• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

To Believe or Not To Believe? (SHOW RESPECT, OR RISK A BAN)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find the acceptance of violence over sex and nudity to be really weird. The news, tv, movies, pretty much everything can show blood, gore and violence, and nobody says anything. But Janet Jackson shows a nipple at the superbowl and people lose their minds.

7292889ba0a0667cffff94572e68e997.jpg
 
I find the acceptance of violence over sex and nudity to be really weird. The news, tv, movies, pretty much everything can show blood, gore and violence, and nobody says anything. But Janet Jackson shows a nipple at the superbowl and people lose their minds.

I think the level of violence that gets depicted these days on TV is extreme to say the least.

But I don't think full out nudity is ever really appropriate. It's interesting, since I've been advocating for comic accurate female costumes in this prudish age.I'm sure people think it's a conflicting view point. But it isn't.:woot:
 
True, but if you want to understand the Christian view on it then you have to factor in original sin and the Fall of Creation. Even the Church, which accepts evolution by God's direction and hand, believes in Original Sin. How they factor together is a Mystery of the Faith, but in the Christian belief the current "normal" state of humans is a fallen state. So lust is normal but not a good thing. Christians don't deny that lust is something that we all experience but like you said that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to control our lust. Viewing pornography isn't controlling one's lust. It's feeding it, and in Christian doctrine and scripture it is said that we can't feed our fallen sinful nature and our renewed nature in Christ. We are to restrain ourselves.
In my mind, pornography is controlling the lust. Feeding into lust would mean acting out and engaging in sex with others whom you aren't in a relationship with. If Christians want to rationalize it to include pornography as well, then I find that needlessly oppressive to one's sexual drive.
 
The thing about porn is,sex was never intended to be a spectator sport by God. (Frankly I was never attracted to porn very much for that reason. Isn't one of the goals in life to do that with the person you love? Not watching total strangers doing it. Seems creepy as heck.)

It's kind of an uncomfortable topic,but when it comes to matters of sex,people seem to think of God as the ultimate killjoy, but He put up parameters for the practice for valid reasons. (many of which I'm sure have been mentioned here already.)
 
I think the level of violence that gets depicted these days on TV is extreme to say the least.

But I don't think full out nudity is ever really appropriate. It's interesting, since I've been advocating for comic accurate female costumes in this prudish age.I'm sure people think it's a conflicting view point. But it isn't.:woot:

I think it is extreme too. I think the violence in the Gotham show is overblown making it be more ridicules than entertainment.
 
I've never understood the desire from religious groups to repress something that comes as natural as the need to consume food. It's one thing to try and control someone from indulging in drugs, alcohol or smoking, none of those are natural needs, but the need to procreate is built into us from the moment we're born and trying to romanticise it, or worse demonise it, doesn't do anything but confuse people and lull them into a sense of shame and guilt.
 
That's completely backwards.


That just sounds like deliberately setting yourself up to have low standards. Or maybe even a form of deliberate self-delusion. It's creating a fantasy that the sex you're having is the BEST SEX EVER and nothing else would compare. That kind of mindset just doesn't sound healthy to me.

The point is that under Christian teaching that sex should be a form of intimacy and expression between two committed individuals, not a competitive sport.

You have to keep in mind that individuals who engage in premarital sex are more likely to obsess over finding optimal sex partner than those who waited. Research shows that those who waited are more likely to be satisfied because they're not tempted by memories of other past partners. Their 'sexual' energy wasn't divided among several different people. In theory, there can always be another someone else who is a "better in bed" than last person you're with....are you going to use that justification to try sleep with everyone on the planet? The point is to life a satisfied lifestyle, not test if the a grass is greener on the other side lifestyle. That won't lead to satisfaction and more likely lead to ruin and despair.
 
I find the acceptance of violence over sex and nudity to be really weird. The news, tv, movies, pretty much everything can show blood, gore and violence, and nobody says anything. But Janet Jackson shows a nipple at the superbowl and people lose their minds.

7292889ba0a0667cffff94572e68e997.jpg
I find it disturbing that you can sexually violate and rape a woman in an R rated movie, but if anyone kisses a nipple, it's an NC-17. That's a perfect example of how sick we are as a culture when it comes to sex.
 
I've never understood the desire from religious groups to repress something that comes as natural as the need to consume food. It's one thing to try and control someone from indulging in drugs, alcohol or smoking, none of those are natural needs, but the need to procreate is built into us from the moment we're born and trying to romanticise it, or worse demonise it, doesn't do anything but confuse people and lull them into a sense of shame and guilt.

No one is saying not ever have sex, but that it is optimal and safe in committed relationship. Sampling multiple people opens risk for STDs, pregnancy risk, abortion risk, child custody risk, paternal fraud risk, stalker lover risk, envy, and confusion. Those are all real risks in the 21st century.

One thing to note is that during time these passages were made, people got married at younger age (women in late teens getting married was common) . So if you got your ducks in a row by marrying early, you didn't really have to wait long after 18. In modern day society, people are getting married much later, mostly for financial reasons or to finish school...but the desire to have sex is there so premarital sex is likely result. The teaching isn't lifelong abstention. The teaching is actually find a good partner early so you can have that sex...but people aren't really choosing to do that...pushing marriage off until later. Now we have greater out of wed lock births that will spiral out of control.
 
The point is that under Christian teaching that sex should be a form of intimacy and expression between two committed individuals, not a competitive sport.

You have to keep in mind that individuals who engage in premarital sex are more likely to obsess over finding optimal sex partner than those who waited. Research shows that those who waited are more likely to be satisfied because they're not tempted by memories of other past partners. Their 'sexual' energy wasn't divided among several different people. In theory, there can always be another someone else who is a "better in bed" than last person you're with....are you going to use that justification to try sleep with everyone on the planet? The point is to life a satisfied lifestyle, not test if the a grass is greener on the other side lifestyle. That won't lead to satisfaction and more likely lead to ruin and despair.

Did you just ignore my response to your "research?"
 
The point is that under Christian teaching that sex should be a form of intimacy and expression between two committed individuals, not a competitive sport.

You have to keep in mind that individuals who engage in premarital sex are more likely to obsess over finding optimal sex partner than those who waited. Research shows that those who waited are more likely to be satisfied because they're not tempted by memories of other past partners. Their 'sexual' energy wasn't divided among several different people. In theory, there can always be another someone else who is a "better in bed" than last person you're with....are you going to use that justification to try sleep with everyone on the planet? The point is to life a satisfied lifestyle, not test if the a grass is greener on the other side lifestyle. That won't lead to satisfaction and more likely lead to ruin and despair.
It can also lead to couples who are completely incompatible sexually to stay together and think that there is something wrong with themselves, since they don't know any different.

Some people just do not match up sexually together. Too big, too small, chemistry is wrong, allergic to sperm/fluids, etc. But when you have a belief that you might go to hell forever if you seek out another partner or happiness with someone else, it can be psychologically crippling.
 
No one is saying not ever have sex, but that it is optimal and safe in committed relationship. Sampling multiple people opens risk for STDs, pregnancy risk, abortion risk, child custody risk, paternal fraud risk, stalker lover risk, envy, and confusion. Those are all real risks in the 21st century.

One thing to note is that during time these passages were made, people got married at younger age (women in late teens getting married was common) . So if you got your ducks in a row by marrying early, you didn't really have to wait long after 18. In modern day society, people are getting married much later, mostly for financial reasons or to finish school...but the desire to have sex is there so premarital sex is likely result. The teaching isn't lifelong abstention. The teaching is actually find a good partner early so you can have that sex...but people aren't really choosing to do that...pushing marriage off until later. Now we have greater out of wed lock births that will spiral out of control.

This whole post just makes me shake my head. Are you saying people need to find the person they're going to marry early so they can have sex earlier?

Also, what are you talking about with this out of wedlock births that will spiral out of control? Who cares if a child is born out of wedlock if the parents are loving and caring? Where is your evidence for this claim?

So people who have premarital sex are "sampling multiple people?" Have you actually ever been in a relationship? You're completely undermining the value of a relationship. No one enters into a relationship to "sample" that person. They're doing it because they want to be with that person. I think you're confusing relationships with casual dating.
 
I would also like to point out that 95% of Americans have sex before marriage. To say sex before marriage causes lower quality of sex after marriage and poor communication would be saying that the majority of Americans are unhappy with their marriages. I think the problem is looking at the number of sexual partners before marriage and using that as the cause for unhappy marriages. It's like saying that because both ice cream sales and crime increase in the summer, ice cream must be the cause of crime.

Well the article you linked doesn't dispute the points I was making, only asserting that causation doesn't mean correlation. That doesn't really matter to me as point I was making that premarital sex is an indicator of lack of commitment, which is problem for holding marriages together. That is the same point the psychologist you quoted was making in the article. It doesn't matter to me which is the egg and which is the chicken (whether premarital sex causes lack of commitment or people who don't like to commit tend to engage in premarital sex). The point is those two variables walk together hand in hand and indicate premarital sex isn't a variable that strengthens marriages (assuming that is the goal).

With regard to questions Americans having unhappier marriages...all I can do is point that marriage rate is decreasing to lowest levels in US history as prevalence of casual sex is increasing. I don't have a thorough answer to that question, but it doesn't appear there's any evidence that the higher prevalence of casual sex is improving marriages.
 
I've never understood the desire from religious groups to repress something that comes as natural as the need to consume food. It's one thing to try and control someone from indulging in drugs, alcohol or smoking, none of those are natural needs, but the need to procreate is built into us from the moment we're born and trying to romanticise it, or worse demonise it, doesn't do anything but confuse people and lull them into a sense of shame and guilt.
Speaking of food, some of y'all may be wondering about fasting and Lentso I might as well post some stuff on it while I'm here.

People fast as a discipline, and
to sacrifice something in the days leading up to the day of Christ's sacrifice. However,
These practices are disciplinary in nature and often more effective if they are continuous, i.e., kept on Sundays as well. That being said, such practices are not regulated by the Church, but by individual conscience.http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year/lent/questions-and-answers-about-lent.cfm


But the Church is a lot more lenient about it today. Fasting is only suggested for 18-59 years of age, and anyone with any sort of medical condition who could be put in danger by fasting are entirely excused from the fasting with the Church's complete support and approval.

Q. I've noticed that restaurants and grocery stores advertise specials on expensive types of fish and seafood on Fridays during Lent. Some of my Catholic friends take advantage of these deals, but somehow I don't feel right treating myself to the lobster special on Fridays during Lent.

A. While fish, lobster and other shellfish are not considered meat and can be consumed on days of abstinence, indulging in the lavish buffet at your favorite seafood place sort of misses the point. Abstaining from meat and other indulgences during Lent is a penitential practice. On the Fridays of Lent, we remember the sacrifice of Christ on Good Friday and unite ourselves with that sacrifice through abstinence and prayer.

Q. I understand that Catholics ages 18 to 59 should fast on Ash Wednesday and on Good Friday, but what exactly are the rules for these fasts?

A. Fasting on these days means we can have only one full, meatless meal. Some food can be taken at the other regular meal times if necessary, but combined they should be less than a full meal. Liquids are allowed at any time, but no solid food should be consumed between meals.

Q. Are there exemptions other than for age from the requirement to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday?

A. Those that are excused from fast and abstinence outside the age limits include the physically or mentally ill including individuals suffering from chronic illnesses such as diabetes. Also excluded are pregnant or nursing women. In all cases, common sense should prevail, and ill persons should not further jeopardize their health by fasting.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year/lent/questions-and-answers-about-lent.cfm

And the Church doesn't advocate the suppression of procreation in a marriage. Only when two people are outside of wedlock, and only through abstinence not contraceptives. But frankly with what scientists have said about rising population and resource problems down the road I think our species wouldn't be hurt if it tried a little more abstinence. Just because we can have sex and procreate doesn't mean we should just because the mood strikes us. If we don't get a handle on either our population or figure out a way to make a lot more fresh water a lot faster and significantly increase crop yields then in this century or the next billions could be starving and dying of thirst.

Yet more often than not it's turned into a bad thing from their perspective.

I posted this yesterday:

Contrary to how it seems at times the Catholic Church teaches that sex is a beautiful gift created by God, and that He designed it to be an expression of love between a husband and a wife that is open to the transmission of human life. As far as the Church is concerned and according to Scripture and Church Tradition the main purpose of human sexuality is first for the procreation of children and the continuation of the human race. Secondly, for the mutual benefit of the spouses. Sex is meant by God to be an expression of total self-giving love between a husband and a wife. And marriage is an expression of the union between Christ and His Church which is why marriage within the Catholic Church is a Sacrament.

The Church views premarital sex as being opposed to God's intended plan, and their are writings on the matter going all the way back to the Church Fathers, and it is even addressed in Scripture. So a lot of thought has went into the Church's stance on it. It's more than just "ewww sex is bad and nasty".

So sex to them is beautiful if it's used for more than just carnal lust. But as just a carnal release or purely as expressing one's lust then yeah they view it as crude and vulgar.


A part of the Chirstian lifestyle is suffering to one degree or another to bring ones self closer to the Christ.

Paul says: “Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his suffering, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Philippians 3:8-11)

Another dimension of Paul’s thought on the meaning of suffering is his conception of suffering as a means for sanctification, keeping pride at a minimum and trust in God at a maximum. He says: “And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’…For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:7-10).

It is in weakness that we are more apt to trust in Christ because we realize that what we accomplish is not of our own doing, but the grace of Christ is working in us. Furthermore, it is in our weakness and suffering that we grow in humility and cannot pride ourselves in our accomplishments. We suffer “to make us rely, not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead.” (2 Corinthians 1:9)

We see in these verses of 2 Corinthians 12 that this suffering is once again “for the sake of Christ.” It is through grace that Paul can be content with suffering. We receive here an insight into the effectiveness of grace. Grace helps us to participate in the salvific act of suffering and to be content with it.

This is why Paul can say in his letter to the Galatians that “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me…who loved me and gave himself up for me.” (2:20) Christ gave himself up for us in the salvific act of his Passion and death; Paul sees himself doing the same in participating in the Passion and death of Christ.

Paul reveals to us the paradox of the cross. To be crucified usually means death, but for Paul it means Christ living in him. In suffering, when united to Christ, death now means life. This is why he says in 1 Corinthians: “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1:18).

There is this intimate bond between the cross, the epitome of the sufferings of Christ, and the suffering of the people which is a participation in the self-same cross. Thus participation in the cross through suffering is a way of obtaining grace, the power of God to participate in salvation. This is also why Paul can say elsewhere in Galatians: “Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world…Henceforth let no man trouble me, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (6:14, 17).

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/anointing-of-the-sick/st-paul-explains-the-meaning-of-suffering/

For the record tho, I do view pornography at times and don't think it's good to overly repress healthy sexual desires. Sometimes that can be far more harmful than abstinence. I certainly don't qualify as a saint.:p
 
Last edited:
Did you just ignore my response to your "research?"

Hmm? I was busy writing response to multiple posts and that takes time...any reasons you put research in quotation marks? You don't like those journals cited? I didn't find the "experts" in Huffington Post article who didn't participate in conducting the study to be convincing.
 
Nice post Marvolo :up:, I'm not Catholic, but great points around.....all up to last part about porn, I'm not touching that, my friend. :)
 
Last edited:
Hmm? I was busy writing response to multiple posts and that takes time...any reasons you put research in quotation marks? You don't like those journals cited? I didn't find the "experts" in Huffington Post article who didn't participate in conducting the study to be convincing.

I can't read the articles because you have to pay to read them. So I asked you if you just read the abstracts or if you paid.
 
I always found lent interesting. I've only done it for the past few years, but I find it to be a worthy challenge to overcome desires that I am so used to.
 
No one is saying not ever have sex, but that it is optimal and safe in committed relationship. Sampling multiple people opens risk for STDs, pregnancy risk, abortion risk, child custody risk, paternal fraud risk, stalker lover risk, envy, and confusion. Those are all real risks in the 21st century.

One thing to note is that during time these passages were made, people got married at younger age (women in late teens getting married was common) . So if you got your ducks in a row by marrying early, you didn't really have to wait long after 18. In modern day society, people are getting married much later, mostly for financial reasons or to finish school...but the desire to have sex is there so premarital sex is likely result. The teaching isn't lifelong abstention. The teaching is actually find a good partner early so you can have that sex...but people aren't really choosing to do that...pushing marriage off until later. Now we have greater out of wed lock births that will spiral out of control.

There's no difference between sex in a committed relationship and in an uncommitted one. Sex is what it is, a human need, the risks involved are the same regardless of the situation.
 
So sex to them is beautiful if it's used for more than just carnal lust. But as just a carnal release or purely as expressing one's lust then yeah they view it as crude and vulgar.

The shear fact it's viewed as lust in anyway indicates a lack of understanding that at our core we are animals first and foremost and are built with the mindset of wanting to pass on our genes to the next generation. It's not lust to want to procreate any more than it's lust to want to feed ourselves.
 
If you don't have the desire to procreate it's natures way of eliminating your DNA from the gene pool. It's survival of the fittest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"