Why is God so obsessed with sex?

[Lori_7]

what is love?

sex is the way that bonbons bond as a tribe and they are our closest relitives. In other words there view of sex is probably how we are MENT to be rather than this sterilised form that has come out of the emporor constentines desire to have all power under his own control

1 Corinthians 13

Love

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

______________

i didn't research the bonbons. the way you put it made it seemed forced.

so you're saying it's like a hippie love commune?

i have mixed feelings about that. ultimately, i think that if people are loved, taken care of, and fulfilled, that's what is most important. but that hardly ever happens, commune or monogamy.

when communion is restored, in the kingdom, i think everyone will love and take care of each other, but we won't be having sex; our bodies will be eternal. we'll have a different kind of intimacy. communal, but non-sexual.

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

Any sort of sexual act is simultaneously framed by not only societal attitudes but also consequences, not only in terms of progeny but also that of a casual relationship being built up as long term one (and vice versa).

I still can't understand what point you're trying to make.

You seem to be saying that every sexual act must be considered in terms of some kind of unspecified "consequences". Most sexual acts do not involve progeny. It is not clear from what you have written whether you think that people ought only have sex when they intend to reproduce.

And I can't comprehend what you might mean by a "casual relationship being built up as long term one".

Putting aside the recreational/procreational aspect for a moment .... suppose some one involved in a long term relationship has a one night stand with a third party - does the potential for this long term relationship to persevere diminish any?

Potentially, of course.

The issue there is not the sex, per se, but issues of trust, respect and so on.

You seem a little fixated about the sexual act itself.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Putting aside the recreational/procreational aspect for a moment .... suppose some one involved in a long term relationship has a one night stand with a third party - does the potential for this long term relationship to persevere diminish any?

only if she finds out..

 

[Big Chiller]

Potentially, of course.

The issue there is not the sex, per se, but issues of trust, respect and so on.

You seem a little fixated about the sexual act itself.

What do you mean not the sex per se sex is a big part of relationships how can it not play much of a role in destroying a long term relationship. Yes it can maybe forgiven once perhaps but more than once? I'm trying to say one doesn't have to be obsessed with sex for sex to bring an end to the relationship.

 

[wynn]

You seem to be saying that every sexual act must be considered in terms of some kind of unspecified "consequences".

How could it be otherwise?

Most sexual acts do not involve progeny.

This is so, because people have indeed considered the natural consequences of sex and attempted to guard against them.

The issue there is not the sex, per se, but issues of trust, respect and so on.

How can you separate these things like that??

 

[Asguard]

This is so, because people have indeed considered the natural consequences of sex and attempted to guard against them.

Not nessarly, in nature oral and anal sex, as well as mutual mastibation exists in primates and dolphines so why would it be any different for humans?

 

[Lori_7]

Not nessarly, in nature oral and anal sex, as well as mutual mastibation exists in primates and dolphines so why would it be any different for humans?

it's not any different from humans, and christianity makes a huge point of telling us that we are to have dominion over animals, not to be an animal, and that the desires of our flesh oppose righteousness and our true spiritual identity.

 

[Sock puppet path]

A lurid example of the christian gods obsession with sex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

The question is why there is such sex propaganda and why so many people buy into it.

To distract us?

jan.

 

[iceaura]

You find the phenomena of (attempted) long term relationships being built on the foundation of casual sex relationships alien?

I find it self contradictory - terminally confused in conception.

 

[Big Chiller]

Not nessarly, in nature oral and anal sex, as well as mutual mastibation exists in primates and dolphines so why would it be any different for humans?

Apes or dolphins are no role models for us. In fact humans are unique among all other organisms in having conscience.

 

[James R]

Signal:

You seem to be saying that every sexual act must be considered in terms of some kind of unspecified "consequences".

How could it be otherwise?

It seems to me that most sexual acts have no long-term consequences.

Most sexual acts do not involve progeny.

This is so, because people have indeed considered the natural consequences of sex and attempted to guard against them.

Yes. Are you saying using contraception is wrong? Is that what lightgigantic is saying? I still don't see what point the two of you are trying to make.

The issue there is not the sex, per se, but issues of trust, respect and so on.

How can you separate these things like that??

I haven't tried to separate them. Specifically, they came up in the context of somebody in a committed relationship having sex with a third party. Most sex acts are not of that kind, either, of course.

In summary, I still don't understand lightgigantic's point. Perhaps you can explain it to me, seeing as you jumped into this conversation to support him.

 

[wynn]

This is so, because people have indeed considered the natural consequences of sex and attempted to guard against them.

Not nessarly, in nature oral and anal sex, as well as mutual mastibation exists in primates and dolphines so why would it be any different for humans?

If you base your reasoning on the premise that "Animals do it, and humans are animals; therefore, humans should do it too" then you have to answer why you are selective in which behaviors of other animals humans should engage in.

You are, for example, not suggesting that it would be natural or desirable or normal for humans to live in the sea, eat a diet of raw food only, fly with their arms, eat stool, live off babmoo shoots only, or that after mating, the female eats the male .... and the numerous other behaviours that animals display.

 

[wynn]

To distract us?

From what?

 

[wynn]

I find it self contradictory - terminally confused in conception.

What is so?

 

[wynn]

You seem to be saying that every sexual act must be considered in terms of some kind of unspecified "consequences".

How could it be otherwise?

It seems to me that most sexual acts have no long-term consequences.

The point here is the fact is that people indeed do consider the potential long-term consequences of sex - which is evidenced by people's use of contraceptives, screeing for STI's, - or by setting up bank accounts for the children-to-come or buying a bigger house with rooms for children, for example. There is also evidence of considerations of the psychological consequences of sex, for example - see various books, seminars, workshops, forums and other avenues of discourse on how to engage in sexual relationships without them being damaging.

You implicitly argued that people don't need to or don't consider the long-term consequences of sex.
Obviously, they do, in one way or another. They obviously know that there is more to sex than just the sex act itself.

Are you saying using contraception is wrong?

That will depend on what you want in life, what you think the purpose of human life is.

My goals are probably markedly different than yours; engaging in sex for any other purpose than procreation would be counterproductive to attaining them.

 

[Jan Ardena]

From what?

God.
And things of a spiritual nature.

jan.

 

[wynn]

God.
And things of a spiritual nature.

Why do you think people are susceptible to such distractions?

 

[wynn]

Lightgigantic - Could you please take a stance here to JR's posts to you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why do you think people are susceptible to such distractions?

I think people want to be happy, and try to achieve this state through the spectacal of their conditioning. By asociating everything with sex, and sex being the powerful pleasure principle that it is, conditioning is immanent. Maybe not to
every person, but large majority (over generational time).

jan.