How d'you cope with being unmarried and sexually aroused?

[StarCannon]

like you, i don't believe in hell, or any gods, or a god, but what in the world does this have to do with sex and sexuality?

when it comes to sex, xtianity is definitely a limit in sexual expression. It sets limits on who you can have sex with, when you allowed to have sex, and what your allowed to do when you do have sex.

 

[sbvera13]

That, and the Christian views on sexuality are very much the invention of Christianity alone (and the other related religions of Abraham). In fact, far from condeming it, the majority of pre-christian religions viewed sex as sacred because it was an important part of the natural life cycle. So a person's religious views can very much have an effect on their sexuality.

 

[Chocolatesa]

I pray the Jesus Prayer:
Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner.

 

[Im_A]

to StarCannon and sbvera13:

thank you for your responses, and yes i know all that about Christianity and yes pre-christians may have seen it as sacred. but for me a secular, atheist, the notion of a god, spirituality, has no place in sexual intimacy. the bondness may be more than we can imagine, that i believe is true but that doesn't make it spiritual or anything that should be tied in with religion of any sort as far as i'm concerned. the "sacredness" for lack of better term is merely on a natural/human level to me...the closeness that two individuals become when the act is done and yes continuing the cycle of life, and nothing in regards to whether some vengeful or loving god, or many gods exists.

i probably wasn't the best on topic but when i hear religious Christians and then Non-Christian but religious talk about god in any kind of notion with sex, it just seems so strange to me.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

So "sexual immorality" is strange? Er, I think that post is irrelevant.

 

[xxskittyxx]

I'll be praying for you, original thread-creator.

how i cope... well it's easy when you don't have much of a sex drive! but like i said i'll be praying for you.

 

[StarCannon]

Atlantian:

Sapient is not the same thing as sentient.
Look it up.

I didn't say sapient. I said sentient.
Humans are sentient, and thus self-aware. Animals are sentient, and thus self-aware.
I don't care if an animal doesn't walk on two legs or look like a human.
Animals have personalities, just like humans. Animals can think and learn, just like humans. Animals are self aware, just like humans.

 

[Atlantians]

That, and the Christian views on sexuality are very much the invention of Christianity alone (and the other related religions of Abraham). In fact, far from condeming it, the majority of pre-christian religions viewed sex as sacred because it was an important part of the natural life cycle. So a person's religious views can very much have an effect on their sexuality.

Christianity also views sex as the sacred creation of God.

The difference is that Christianity says it should be kept within the God ordained and designed parameters of marriage.

And honouring and keeping sex and marriage sacred is done not by flaunting it, not by running around and doing it with every moving thing, rather, it is by keeping God's laws and working according to His very good design.

Atlantian:
I didn't say sapient. I said sentient.

Please show the respect of at least reading the posts you are responding to.

I made it clear that I said Sapient.

And that 'sapience' was what differentiated us from animals.
And that sapience is an aspect of being made in the image of God.

Humans are sentient, and thus self-aware. Animals are sentient, and thus self-aware.

Read what sapience is.

Animals have personalities, just like humans.

Animals have personalities.
But nothing like the level humans have and animals are not made in the image of God.
Stop ignoring that crucial and fundamentally defining point.

I have to assume you can't deal with it and are incapable of responding to it without looking silly and inconsistent.

Animals can think and learn, just like humans.

Yeah to a pathetically lesser extent.
And their greatest learning achievements are based on years of human training that gets them approximately to the problem solving ability of a 4 year old!

They are more machines given very limited abilities, while we are conscious persons made in God's image given a vast array of potentialities and creative prowess.

Animals are self aware, just like humans.

Self aware. As in able to recognize themselves in a mirror. Yes.

As a sapient creature able to conceptualize 'self' and things of that nature? Certainly not!

Again. I said 'sapient'.

You clearly are unfamiliar with the term.

Please show us all respect by going and read about these topics before responding to them and please at least read my posts thoroughly before trying to respond and demonstrating that you don't care enough to actually understand and know what your opponent is saying.

 

[StarCannon]

I'm calling you on this one.

And that 'sapience' was what differentiated us from animals.
And that sapience is an aspect of being made in the image of God.

Sapient, according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: sa·pi·ent Pronunciation: \ˈsā-pē-ənt, ˈsa-\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin sapient-, sapiens, from present participle of sapere to taste, be wise — more at sage Date: 15th century

Sentient:

Main Entry: sen·tient Pronunciation: \&#712;sen(t)-sh(&#275;-)&#601;nt, &#712;sen-t&#275;-&#601;nt\ Function: adjective Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel Date: 1632 1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings> 2 : aware 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
&#8212; sen·tient·ly adverb

Please show the respect of at least reading the posts you are responding to.

I made it clear that I said Sapient.

And that 'sapience' was what differentiated us from animals.
And that sapience is an aspect of being made in the image of God.

Didn't say anywhere in bible that animals were not made in the image of god. All it said was that there was nothing, then there was something. Then there was water. Then land. And then there animals and fish. And then there was man. Then "god" gave man dominion over earth land and sea and animals. That's all it says in that chapter.

Animals have personalities.
But nothing like the level humans have and animals are not made in the image of God.
Stop ignoring that crucial and fundamentally defining point.

I have to assume you can't deal with it and are incapable of responding to it without looking silly and inconsistent.

I didn't say the animals could do anything at the same level of humans, I simply said: they can. And they do. And it's provable point that they do have everything I said they have. Whether or not they are made in the image of some hebrew god is moot. Why is it moot? You can't even prove your god exists and you certainly can't prove the validity of your text. I, on the otherhand, can prove everything that I said.

Please show us all respect by going and read about these topics before responding to them and please at least read my posts thoroughly before trying to respond and demonstrating that you don't care enough to actually understand and know what your opponent is saying.

Oh, I know what your saying. You assume the level of animals by basing that assumption off a text. That text's validity is dubious at best and false at worst, and you're trying to make me look like an ass with condescending superior attitude. Well, I got news for ya: HAH HAH very funny go play in the sandbox with the other children.

Sinces both animals and humans have wisdom they are similar. They are like I said before: sentient. I know this from personal experiance. Animals ARE self aware and Animals HAVE wisdom. THey have everything I said they have and thus am right.

I win.

 

[Atlantians]

I'm calling you on this one.

Sapient, according to Merriam-Webster:


Sentient:

Read Wikipedia on those two terms. There is far more to it then a Webster definition.

They are philosophical and scientific terms also.

Didn't say anywhere in bible that animals were not made in the image of god.

Argument from silence.

There is clear reasoning why animals are not made in God's image.
Saying... well it doesn't specifically state it... is an argument from silence when the exegetical argument for my position is strong.

All it said was that there was nothing, then there was something. Then there was water. Then land. And then there animals and fish. And then there was man. Then "god" gave man dominion over earth land and sea and animals. That's all it says in that chapter.

Genesis 26-27 -
26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.



He never said anything special about the animals.
Only humans.
The text contrasts the two. It never compares.



He emphasized humans and the text clearly links being made in God's image with the leadership position over all the rest of creation.

I didn't say the animals could do anything at the same level of humans, I simply said: they can. And they do.

You missed my point.

The way humans are able to act, the level we innately achieve, the creativity, intelligence, and sapience of humanity clearly reflects the passage's statement that we are made in God's image... in contrast to the animals that are not.

And it's provable point that they do have everything I said they have.

Um... that proves nothing.
Yes animals can be creative and intelligent and do have limited personalities.
I never said otherwise.

Whether or not they are made in the image of some hebrew god is moot. Why is it moot? You can't even prove your god exists and you certainly can't prove the validity of your text. I, on the otherhand, can prove everything that I said.

It is hardly irrelevant. I am a Christian.

As to what you said about animals having some semblance of intelligence and some have the ability to recognize themselves, yes those are true. I never said they were not.

Oh, I know what your saying. You assume the level of animals by basing that assumption off a text.

And observing that the way animals and humans act go along exactly with the way we would expect them to act if that text is true. It is consistent.

That text's validity is dubious at best and false at worst,

God's word is the lens through which the Christian views the world.

You have your own presuppositions and assumptions with which you look at the world through.

One of which is this idea that animals and humans are somehow equatable.

I reject that presupposition based on clear observation of animals ion contrast with humans as well as the dividing line of scripture.

and you're trying to make me look like an ass with condescending superior attitude.

Hmm. I simply pointed out that you were not reading my posts or showing any respect to those you were debating with.

Any way you 'looked' to others here was your own doing, not mine.

Well, I got news for ya: HAH HAH very funny go play in the sandbox with the other children.

I never insulted anyone.

You did. This demonstrates that you are losing this debate quite badly when you resort to personal insults.

Sinces both animals and humans have wisdom they are similar.

Even the most highly intelligent Animal can not even remotely be considered wise.

They have no ability to conceptualize.
They have no ability to think in a manner of introspection.

They are able to recognize themselves but can't have a concept of self.
Animals are more like robots with limited learning capability.

They have limited problem solving ability.
They are nearly incapable of abstract thinking.

Humans are wise.

They are like I said before: sentient. I know this from personal experiance. Animals ARE self aware and Animals HAVE wisdom.

THey have everything I said they have and thus am right.
I win.

Au contraire.

I never said they were not self aware or intelligent. And you didn't state they were wise in the initial argument so that is a separate descriptor.

You essentially are saying: "Ha! I am right on this one point that is only loosely connected with the original argument! Thus I win the debate!"

Classic red herring.

And furthermore, what you are saying you were right on and thus win the debate because of... I never disagreed with. I simply made clear that while
animals have limited expression of those traits, they are nothing in comparison with a human.

Thus you are acting like a point you were right on that I never disagreed with... wins you the debate with me?!

That is non sequitor.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

We are told:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor

I'm feel compelled to challenge you on this. You are toting this translation as if it is fact. I will quote from an incomplete webpage I'm constructing, but the formatting will be lost. I recommend going to that webpage, rather than reading what I've quoted here, and scrolling down to the section headed, "My Bible Doesn't Say That!". The section I'm quoting begins with, "It is typically..."

It is typically Protestants who have such egregious misconceptions of homosexuality, due to the numerous poor translations published specifically for them. First consider the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB), 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 and the New Jerusalem Bible's 1 Corinthians 6.9-10, both officially approved by the Church (i.e. they have the Imprimatur), although they differ by a century, respectively:

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake – the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites,
thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Note in both cases, homosexuals are not condemned; clearly in the first and at best in the second, homosexual actions are condemned. (The NJB refers to Sodomites, recalling the attempted rape of angels by Sodom's men.) Now consider some Protestant translations. First, here's the New International Version's 1 Corinthians 6.9-10:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now the same passage according to the New American Standard Bible (NASB):

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

I read in one of these NASB's that it is an update of the New King James Version (NKJV), itself an update of the flawed King James Version (KJV). So let's see the passage according to the NKJV:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

And there you have it. Protestants have completely changed the meaning from homosexual actions to homosexuals themselves. For the record, let's see the passage according to the KJV:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Note that the KJV was first published two years after the DRB's Old Testament, and twenty-nine years after the DRB's New Testament. Thus we see the similarity between nor abusers of themselves with mankind and nor liers with mankind. The KJV's translation reflects what the Church teaches, i.e. homosexual actions are a sin against the individuals that do them. The original words used do not state this fact, however, thus the DRB translation is still superior, even then, for actually translating (verbatim) what is written.

Two comments: The Church's teaching is consistent, and they trace their teaching authority back to Peter (DRB John 21.11-19), and their moral authority they trace to Jesus, as in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (John 20.23). Protestants, however, especially once they have abandoned the Church, are more easily driven to confusion. To compound this error, many Protestants are taught to believe that the Bible – their translation of the Bible – is the literal, inerrant Word of God. (I have history books stating that this Protestant doctrine is a recent development in the history of USA, largely in response to Darwin.) Thus, depending on their translation of the Bible (KJV or NASB or NIV) they are led to believe separate things: it is homosexual actions that are sinful (KJV), it is homosexuals that are sinful (NASB), or it is unrepentant homosexuals, perhaps homosexuals in a relationship, who are sinful (NIV).

There is more to be said here, but I currently lack the words for it. I encourage you to research the Church, and I pray that Jesus will remove the confusion from his followers, both members of his Church and our separated brethren, as Catholics like to call them.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Also, those bible verses are left heavily to interpretation. WHAT exactly defines fornication. WHAT exactly defines the kind of homosexuality that the bible is against.

I wish you'd used question marks ...

Many will argue that the Bible is perfectly clear ... The Catholic Church teaches that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, that the Holy Spirit interprets scripture properly, thus there is no ambiguity: The Church (i.e. the Holy Spirit) teaches that any sexual activity whatsoever outside marriage is fornication. As Jesus says, even looking at another woman and lusting in your heart is adultery (that is, you don't even need to physically do anything.)

Unfortunately, and especially outside of the Church (although certainly it happens within as well), people like to make excuses to continue behavior that has been condemned, under the umbrella of "well maybe that's just their opinion, and not really universal truth."

 

[AetheriusLamia]

when it comes to sex, xtianity is definitely a limit in sexual expression. It sets limits on who you can have sex with, when you allowed to have sex, and what your allowed to do when you do have sex.

C. S. Lewis likened it to operating a machine in his work Mere Christianity. There are rules not to limit your fun, but to ensure you don't hurt yourself.

Jesus affirms this when he states the one commandment that summarizes all the Law and the Prophets, about loving God and your neighbor with all your heart/mind, etc. Every rule (I'm thinking specifically of those within the Church, since Protestant denominations don't seem to have as many) is a consequence of that commandment, guided toward the fulfillment of that commandment, living that love. (If you obey the rules it helps you towards that commandment; if you comply with that commandment, you necessarily already obey all those rules, blah blah.)

 

[BassistforGod]

I have a question.

I was taught by my preacher that, to put it crudely, " a butt is a butt". How does God know who's butt it is? Girls have butts. So do guys. What if I blindly stick my weiner in butt and I married this butt, but this butt turns out to be a woman. Does this mean I am straight?

I mean, we got married, but "he" said "he" was a "she".

Also, is a mouth a mouth?

I mean, if get oral sex on me, what's the difference? Girls have mouths and so do guys.

What if I am in a room that is dark and someone's mouth finds their way onto my dick-stick? It's dark. They have long hair. It could be a guy or a girl. But it just feels so good.

IMO, a hole's a hole. Just ready for the plug.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

...I don't think so. We don't go doing things like that.

 

[Thunder Peel]

That's disturbing. I don't know what else to call it.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Various objects and conversations with my beloved I guess...although my sexual urges are really low comparatively so I guess I don't really have a problem with this.