click to expand...

I'm not looking everything I've read up right now, but it is out there. Don't be lazy and do your own research. Honestly. lol

As for prude being a compliment, glad to hear it.

I consider it an insult because I don't believe sex is evil or sinful, unlike you and your religion.

aiki said:

And who decides what is repressed and what isn't? What's the standard here?

Me, in this case.


Really? Do you have any hard research to back this up?

Same as I told the other poster, go look it up yourself. The internet is a great resource. Don't be lazy.

For religious people, you sure do want a lot of "hard evidence". It's too bad you can't apply these critical thinking skills to your faith too! lol


LOL! I don't think so! I doubt there is a more sex-saturated culture than the American one!

Then you think wrong. lol You live a very sheltered life I think.

I don't know about birth-control being sinful, but the Bible does say that the the man whose "quiver is full" (that is, he has many children) is blessed. God gives children, not as a curse or burden, but as a blessing.

You almost sound Catholic. How many do you plan on having, fifteen, twenty? They said that in ANE times because more kids meant more workers around the family industry.

I've also never heard any pastor teach that our bodies ought to be covered up at all times. It's really awkward taking a shower when you're fully clothed, y'know? In any case, I don't think traipsing around the beach in a thong bikini or a bulging speedo is doing much to foster modesty and purity and holiness.

Is a burkha appropriate for the beach, Mr. Restraint? What do you define as modesty in general?

No make-up, jewelrey , skirts down to the ankles, bonnets or head coverings and other 18th century apparel? That sounds... great.


THey probably don't, either!

Then why do they do it?

So? I think this effort to be chaste and pure is a good one.

I don't, and it is prudish. to me, and most people, anyway.

Why is it good?

Because "sex is evil" and "kissing is bad, mmmkay"? That was what I thought.

Hey, that they don't enter into the corrupt sexual flow of the culture doesn't make them crazy, just strong and admirable.

So, kissing is corrupt? Nice.

What did your family do to you, growing up?

You think they are prudish but perhaps they think you are promiscuous. I'd take a prudish mate over a promiscuous one any day! And I did!

Selah.

Click to expand...

So those are your only two options? A tramp or a prude? Really now. Talk about lack of touch with reality, bro.

The fact is, maybe to you, someone who ENJOYS sex is too "promiscuous" for you. I'm glad I don't have your views on sex. I'd never be happy married.

Your answers only reinforced the stereotypes that I said originally, that christians are in fact, prudes. I suspect it may be because of your Baptist religion.

And who decides what is repressed and what isn't? What's the standard here?

Me, in this case.

Click to expand...

Why should you be the standard? Seems awfully subjective and opinion-centered to me...

Really? Do you have any hard research to back this up?

Same as I told the other poster, go look it up yourself. The internet is a great resource. Don't be lazy.

Click to expand...

You made the assertion so you ought to back it up. If you can't back up an assertion, perhaps you shouldn't make it.

For religious people, you sure do want a lot of "hard evidence". It's too bad you can't apply these critical thinking skills to your faith too! lol

Click to expand...

I am not "people," I am one person. I can't speak for all other Christians, but, for myself, I don't embrace my faith blindly. You might want to avoid using sweeping generalities. It makes you look ignorant and prejudiced.

LOL! I don't think so! I doubt there is a more sex-saturated culture than the American one!

Then you think wrong. lol You live a very sheltered life I think

Click to expand...

Your saying say so doesn't make it so. If this is the way you're going to make your case, you aren't going to succeed.

I don't know about birth-control being sinful, but the Bible does say that the the man whose "quiver is full" (that is, he has many children) is blessed. God gives children, not as a curse or burden, but as a blessing.

You almost sound Catholic. How many do you plan on having, fifteen, twenty? They said that in ANE times because more kids meant more workers around the family industry.

Click to expand...

What difference does it make to you how many kids I choose to have? Please prove that OT Jews had many children in order to have more workers in the family industry. Or is this just another one of your "I say it so it's true" remarks?

I've also never heard any pastor teach that our bodies ought to be covered up at all times. It's really awkward taking a shower when you're fully clothed, y'know? In any case, I don't think traipsing around the beach in a thong bikini or a bulging speedo is doing much to foster modesty and purity and holiness.

Is a burkha appropriate for the beach, Mr. Restraint? What do you define as modesty in general?

Click to expand...

"Mr. Restraint"? Are you eight years old? Silly name calling does not help your viewpoint any. Such things may have some traction in the school yard, but not here.

My view of modesty is simply wearing clothing that is not sexually provocative. I think this is the generally-accepted definition as it applies to dress - at least in my social sphere.

No make-up, jewelrey , skirts down to the ankles, bonnets or head coverings and other 18th century apparel? That sounds... great.

Click to expand...

This is a classic example of a Strawman - which is a kind of fallacious argument. If you want to establish your position, you might want to avoid using bad arguments to do so.

So? I think this effort to be chaste and pure is a good one.

I don't, and it is prudish. to me, and most people, anyway.

Why is it good?

Click to expand...

You can't legitimately speak for "most people" since you don't know "most people." Even if you personally knew ten thousand people you would still be an enormous distance from knowing most people. There are, roughly, some 7 billion people on this planet right now.

Being chaste and pure, from a Christian perspective, is good because it follows the dicates of God as set out in His Word, the Bible.

Because "sex is evil" and "kissing is bad, mmmkay"? That was what I thought.

Click to expand...

Another Strawman Argument. This kind of thing just makes you look desperate and your argument weak. You might want to try actually making a well-reasoned case at some point...

Hey, that they don't enter into the corrupt sexual flow of the culture doesn't make them crazy, just strong and admirable.

So, kissing is corrupt? Nice.

What did your family do to you, growing up?

Click to expand...

Where did I say kissing was corrupt? And suggesting negative things about my family is childish. Is there any chance you're actually going to discuss your OP in an adult fashion?

You think they are prudish but perhaps they think you are promiscuous. I'd take a prudish mate over a promiscuous one any day! And I did!

So those are your only two options? A tramp or a prude? Really now. Talk about lack of touch with reality, bro.

The fact is, maybe to you, someone who ENJOYS sex is too "promiscuous" for you. I'm glad I don't have your views on sex. I'd never be happy married.

Click to expand...

Did I say that there was only two options? In the confines of the discussion in this thread we have only been talking about two points of view: your personally-held views on sexuality and the views of people you call "prudes." If anyone, then, is limiting the discussion to only two options, it is you.

You don't have any idea what my views on sex actually are. You have tried to foist your imaginings as to what they are upon this discussion, but my views and your imaginings are not the same.

Your answers only reinforced the stereotypes that I said originally, that christians are in fact, prudes. I suspect it may be because of your Baptist religion.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you acknowledge here that you're working from your own stereotypes. I don't see how your opinion carries any more weight than the next person's, however. Given the bad method of arguing you use, your opinion actually seems rather weaker than most.

Selah.

aiki said:

Why should you be the standard? Seems awfully subjective and opinion-centered to me...

Yeah just like all humans...

You made the assertion so you ought to back it up. If you can't back up an assertion, perhaps you shouldn't make it.

I stand by the truth of my statements.

I am not "people," I am one person. I can't speak for all other Christians, but, for myself, I don't embrace my faith blindly. You might want to avoid using sweeping generalities. It makes you look ignorant and prejudiced.

Unlike most christians, right...

Your saying say so doesn't make it so. If this is the way you're going to make your case, you aren't going to persuade anyone.

Who am I trying to persuade...?

What difference does it make to you how many kids I choose to have? Please prove that OT Jews had many children in order to have more workers in the family industry. Or is this just another one of your "I say it so it's true" remarks?

Please prove that the bible is true and your god is true.

"Mr. Restraint"? Are you eight years old? Silly name calling does not help your viewpoint any. Such things may have some traction in the school yard, but not here.

I thought it was a compliment. I could have called you much worse.

My view of modesty is simply wearing clothing that is not sexually provocative. I think this is the generally-accepted definition as it applies to dress - at least in my social sphere.

Define "sexually provocative." It is a cultural term.

This is a classic example of a Strawman - which is a kind of fallacious argument. If you want to persuade people, you might want to avoid using bad arguments to do so.

I don't wish to persuade anyone. Only an idiot would try to persuade someone on a christian message board.

You can't legitimately speak for "most people" since you don't know "most people." Even if you personally knew ten thousand people you would still be an enormous distance from knowing most people. There are, roughly, some 7 billion people on this planet right now.

You don't have to know every person personally to know what religious beliefs they espouse. That is why denominations have their creeds and statements of faith. With the internet now, you can connect with people halfway around the world in a heartbeat.

Being chaste and pure, from a Christian perspective, is good because it follows the dicates of God as set out in His Word, the Bible.

Right, so kissing and such is wrong.

You only serve to endorse my original point.

Another Strawman Argument. This kind of thing just makes you look desperate and your argument weak. You might want to try actually making a well-reasoned case at some point...

And this has to do with...?

Where did I say kissing was corrupt? And suggesting negative things about my family is childish. Is there any chance you're actually going to discuss your OP in an adult fashion?

Yes, because families play no role in how someone turns out, right. What planet are you on, friend?

Did I say that there was only two options? In the confines of the discussion in this thread we have only been talking about two points of view: your personally-held views on sexuality and the views of people you call "prudes." If anyone, then, is limiting the discussion to only two options, it is you.

Only Christian prudes. Other religious prudes need not apply. I already know how repressive the Muslim faith is. But I'm not talking to them, nor do I ever wish to.

I was using YOUR words. If you don't like my responses, then pick your words more carefully next time.

You don't have any idea what my views on sex actually are. You have tried to foist your imaginings as to what they are upon this discussion, but my views and your imaginings are not the same.

Then share them and remove all confusion, since you seem to think you have some hidden opinions that no one knows about.



I'm glad you acknowledge here that you're working from your own stereotypes. I don't see how your opinion carries any more weight than the next person's, however. Given the bad method of arguing you use, your opinion actually seems rather weaker than most.

Selah.

Click to expand...

And this refutes me how...?

seekingagnostic32 said:

I just want to know why Christians are so prudish when it comes to this aspect of life. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

MY FRIEND,

What you label "prudish" used to be called "Good Manners" or "Propriety"--evidence that one is a lady or a gentleman.

Given that atheists believe that human beings are nothing more than evolved animals, it is not surprising that they act like what they see themselves as being.

As a Christian, however, i see myself as a reflection of my Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, and i hope all Christians will continue to see themselves this way and act accordingly--in sexual matters as well as all other concerns falling under the classification of moral actions.

ABBA'S SLAVE,
ephraim

seekingagnostic32 said:

It's not just Christians, but religious people in general. I find they are very prudish when it comes to matters of sexuality, the human body and so on. Very repressed. In countries where Christianity and religion are not dominant, the people experience a lot less guilt and repression over their human desires. But in nations like America, where Christianity is the majority of the populace, sexuality is stifled, repressed and people are made to be ashamed of their bodies and carnal desires. I'm just wondering why that is exactly.

The views of birth control being sinful, sex being sinful, the human body being sinful and needing to be covered up at all times is very real within Christianity and most religions in general. I don't understand it at all. I never have, even when I was a practicing fundamentalist Christian.

I know grown adult Christian women that are fearful of holding hands lest it lead to... God knows what. How does that work? I don't know. But it remains that I have met many a Christian who think it's sinful and evil to even kiss prior to marriage. Some may think it's cute; I think it's crazy. (Not to mention grossly unrealistic in our day and age! But that's another matter entirely.)

I just want to know why Christians are so prudish when it comes to this aspect of life. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Christians don't think sex is sinful, we think sexual immorality is sinful (I am referring to those Christians who rightly divide the word of truth ... Song of Solomon is full of passion and I think it is a shame that many Christian 'leaders' have treated sexual pleasure itself as sinful when it is one of the greatest pleasures that God has given to man and woman to enjoy within marriage). There is nothing crazy about fleeing sexual immorality so avoiding behaviors which would lead a couple to sin is wise and each couple should be honest with themselves and each other on what those behaviors are. If intimate kissing not to mention fondling will lead to sex outside of marriage they should be avoided ... there will be plenty of time for that once a couple has made their vows before God and their friends and families.

I do find it odd that God's wisdom is sometimes called 'prudery'. The sociological evidence that sex outside of marriage causes great harm to the individuals involved not to mention to society at large is rather irrefutable ... or do people not look at that?

BondiHarry said:

Christians don't think sex is sinful, we think sexual immorality is sinful (I am referring to those Christians who rightly divide the word of truth ... Song of Solomon is full of passion and I think it is a shame that many Christian 'leaders' have treated sexual pleasure itself as sinful when it is one of the greatest pleasures that God has given to man and woman to enjoy within marriage). There is nothing crazy about fleeing sexual immorality so avoiding behaviors which would lead a couple to sin is wise and each couple should be honest with themselves and each other on what those behaviors are. If intimate kissing not to mention fondling will lead to sex outside of marriage they should be avoided ... there will be plenty of time for that once a couple has made their vows before God and their friends and families.

I do find it odd that God's wisdom is sometimes called 'prudery'. The sociological evidence that sex outside of marriage causes great harm to the individuals involved not to mention to society at large is rather irrefutable ... or do people not look at that?

Click to expand...

It depends on your definition of "inappropriate contenteia" I suppose. My concordance states that it is "harlotry" so I am assuming it refers to temple prostitution and sleeping around, not monogamous relationships between a man and a woman. But I could be wrong.

As for sex outside of marriage, if you mean in terms of before marriage, it isn't necessarily irrefutable evidence that it is harmful. Many, many people (including christians) who have had relations prior to being married were not harmed. Even in the ot it wasn't really condemned. If it happened, you got married, that was all. Considering you got stoned for even minor infractions back then, this shows how lightly God actually takes sex before marriage (especially if you do end up marrying the person).

seekingagnostic32 said:

I'm not looking everything I've read up right now, but it is out there. Don't be lazy and do your own research. Honestly. lol

Click to expand...

I did do my own research, hence the link that I posted regarding religion statistics in the United States. Perhaps it is you that should do your own research before making false claims.

seekingagnostic32 said:

As for prude being a compliment, glad to hear it.

I consider it an insult because I don't believe sex is evil or sinful, unlike you and your religion.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that you read my post. I said that many Christians love sex and do not believe it is evil. Sex is a healthy part of life.

Would you have sex on a crowded public bus during rush hour? I'm assuming you have restricted sex to certain contexts and situations. Just because you have restricted your beliefs such that sex on a public bus during rush hour is frowned upon does not mean that sex itself is therefore frowned upon.

Similarly, Christians have restricted sex to certain contexts and situations (ie within marriage). That does not make sex in itself evil.

leftrightleftrightleft said:

I did do my own research, hence the link that I posted regarding religion statistics in the United States. Perhaps it is you that should do your own research before making false claims.



I'm not sure that you read my post. I said that many Christians love sex and do not believe it is evil. Sex is a healthy part of life.

Would you have sex on a crowded public bus during rush hour? I'm assuming you have restricted sex to certain contexts and situations. Just because you have restricted your beliefs such that sex on a public bus during rush hour is frowned upon does not mean that sex itself is therefore frowned upon.

Similarly, Christians have restricted sex to certain contexts and situations (ie within marriage). That does not make sex in itself evil.

Click to expand...

Maybe... you only live once. I'm not ashamed of my body, unlike most religious people.

Most christians actually don't restrict themselves to until they're married. They're told to and condemned when they don't, but they don't. Trust me. I can't think of ONE christian I know who has honestly waited till marriage. (And rightly so, since it is pretty much unrealistic and silly at the same time, too.)

Now, does that mean NO christians wait? No, I'm sure a few might... But the vast majority don't. And yes, they are plenty of studies to prove that, too.

And the Catholic Church, BTW, is very anti-sex. They make up more than half of all christians too. (And almost all of them "fornicate" prior to marriage as well. How strange...)

seekingagnostic32 said:

It depends on your definition of "inappropriate contenteia" I suppose. My concordance states that it is "harlotry" so I am assuming it refers to temple prostitution and sleeping around, not monogamous relationships between a man and a woman. But I could be wrong.

As for sex outside of marriage, if you mean in terms of before marriage, it isn't necessarily irrefutable evidence that it is harmful. Many, many people (including christians) who have had relations prior to being married were not harmed. Even in the ot it wasn't really condemned. If it happened, you got married, that was all. Considering you got stoned for even minor infractions back then, this shows how lightly God actually takes sex before marriage (especially if you do end up marrying the person).

Click to expand...

Funny, even a cursory reading of the Bible shows how strongly God condemns sexual immorality (from fornication to adultery and the many perversions men tell themselves are okay). Many, many people (including professing Christians) like to tell themselves that their sinfulness didn't harm them but methinks this is more the flesh lying to them than the truth.

BondiHarry said:

Funny, even a cursory reading of the Bible shows how strongly God condemns sexual immorality (from fornication to adultery and the many perversions men tell themselves are okay). Many, many people (including professing Christians) like to tell themselves that their sinfulness didn't harm them but methinks this is more the flesh lying to them than the truth.

Click to expand...

Well, they still do it. Why? Because it's human nature.

Which would all be fine, but religion shows up and condemns man for being made man. This is where religion fails.

Why should you be the standard? Seems awfully subjective and opinion-centered to me...

Yeah just like all humans...

Click to expand...

Are you going to answer my question? Why should you be the standard?

You made the assertion so you ought to back it up. If you can't back up an assertion, perhaps you shouldn't make it.

I stand by the truth of my statements.

Click to expand...

Just not with any proof...

I am not "people," I am one person. I can't speak for all other Christians, but, for myself, I don't embrace my faith blindly. You might want to avoid using sweeping generalities. It makes you look ignorant and prejudiced.

Unlike most christians, right...

Click to expand...

And another sweeping generality. You just can't seem to help yourself...

Your saying say so doesn't make it so. If this is the way you're going to make your case, you aren't going to persuade anyone.

Who am I trying to persuade...?

Click to expand...

From the way you present your viewpoint, no one, apparently.

What difference does it make to you how many kids I choose to have? Please prove that OT Jews had many children in order to have more workers in the family industry. Or is this just another one of your "I say it so it's true" remarks?

Please prove that the bible is true and your god is true.

Click to expand...

Not until you back up some of the claims you have made. So, just how do you know that OT Jews birthed children to bolster their workforce?

"Mr. Restraint"? Are you eight years old? Silly name calling does not help your viewpoint any. Such things may have some traction in the school yard, but not here.

I thought it was a compliment. I could have called you much worse.

Click to expand...

Uh huh.

My view of modesty is simply wearing clothing that is not sexually provocative. I think this is the generally-accepted definition as it applies to dress - at least in my social sphere.

Define "sexually provocative." It is a cultural term.

Click to expand...

Clothing that is designed to elicit sexual interest in another.

This is a classic example of a Strawman - which is a kind of fallacious argument. If you want to persuade people, you might want to avoid using bad arguments to do so.

I don't wish to persuade anyone. Only an idiot would try to persuade someone on a christian message board.

Click to expand...

Quite.

You can't legitimately speak for "most people" since you don't know "most people." Even if you personally knew ten thousand people you would still be an enormous distance from knowing most people. There are, roughly, some 7 billion people on this planet right now.

You don't have to know every person personally to know what religious beliefs they espouse. That is why denominations have their creeds and statements of faith. With the internet now, you can connect with people halfway around the world in a heartbeat.

Click to expand...

LOL! You wrote:

"I don't, and it is prudish. to me, and most people, anyway."

You don't know whether or not it is prudish to "most people." It is a totally unfounded assumption on your part to say that most people think as you do. (And even if you could prove this assumption, it would not make you right.) Even with the internet, you can't possibly know what the opinion of billions of people is on this issue. In any case, I make this point to highlight how much you seem to rely on conjecture in coming to your conclusions.

Being chaste and pure, from a Christian perspective, is good because it follows the dicates of God as set out in His Word, the Bible.

Right, so kissing and such is wrong.

You only serve to endorse my original point.

Click to expand...

Kissing is wrong? Where does it say that in the Bible?

I haven't endorsed your original point; you have tried to put words in my mouth and then claim I said them! Do you honestly think people can't see what you're doing here?

Another Strawman Argument. This kind of thing just makes you look desperate and your argument weak. You might want to try actually making a well-reasoned case at some point...

And this has to do with...?

Click to expand...

Your reasoning capacities, which seem to rely upon fallacious logic quite a lot.

Where did I say kissing was corrupt? And suggesting negative things about my family is childish. Is there any chance you're actually going to discuss your OP in an adult fashion?

Yes, because families play no role in how someone turns out, right. What planet are you on, friend?

Click to expand...

You didn't insinuate merely that families play a role in how someone turns out. You insinuated that my family had negatively impacted me because I hold to a Christian perspective on sexuality. This is childish and obnoxious. If you had simply observed what you do above, I would have made no response.

I was using YOUR words. If you don't like my responses, then pick your words more carefully next time.

Click to expand...

LOL! Please take your own advice!

You don't have any idea what my views on sex actually are. You have tried to foist your imaginings as to what they are upon this discussion, but my views and your imaginings are not the same.

Then share them and remove all confusion, since you seem to think you have some hidden opinions that no one knows about.

Click to expand...

My view on sexuality is only "hidden" to those who don't inquire after what it is. What do you want to know, exactly?

And this refutes me how...?

Click to expand...

How does it refute you? Quite, well, I think.

Selah.

seekingagnostic32 said:

Maybe... you only live once. I'm not ashamed of my body, unlike most religious people.

Click to expand...

If you would maybe have sex on a public bus durign rush hour, then why haven't you? I actually doubt that you would, nor would anyone else which is precisely the reason it doesn't happen. Context matters to you just as much as it does to a Christian.

Prancing around in overly revealing clothing doesn't mean that you automatically are "proud of your body". Similarly, covering up and being modest doesn't automatically mean that you are "ashamed of your body". In my experience, the "over-revealing" ones are usually the ones with lower self-esteem and body-image issues while the modest ones have greater self-confidence and positive body image.

seekingagnostic32 said:

Most christians actually don't restrict themselves to until they're married. They're told to and condemned when they don't, but they don't. Trust me. I can't think of ONE christian I know who has honestly waited till marriage. (And rightly so, since it is pretty much unrealistic and silly at the same time, too.)

Now, does that mean NO christians wait? No, I'm sure a few might... But the vast majority don't. And yes, they are plenty of studies to prove that, too.

And the Catholic Church, BTW, is very anti-sex. They make up more than half of all christians too. (And almost all of them "fornicate" prior to marriage as well. How strange...)

Click to expand...

Your thread is attacking Christians for being prudes. Now you're saying they aren't. What are you getting at?...

To me, the ideal is to wait until marriage. Whether that ideal is put into practice is another topic entirely.

Also, all my Christian friends are virgins. Most of them have good self-confidence and have been in serious, healthy relationships too. So there are some people that manage to hold to it