100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If Sex only for Procreation,,,, | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
If, according to the Bible, sex should only be engaged in for the purpose of procreation, then why wouldn't Priests, who have taken a vow of celibacy, be castrated or neutered? Wouldn't they be less distracted or tempted?
The same could be said about men and women who did not want to have any more children, or after they are past the child bearing age, as for them to have sex using birth control methods would be considered unnecessary or even "sinful" according to religious teachings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 05/05/13 12:38 PM
|
|
If, according to the Bible, sex should only be engaged in for the purpose of procreation, then why wouldn't Priests, who have taken a vow of celibacy, be castrated or neutered? Wouldn't they be less distracted or tempted? The same could be said about men and women who did not want to have any more children, or after they are past the child bearing age, as for them to have sex using birth control methods would be considered unnecessary or even "sinful" according to religious teachings. To successfully coerce Man to do your bidding,you first need to make them feel guilty and ashamed of themselves,and making him feel guilty about his Sexuality is the most fundamental way to achieve that Goal! Once you have done that,you can visit any Indignity and Punishment upon him! The doctrine that man’s sexual capacity belongs to a lower or animal part of his nature . . . is the necessary consequence of the doctrine that man is not an integrated entity, but a being torn apart by two opposite, antagonistic, irreconcilable elements: his body, which is of this earth, and his soul, which is of another, supernatural realm. According to that doctrine, man’s sexual capacity—regardless of how it is exercised or motivated, not merely its abuses, not unfastidious indulgence or promiscuity, but the capacity as such—is sinful or depraved. The Ayn Rand Lexicon |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HappyBun
on
Sun 05/05/13 02:27 PM
|
|
{quote}
If, according to the Bible, sex should only be engaged in for the purpose of procreation, then why wouldn't Priests, who have taken a vow of celibacy, be castrated or neutered? Wouldn't they be less distracted or tempted? The same could be said about men and women who did not want to have any more children, or after they are past the child bearing age, as for them to have sex using birth control methods would be considered unnecessary or even "sinful" according to religious teachings. Sex is the most natural human funtion there is. Priests are human so that has never been really addressed in the catholic religion. Castrating or neutering priests is a total non-starter. As for sex being solely for the purpose of procreation the teaching are hypocritical in the least. The rhythm method of contraception is a total contradiction. The bible says thou shalt not cast the seed on barren ground. The upside of that of course is that old men still sexually sexually active would have to have sex with fertile young women. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HappyBun
on
Sun 05/05/13 01:52 PM
|
|
My smart TV is not so smart after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If, according to the Bible, sex should only be engaged in for the purpose of procreation . . .
The Bible says no such thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think procreation is one purpose for sex
another is for the husband and wife to be one Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. as for castration, I think because men and women have the capacity to change their minds and because it is ultimately Gods decision, castration is pointless and the choice not to intentionally castrate would not be sinful at all,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If, according to the Bible, sex should only be engaged in for the purpose of procreation . . .
The Bible says no such thing. Then what religious zealot spread that rumor? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If, according to the Bible, sex should only be engaged in for the purpose of procreation . . .
The Bible says no such thing. Then what religious zealot spread that rumor? I have never heard such a rumor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If, according to the Bible, sex should only be engaged in for the purpose of procreation . . .
The Bible says no such thing. Then what religious zealot spread that rumor? I have never heard such a rumor. I've heard it plenty. I don't know if it is in the Bible or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is in the interests of all religions to say that sex should be for the sole purpose of procreation, how else are they to increase their numbers. Education if given to the masses will be the ruination of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 05/06/13 11:57 AM
|
|
It is in the interests of all religions to say that sex should be for the sole purpose of procreation, how else are they to increase their numbers. Education if given to the masses will be the ruination of religion. in this lazy society, I think such a campaign would be poison,, making sex sound like a job, would actually decrease numbers telling people it is pleasurable and for spouses to enjoy each other, makes more sense,, it promotes procreation, but it also promotes the idea of two loving commtitted parents bringing new life in the world to commit to and love and it promotes more exclusivity in sexual relations which reduces the potential for the spread of disease and broken homes throughout a community |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If, according to the Bible, sex should only be engaged in for the purpose of procreation, then why wouldn't Priests, who have taken a vow of celibacy, be castrated or neutered? Wouldn't they be less distracted or tempted? The same could be said about men and women who did not want to have any more children, or after they are past the child bearing age, as for them to have sex using birth control methods would be considered unnecessary or even "sinful" according to religious teachings. Firstly the main and primary purpose for Sex is for procreation in God's own point of view,but then sexual desires is also of great importance and could be said to be the secondary purpose which's thought provoking as well.in 1 Corinth.7:1-9,it speaks exclusively on the importance of getting married to escape lustful passion.verse 1.Concerning the things that you wrote me,it's therefore good for a man not to touch a woman.vs 2.Nevertheless because of sexual immorality let each man have his wife and each wife have her own husband..vs.3.let the husband render affection due to his wife and likewise the wife to the husband".With this statement Apostle Paul expresses that sex in marriage or any sex could also be used to satisfy sexual AFFECTION which's the secondary purpose,while the main or primary purpose which was ordered by God is for procreation.But as christians any sexual indulgence must be under marriage and if it's outside marriage it's really a great sin before GOD and it attracts a curse.But we must know that it's possible for somebody to live till he dies without touching a woman and Paul was an example because of the grace and annoiting of God upon his life.Therefore every man should be sincere and operate according the grace of God given to him.sexual abuses and charges leveled against some priests in the christiandom are really disheartening mostly after they had taken the Oath of Celibacy.everyone should be able to ascertain the level of grace bestowed upon him by God before deciding to take such a sacred Oath.in ma own suggestion Catholic fathers should be giving the chance to marry inorder to avert lustful passion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
another is for the husband and wife to be one
This is the part I gripe on. Are there not other less explicit ways to demonstrate a bond of one? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
another is for the husband and wife to be one
This is the part I gripe on. Are there not other less explicit ways to demonstrate a bond of one? marriage,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
another is for the husband and wife to be one
This is the part I gripe on. Are there not other less explicit ways to demonstrate a bond of one? marriage,,, Ridiculous. and one of the reasons marriages fail. Trying to become one with someone else is impossible. ...and usually the woman becomes nobody, giving up her name and serving her husband. This is the way it was. If you wanted to disappear, just get married and become Mrs. John Smith. Your name and identity can completely disappear. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is in the interests of all religions to say that sex should be for the sole purpose of procreation, how else are they to increase their numbers. Education if given to the masses will be the ruination of religion. in this lazy society, I think such a campaign would be poison,, making sex sound like a job, would actually decrease numbers telling people it is pleasurable and for spouses to enjoy each other, makes more sense,, it promotes procreation, but it also promotes the idea of two loving commtitted parents bringing new life in the world to commit to and love and it promotes more exclusivity in sexual relations which reduces the potential for the spread of disease and broken homes throughout a community |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
another is for the husband and wife to be one
This is the part I gripe on. Are there not other less explicit ways to demonstrate a bond of one? marriage,,, Ridiculous. and one of the reasons marriages fail. Trying to become one with someone else is impossible. ...and usually the woman becomes nobody, giving up her name and serving her husband. This is the way it was. If you wanted to disappear, just get married and become Mrs. John Smith. Your name and identity can completely disappear. I suggest the reason marriages fail is because people dont bother to try as hard to become one (this includes men who expect to keep their identity and their partner give up t heirs) as they do to keep doing their own thing and being an 'individual' becoming one wouldnt require women to become nobody, it would require both the man and woman to become someone new in each other,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
another is for the husband and wife to be one
This is the part I gripe on. Are there not other less explicit ways to demonstrate a bond of one? marriage,,, Ridiculous. and one of the reasons marriages fail. Trying to become one with someone else is impossible. ...and usually the woman becomes nobody, giving up her name and serving her husband. This is the way it was. If you wanted to disappear, just get married and become Mrs. John Smith. Your name and identity can completely disappear. I suggest the reason marriages fail is because people dont bother to try as hard to become one (this includes men who expect to keep their identity and their partner give up t heirs) as they do to keep doing their own thing and being an 'individual' becoming one wouldnt require women to become nobody, it would require both the man and woman to become someone new in each other,,, There is no reason to "become one" with another person. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well i think sex we do is for increasing our family.but there are two kinds of sex one is legal which we do after marriage second one is illegal or maybe you can say a sin.now sex is for fun only.people dont care what will happen to the girl if she had sex with a guy and he refuses to marry her.what she tell her child about her father? how she face the world?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
another is for the husband and wife to be one
This is the part I gripe on. Are there not other less explicit ways to demonstrate a bond of one? marriage,,, Ridiculous. and one of the reasons marriages fail. Trying to become one with someone else is impossible. ...and usually the woman becomes nobody, giving up her name and serving her husband. This is the way it was. If you wanted to disappear, just get married and become Mrs. John Smith. Your name and identity can completely disappear. I suggest the reason marriages fail is because people dont bother to try as hard to become one (this includes men who expect to keep their identity and their partner give up t heirs) as they do to keep doing their own thing and being an 'individual' becoming one wouldnt require women to become nobody, it would require both the man and woman to become someone new in each other,,, There is no reason to "become one" with another person. yes, we can always remain stagnant and unchanging or we can constantly grow and evolve as one person or we can evolve as one unit with another person ,,its all personal choice,,, |
|
|
|
|
