Why Unwed Christians should not have sex?

because it removes one more control tool from organized religion and now from organized government because of the move on to marry the two . That of course, in the opinion of this drug and drink addled rock musician cum high school dropout....

It is only considered sin when it is done outside of marriage. Now I don't subscribe to this but some people do.

Re: Why Unwed Christians should not have sex?


To control a human imperitive is to control humans themselves. This fact has not been lost on certain organized religious institutions who have exploited it by earnestly promising hellfire and damnation to those who practice their imperitive in a manner they do not authorize. So, to have sex you must get married. Traditionally, to get married, you must be blessed by the church.

Oh, and by the way, if you're even *thinking* about your imperitive, you need to go to church and confess... how very convenient :-)

It ain't God; it's the Church playing mind games... again!

So that the church can delude itself that it's in some way relevant and useful. Also so that people will pay the priest to perform the ceremony.

remember
"The priests make demands , not the gods"

Why Unwed Christians should not have sex?

Because they might enjoy it, and might learn the difference between lust and love, and might be able to make better decisions when choosing life partners. And, worst of all, they might learn that the pleasures of the flesh are meant to be enjoyed.

If they are free to enjoy sex, how can you keep instilling guilt, shame, repression, inhibition, and fear? Without instilling fear, can religion have any control?

But that does leave a slightly intriguing question: why are humans, especially young humans, apparently predisposed to being able to be made to feel guilt, shame, inhibition, fear, etc, about unsanctified sex?

It would seem apparent that if such predisposition exists, then such predisposition must exist for a reason. After a little introspection, it would be churlish to hold that such predisposition did not exist precisely in order to control sexual expression. So one must conclude, if one believes in a Creator God, and whatever one thinks of the church, that God must have created us to feel bad (or, at least, wary) about unsanctified sex, no? And that *that* might be the reason that unmarried (unsanctified) Christians (God-believers) should not have sex.

And if one does not believe in God-the-Creator, one is still forced to the conclusion again that guilt, shame, inhibition, etc, are there also to control sexual expression, although the non-believer has a slightly harder time explaining precisely what might *sanctify* sex (or, rather, the difference between sanctified and unsanctified sex). Nevertheless, the fact remains that humans are always open to control by exploiting the very strong emotions they feel about sex.

Of course, another possible explanation is that by sharpening the distinction between sanctified and unsanctified sex, one draws keener attention to the distinction and therefore, in a childish "reverse-psychology" paradox, greatly encourages the proliferation of unsanctified sex (or, at least, the time spent thinking about it). This would certainly seem an empirical truth from a casual analysis of the behaviour of agents of the Catholic Church in Britain and Ireland :-)

The whole ball of wax--the Church's dogged efforts to control sexual expression--is melting at a furious rate. Yet the Pope holds the line at all the old rules, including no birth control.

It just seems absurd--and counter-productive.

galois



Predisposed no. Brainwashed yes. I would also add that the guilt, shame and etc. has now almost become a non factor.

I guess that "being able to be made" equates to being brainwashed, so perhaps "predisposed to being brainwashed" might be better....

Nevertheless, if guilt, shame, etc, *were* a non-factor today, why do such emotions exist? Why would every fourth spam email I receive advertise "sluts" or "whores" or other derogatory guilt/shame/disgust related terms for, erm, sexually liberated women? Surely, I would suggest, because it increases the click-through rate, no? So, I would suggest, that at least commercially, it remains a factor...

galois
How many of our young who reach the age, and I will be generous, of 18 are still virgins. How many of our young and not so young live together and even have children without marriage. And how much shame is attached to all that in today's society. In addition for those who do get married what is the divorce rate. Marriage is merely a contract made on earth and not in heaven.

(( applause ))

Ya hit the nail on the head.

Only christians are that brainwashed. As someone raised in an atheist home I've never had any guilt instilled in me regarding sex. Most of the other raised-atheists that I know feel the same, whereas the raised-christians that I know feel guilty about sex.

Reason #1057 I'm glad I wasn't raised in a christian home.

BTW Shewolf, love your quote.

I know why Baptists don't make love standing up. 'cause people will think they're dancing.

<runs off quickly before I get hooked off the stage>

I think organized religion that is run by humans will always try to control you. But religion is not evil. It is not made to control, but to try to answer the questions that we can't answer ourselves. I don't see anything wrong with having faith.

Besides i think that teens should fear sex a little, but not for religious resons. I was never afraid of sex because i was raised catholic. I was afraid of having kids and STD's. If that's not something for a teen to fear, then I don't know what is.

Maybe if you weren't a catholic you'd have known about condoms and contraceptives

I don't think me being catholic had anything to do with it. i went to church every sunday, went to sunday school, I did it all. i was a child and I really didn't have much say in most of it. I don't think I was brainwashed. You see my parents raised me to be a catholic, but they also raised me to have a strong mind of my own. I don't believe in everything the church says. They don't make the rules for my life.

For example I hate Bush's plan for abstenince only education. Hate it hate it hate it. Lucky for me I live in Cali wich is one of the only states that gets funding for birth control and std education in public schools. It didn't matter for me since my dad had "the talk" with me when i was 13 years old and even told me about condoms. But still I love the fact that other kids who maybe didn't get "the talk" at home, at least got it somewhere else. i'm also pro-choice by the way.

Don't feel sorry for me for being raised catholic Mr Buddah. Feel sorry for kids who grow up with weak minds. Even if we were all athiests, some other kind of idea would come along and brainwash people. Your comments about religion sound as bigoted as those who scorn people for not being religous. Religion is not the root of all evil. Any idea can be taken to the extreme.

And cartoon sponges just keep pushing that gay agenda - it's the ruin of us all.

Many more, I would wager, than admit to being virgins at 18, the difference comprising, primarily and ironically, juvenile males too ashamed/afraid to admit that they haven't got laid!

Modern secular metropolitan ways of sanctifying sex and relationships include more than marriage, but that by no means implies society's (in whole or in significant part) wholsale liberation from shame/guilt/fear/etc in such matters; indeed these emotions remain central to any understanding of human sexuality, whether in a secular, religious or humanist context.

For example, and possibly at the risk of incurring the flames of secular hellfire, from empirical observation, there still seems to be some kind of race bar (that I have yet to understand, since I did not grow up there) to sex and relationships in many parts of the US. This would seem to be an example of a *secular* attitude influencing behaviour through the shame/fear/guilt/etc channel.