Sexual Behaviour and Christian Doctrine

[tBeck]

Question Sexual Behaviour/Christian Doctrine, Opinions
I apologize if I didn't place this in a appropriate sexual discussion segment of this forum as I felt they were oriented to a specific therapy.

My story.

I am part of a Christian Forum group and we discuss theology and dogma and related topics. I don't wish to have this thread go into a religious debate, but I simply desire sound supporting information from a psychological viewpoint.

It is their belief that lust is a mortal sin which I do not dispute, but it is my view that anything of sexual culpability must be considered mortal based on their belief standard and the very nature of sexual psychology. They believe that depending on the action, the sexual actions have various degrees of seriousness. It is a them and us ideology. In essence, "WE, the 90% of the population may take an innocent doubletake on occasion, but THEY, the 10% are culpable of desiring another outright."

I advance everything is culpable, if that is their standard, because all libidoed sexual activity has sexual gratification as it's objective, which in turn is the conscience/unconscience desire for sexual copulation.

I feel that sexual deviance and fetishes are a manifestation of the desire to gratify the complete sexual act of copulation, but the subjects cannot fulfill this desire due to psychological reasons of some sort, such as substitutive gratifications, the cause perhaps low self esteem, extreme shyness, or whatever the barrier a specific person may have. Their could also be simply because of convenience, for instance a peeping Tom could marturbate while looking through a window while a couple mate. He may very well have his own readily available partners, so it becomes a reason of instant gratification, or, it is substitutive. A person may look at a well endowed female for instance, or well endowed male. Even vanity is a tool to assist the assurance of a sexual act.

In my view all these behaviors either have the conscience or unconscience end of copulation as the end desired, and as such, and I stress, based on THEIR standard all are culpable because of the defaulted end it wishes to satiate. They don't see it this way of course, after achieving their dogmatic end of delegating their unwanted to the abys.

Another indicator that adds weight to my argument, are the sexual factors of physical orientation to the act. Libido is seen as an unifluenced temptation no different than any other, the scribes of old not into modern chemistry and medicine would not have known of hormonal influences. But it is obvious that this is a programmed behaviour of nature, built in to ensure the continuance of the species, and apart from the run of the mill mortal sin. One would think since this came to light, dogma would change.

I'd appreciate any help in this matter, and I could be well off base on this. I feel there is something intrinsicly wrong with this dogma as it pertains to this area of our being. I guess in a nutshell I'm saying if they want to press this on us, they'll have to encompass all of the factors, not those they find convenient to their cause.

Thanks.

[watson]

Well I am a Catholic so I know that the church holds its members to a certain degree of sexual accountability. Must of what they say is to simply get their members to understand and respect their partners and/or future partners. It is about being able to share such a emotionally and physically satisfying event with the right person. A lot of it is not sins, just expected.

[illini1]

This is a great subject, and one that can be debated forever. Sex and the Church is not just a gray area, it's charcoal gray. With our society and the masses pulling one way, and the church alot of times saying something different, the test of faith and trying to resolve what you want and feel you need versus what you are being told you should do is not just isolated to this issue. It's a fundamental quandary with religion that many people--even the highest in the church--struggle with.

[janenose]

I just read an interesting article about a religious workshop and many organizations of faith offering workshops for couples about intimacy and sexual partnership.  I think the issue with that particular church is that the couple should be married, but after that point, they (the church) acknowledged the need for sexual intimacy between partners. 

[SWM]

i think that the problem the church has at present is the church has taken an interpretation of scripture and created from this a morality which is for the pupose of defining and directing human behaviour. The problem is that human nature will does not fit the design and definition that is given or taken from that interpration of scripture.

[Patrickmeister]

My take is that what men and women do best is sex, therefore, it is only natural that one would have sex instead of all that sex before marriage crap... We exist to pass on our DNA, therefore, having many kids is the ultimate goal for any human being, evolutionarily speaking... Morally, however, I say that it is ok to do something so great if it has insignificant consequences, especially after birth pills, condoms, spermicide, and, as usual, pulling out ... Think about it, you take pills, then, it is safer than drinking, for example, you drink, and you could end up in jail, but, you have sex, you have so much fun + less risk, AND you fulfill your instinctual needs...

[HW7]

Alright, let's talk about sex baby.  LOL, that made me laugh at least.  Anyway, the Bible says some stuff about tying souls together in sex.  Now, there is a lot of stuff I read from the Bible as metaphor.  I decided to ignore what the Bible says about having sex before marriage and I don't know about the whole burning in hell part, but it definitely did mess my head up for a while.  I don't really care either way though... I'd like to say, as a Christian, that I won't do it again until I'm married, but I know that's bull.  And to talk about your levels of evil, so to speak, that's malarke too.  If you want to justify it, you can.  Trust and believe, I know from experience.  If you want to have sex before you are married you will.  Then you can either say some bullshit excuse or your can suck it up and come to terms with what you did on a spiritual level.  I don't mind either way and I'm not trying to push Christianity on anyone, just speaking from that point of view.

[PsychStudent]

Interesting.

[HW7]

Interesting.

What part about that was interesting?

[acousticeagle]

I know my comment here might sound religious, but as this post deals with Christianity I would offer some thoughts, and in some addition to the reply here by SWM. Also I am not offering a more fuller response to the original post - just something to add to this discussion.

The crux of the gospel is 'Christ crucified' and in that gospel or 'good news' is that the sin nature is crucified with Christ on the cross - that is, the soul of a believer is renewed ie 'mind renewed' with an attitude of the not desiring to "sin".

So many base Christianity on morality rules or 'laws' -thus throwing the testaments, old and new, into a muddle. The bible has a lot to say about sex and the book is to be interpreted by a 'renewed mind' rather than in legalistic terms.

Therefore 'lust' in context of sexual deviancy is taken as something pertaining to the old 'creature' or the carnal self -rather than what is offered by belief in the gospel - a mystical transference of the sin nature of the believer to Christ who was crucified with the carnal "old creature". The holy for the unholy - a spotless 'lamb' for the sins of the world. I've heard this called "The Divine Exchange".

The gospel is like nothing else really, for it pertains to someone believing in the event and the meaning of Christ going to the cross to die for the sins of the world.

I would just like to add that some people see sex out of marriage as 'sin' and would judge accordingly. I would not prescribe to that view. If you make all sex (not talking about harmful deviancy here) outside of marriage 'fornication' and say "no sex outside marriage" and therefore make it a legalistic form of judgement then it's under law - not grace.

I think there's much room for discussion and a more open mind to do with Christianity and sex. For each individual has their own forms of sexual expression (again not speaking of the deviant/psychologically damaged) but uninformed Christianity that is based on a formula man-based morality, rather than the crux of the gospel, makes way for a lot of guilt and confusion.

[Patrickmeister]

Maybe this is just an athiest speaking, but, there is no proof that Cristianity is actually a valid way to live, this said, there is no reason why priests (high clergymen) would enforce a law that goes against the very nature of humans. Therefore, it is simply the problem of those who are stupid enough to believe and follow something that has no evidence that backs it, with abnormal laws that one has to follow, that go against our very nature as human beings.

[Enigma]

Therefore, it is simply the problem of those who are stupid enough to believe and follow something that has no evidence that backs it, with abnormal laws that one has to follow, that go against our very nature as human beings.

this man speaks wisdom

[ababrab]

while clergy deprive the lust, they did it in un logical ways, so that means the lust is  psychological nature, and libido is instinct in the humenbody, so you can revise what freud said in this field

best wishes

[pert -5]

Maybe this is just an athiest speaking, but, there is no proof that Cristianity is actually a valid way to live, this said, there is no reason why priests (high clergymen) would enforce a law that goes against the very nature of humans. Therefore, it is simply the problem of those who are stupid enough to believe and follow something that has no evidence that backs it, with abnormal laws that one has to follow, that go against our very nature as human beings.

I wouldn't label that atheism, it's but common sense--and well spoken common sense at that! 

[Patrickmeister]

why, thank you

[Vortex]

I've went round and round in my mind for many years on this topic and this is what I have concluded:

1- Religous and social morals are often in direct conflict with nature. For example, it is considered immoral to look at an underaged female with lust. However nature endowed us all to be sexually mature and capable of reproduction at around 13. Nature also instilled a sexual attraction in males towards these females that are now capable of reproducing. Without the desire then capability is irrelevent. Nature doesnt care about the maturity of ones mind. This I believe evolved because of humanities greatly shorter lifespans then we enjoy today and therefore had to "get busy" much younger to ensure the survival of the species. This doesnt change just because we don't currently agree with natures law. Not saying it's justification for action on those feelings which is covered below.

2- A thought in and of itself is not a sin, immoral or whatever. It's only when we act upon those thoughts that evil or good becomes manifest.

3- If we allow ourselves to dwell upon thoughts that we have deemed immoral or sinful, then we are increasing the chance that someday we may act upon them. This would be a fair basis to believe that dwelling upon those thoughts are indeed immoral or sinful. If you're an atheist, the same thing applies to undesired thoughts or thoughts that could lead to illegal actions and therefore "unwise" to dwell upon them.

4- i believe we are made up of several competing personalities (for lack of a better word) which make up what we call self. Current enviroment greatly affects which personality has more pull with the resulting consensus or decisions we come to. This IMO is why all thoughts are a vital part of survival and not to be feared or labeled as "evil or sinful".

[Patrickmeister]

the reason why we thing of sex, and crime, and all these things,  is because it's human nature to do so. The only reason why a person would think of a single topic is because it is something enjoyable, profound or simply awesome. If a topic goes into those three catagories, it is human nature to think of it.

[Vortex]

Maybe this is just an athiest speaking, but, there is no proof that Cristianity is actually a valid way to live, this said, there is no reason why priests (high clergymen) would enforce a law that goes against the very nature of humans. Therefore, it is simply the problem of those who are stupid enough to believe and follow something that has no evidence that backs it, with abnormal laws that one has to follow, that go against our very nature as human beings.

I wouldn't label that atheism, it's but common sense--and well spoken common sense at that! 

I wouldn't label that wellspoken or accurate. Not only does it demean those that believe in a religion but I assure you there are those with extremely high I.Q.' s that do believe in a religion and a god. I am not a believer but I cannot rule out the possibility 100%. I personally assign it around a 5% chance. There are many reasons particularly psychological that one would believe even in the face of reasoning and logic. It would be more accurate to say it is irrational rather than stupid.

[Patrickmeister]

irrationality = something that is not rational, rational behavior = normal, okay, understandable, justifiable behavior.
irrationality = something that is NOT normal, okay, understandable or justifiable.

[Vortex]

irrationality = something that is not rational, rational behavior = normal, okay, understandable, justifiable behavior.
irrationality = something that is NOT normal, okay, understandable or justifiable.

ir·ra·tional (i ras?h?? n?l)
adjective
1.lacking the power to reason
2.contrary to reason; senseless; unreasonable; absurd
normal and okay? Where did that come from? Anyway, you stated that the belief in god is stupid, meaning low IQ and I have already showed where that was inaccurate to say the least. Thererfore what would be a better word? Irrational can be used to say that their belief is not based in fact or reasoning, etc.... or "irrational". I stand by my reply...

[pert -5]

I wouldn't label that wellspoken or accurate. Not only does it demean those that believe in a religion but I assure you there are those with extremely high I.Q.' s that do believe in a religion and a god. I am not a believer but I cannot rule out the possibility 100%. I personally assign it around a 5% chance. There are many reasons particularly psychological that one would believe even in the face of reasoning and logic. It would be more accurate to say it is irrational rather than stupid.

Oh, you assign it "5%" (same key with a Shift differential).  So irrational is not stupid?  So a person high on crack who is staring out of the windows and doors, imagining that non-existant police are honing in on them, is not stupid?  So a woman jumping onto a chair at the sight of a mouse is not stupid?  Irrational?  Yes.  Stupid?  Y...  n..  Y....  n..  YES!!!! OMG YES, It is stupid!  Irrational behavior is stupid.  It is stupid.  It is stupid.  It is stupid.  Irrational behavior is stupid.  It is stup-

[Vortex]

Lol, looks like someone needs a nap  

As I said, stupid would mean low IQ. Since there are physicists and other high IQ people that do believe in god and religion, that immediately invalidates claims that if someone believes in god that proves they are stupid. What part of that is difficult for you to grasp? Do the majority of them believe it? No, but enough do to prove that it's not merely an IQ issue.  Irrational? IMO yes, automatically stupid, no.

[pert -5]

Lol, looks like someone needs a nap  

Good opener.

As I said, stupid would mean low IQ. Since there are physicists and other high IQ people that do believe in god and religion, that immediately invalidates claims that if someone believes in god that proves they are stupid. What part of that is difficult for you to grasp?

OK.  How do we apply the words of millenia old books (read: religions) to our current comprehension of existence?  Who is the smartest person alive?  Who do you consider as such?  In what way shall their beliefs modify our current understanding?

Do the majority of them believe it? No, but enough do to prove that it's not merely an IQ issue.  Irrational? IMO yes, automatically stupid, no.

OK, so now we're dumming down the definition of intelligent.

[SWM]

getting lively over here.

[Patrickmeister]

guys, you guys are thinking that IQ itself actually determines one's smarts. It's not true. IQ is simply verbal, or linguistic intelligence, it is how much a person knows what other people invented (language, maths, ect, ect...) But, there is another type of intelligence that is NOT necesarily IQ. One can know how to get popular in a social setting even if that person is one who flunked school.

That aside, religion IS stupid as it is the belief of something nonexistant that governs your entire existance.

[Vortex]

Oh comon, that opener was funny    Ok, maybe i'm alone in that opinion...

Patrick: only the old IQ tests were like that. The newer tests used are based on problem solving of  a more abstract nature in an attempt to better gauge raw intelligence rather than eduction. A good example is that a primitive native can have more raw intelligence than someone that's well eductated. Before one scoffs, consider that if both had been raised in similar enviroments and went to the same schools there would be no doubt that either could outperform the other in an older modeled test. This was greatly debated before the changes were instituted.

OK.  How do we apply the words of millenia old books (read: religions) to our current comprehension of existence?

I don't... and I dont think it should be applied since as previously stated, "I believe it's irrational to do so". My point is about the potential intelligence of those that do. Before you go ape again, answer this question: Do you agree there are people that do, believe in a god, that would dwarf your IQ score? If you answer yes, then you must logically agree that IQ is not the determining factor for people that have faith. If you answer no... then what do you base that belief on since there are many high IQ people that do including at least one physicist that i'm aware of that does. I mean, do you test at over 230 that ensures your belief of your superior intelligence compared to these scientists and scholars of high IQ that in fact do believe in a god?
Therefore, I believe it is fair to question their rationality but not automatically assume that they are of low IQ or as you so eloquently put it... dair jus stooopid. (sorry but that's how it comes across to me)

Who is the smartest person alive?

Debatable but some quick searches pulled these people:
1- Kim Ung Yonga = 210 (could solve integral calculus problems at age 4) holy crap
2- Marilyn vos Savant = 167- 230 depending on which test (and attractive as well)
3- Christopher Michael Langan = 195-210

Who do you consider as such? In what way shall their beliefs modify our current understanding?

I'm not sure of his score but a personal favorite is Stephen Hawking since i'm fascinated with physics. I also admire that he achieved this despite his disability. I don't believe I've heard him addressing the issue and I highly doubt he is a believer but I could be mistaken. He has altered our understanding most notably through "hawking radiation".  My all time favorite is Einstien or possibly the person who first thought of putting steak and eggs together, depending on my mood 

It appears there is a consensus among some of the posters here that irrational thought is indicitive of low IQ. If that were the case then would it not follow that those suffereing from mental illnesses that cause delusions, which is irrational thought would then be restricted to those of low IQ? There is no evidence to support such a statement or belief. In fact, i recall reading some studies that showed that people with such disorders had a higher avg IQ than the general public. I read these over a decade ago and have no documentation to refer to and frankly, i'm too lazy at the moment to locate them. So disregard it if you like...

[pert -5]

Oh comon, that opener was funny    Ok, maybe i'm alone in that opinion...

Patrick: only the old IQ tests were like that. The newer tests used are based on problem solving of  a more abstract nature in an attempt to better gauge raw intelligence rather than eduction. A good example is that a primitive native can have more raw intelligence than someone that's well eductated. Before one scoffs, consider that if both had been raised in similar enviroments and went to the same schools there would be no doubt that either could outperform the other in an older modeled test. This was greatly debated before the changes were instituted.

OK.  How do we apply the words of millenia old books (read: religions) to our current comprehension of existence?

I don't... and I dont think it should be applied since as previously stated, "I believe it's irrational to do so". My point is about the potential intelligence of those that do. Before you go ape again, answer this question: Do you agree there are people that do, believe in a god, that would dwarf your IQ score? If you answer yes, then you must logically agree that IQ is not the determining factor for people that have faith. If you answer no... then what do you base that belief on since there are many high IQ people that do including at least one physicist that i'm aware of that does. I mean, do you test at over 230 that ensures your belief of your superior intelligence compared to these scientists and scholars of high IQ that in fact do believe in a god?
Therefore, I believe it is fair to question their rationality but not automatically assume that they are of low IQ or as you so eloquently put it... dair jus stooopid. (sorry but that's how it comes across to me)

Who is the smartest person alive?

Debatable but some quick searches pulled these people:
1- Kim Ung Yonga = 210 (could solve integral calculus problems at age 4) holy crap
2- Marilyn vos Savant = 167- 230 depending on which test (and attractive as well)
3- Christopher Michael Langan = 195-210

Who do you consider as such? In what way shall their beliefs modify our current understanding?

I'm not sure of his score but a personal favorite is Stephen Hawking since i'm fascinated with physics. I also admire that he achieved this despite his disability. I don't believe I've heard him addressing the issue and I highly doubt he is a believer but I could be mistaken. He has altered our understanding most notably through "hawking radiation".  My all time favorite is Einstien or possibly the person who first thought of putting steak and eggs together, depending on my mood 

It appears there is a consensus among some of the posters here that irrational thought is indicitive of low IQ. If that were the case then would it not follow that those suffereing from mental illnesses that cause delusions, which is irrational thought would then be restricted to those of low IQ? There is no evidence to support such a statement or belief. In fact, i recall reading some studies that showed that people with such disorders had a higher avg IQ than the general public. I read these over a decade ago and have no documentation to refer to and frankly, i'm too lazy at the moment to locate them. So disregard it if you like...

So, there you have it.  I would prefer to befriend a person who lists such people...  I, myself, would list Alexander the Great and John Dee as my favorite people, and that would be palpable with this list...  Well met brother!  Peace.

[Vortex]

Ah yes, I have went on many times to my son about Alexander the Great. I should've thought of Galileo as well not just for his mind and contrabutions to mankind but also for his courage to speak the facts as he saw them regardless of the great personal risk at defying the Church doctrine. That could've easily ended in a very slow and painful death, that's guts... salute.

[Patrickmeister]

dude the thing is, most people with high IQ are social outcasts. Look at all really smart high-IQ kids, they are always just by themselves in a library or something. Now, compare a 80-90, below average IQ jock. He is flipping leader of the school. This occurance proves my statement that IQ isn't everything to a person's ability to live life. Here in spain especially, if you were borne into a good family, you got a good job, and lived a good life, even if kids here get drunk at least twice every weekend and get high all the time. Here, it's not so much an intellectual's world but someone that can socialize with people the best. I mean, even the national economics councelor didn't take a single class in economy in college...

Note that actors, talk show people, social celebrities are not so much intelligence, but charisma and social smarts. They influence our world much more than scientists or mathematicians. Sure, scientists invented a rocket or whatnot, but celebrities make movies and stuff, and they earn much more money than scientists.

IQ does not equate to smartness
Since high IQ people can not communicate or socialize as well as say, a celebrity with a lower IQ, they are not in any way better than that celebrity, as he or she knows how to live amongst people better, and therefore is smarter than anyone that would know the last 100 digits of pi. The kicker is, we all live in a society, a group of people, so, it's vital that we know how to live in that group and become influencers and leaders.

[Vortex]

Stupid, intelligent, rational and logical are well defined words with fairly specific meanings.  Feel free to redefine them as you see fit. The IQ test is the currently accepted method off gauging intelligence. Last time I checked it didn't include a popularity portion. There is probably a better word for what you are describing but I cant think of it atm.

Where did I say that a persons IQ has anything to do with "a person's ability to live life"? Please, I have enough voices putting words in my mouth without others joining in... take a number  

These actors etc you think affect our world so greatly would be acting on a wooden stage in front of a handful of illiterate, meade swilling, unwashed peasants if it weren't for those in the world that posses a higher level of intelligence and have brought light to the world in the form of the sciences including philosophy. Of course the actors may have been capable of bringing the world the great advancement of the "slap-chop"... oh wait, probably not, that required the invention of plastic and at least a fair degree of engineering... i retract that, we wouldn't even have the slap-chop... eh but enjoy the show. Now don't conclude that I am saying all actors etc are low IQ for the love of all... Also don't conclude that I am saying that their contribution to the overall quality of life of humanity is negligible, it definitely enriches us all.

BTW: I never said being of high IQ meant they were better than anyone else. I simply said (but had to elaborate several times so far) that "believing in a religion or a god is not indicitive of low intelligence and therefore believers cannot be summarily dismissed as stupid" as was done in earlier posts by others.