Is Having Safe Sex In A Society That Is Sex Driven, Morally Wrong In Gods Eyes?

[Abiyoyo]

It would be a notion to say that in this society, abstience or safe sex, would be considered responsible in a general idea by soceity.

 

Yet, Biblically, it list fornication(Paul) and most sexual corruptness(Sodom-Gommorah, Leviticus) as wrongful and unmoral in the eyes of God.

 

I have an even deeper thought, that I believe relates to the topic. Jesus paid taxes with a coin from the fish when encountered by an officer, saying let us not offend them. Lot, is good as well; as he was saved from the destruction that came upon the land, in just offering his daughters as some sort of bargain.

 

I mean, that wasnt moral, yet Biblically, Sodoms corruptness was heard "up to the heavens". He lived in a, I would assume, more corrupt enviroment than humanly imaginable, considering his offering, and being saved from the destruction after this.

 

Is having safe sex in a society that is sex driven, morally wrong in Gods eyes?

[white_raven23]

Is having safe sex in a society that is sex driven, morally wrong in Gods eyes?

 

Umm.

 

This interpretation of god only works if you believe the bible is god's work. If you don't believe that (like me) then there is no rational way to ascertain what a supreme being approves or disapproves of. Short of that being having a word with you personally. And if the supreme being is truly omni-all....then I have a feeling that our little piddly concerns are really too small to be of any real interest to this being at large.

 

Or if you are an atheist, you don't believe there is a god at all. In that case, you may as well be asking if having safe sex in a society that is sex driven, is morally wrong in Harry Potter's eyes.

[♦ nivek ♦]

YoYo cryptically penned:

 

Is having safe sex in a society that is sex driven, morally wrong in Gods eyes?

 

What "god"? Which version of "my imaginary friend has a bigger crank than yours"?

 

Which play on morality, set of rules, set of engagements you want us to set a foundation on so we all have some idea of what you want to discuss?

 

If you are gonna toss an overhead "shotgun" question out, try to pick one bird out of the flock so we all can shoot at it..

 

kFL

[quicksand]

Is having safe sex in a society that is sex driven, morally wrong in Gods eyes?

Yes. Absoletly. Just as there is no Christian-God in the Consitution, God hates safe sex.

 

These aren't my words, but from the words of a right-wing Catholic couple, who are staunchly against embryonic stem cell research that I had the pleasure of discussing the matter with at our State Fair a couple of weeks ago. She stated plainly and factually that, since god did not create man to have condoms, it was against god to use them and other birth control. She used the phrase "natural birth-control" which, as we use to say in high school "spray and pray."Natural birth-control is not birth-control, just a shifting of emphasis.

 

Of course, God did not create us with wings, or gills, so submarines and airplanes must be a bane to him too.

 

 

 

(Oh and society is sex-driven, otherwise you wouldn't have a society for very long. Just another example were the biological facts contradict the alledged truth of the bible.)

[Lorena Rodriguez]

It would be hard for me to give you an opinion on your question, since I would have to overcome a few stumbling blocks:

 

1) I would have to believe that Jesus actually found a gold coin in the mouth of fish. Actually, thank you for the reminder--this is the oddest of all the "miracles."

 

2) The fact that Lot was good. What?

The guy I read about in the bible was self-centered, thoughtless, and cruel (willing to give his daughters to be raped).

 

Even when I was a christian, I was told that not all the stories portrayed "good" people. Lot definitely wasn't on my list of good biblical characters. I can't imagine why he would be in yours.

 

3) The fact that god cares what I do with my life

Really, if god does exist, he's got to know better than to stick his nose in other people's lives. He couldn't possibly be as pitiful as the old ladies that go around judging people in the church.

 

My big thing against calling behaviours right or wrong is that we aren't god to go around deciding. It is hard enough to run my own life--I don't want to be involved in deciding what's right or wrong for others. And I am sure god, if he does exist, doesn't care to be involved in such degrading business either. He is supossed to be smart, isn't he?

[chefranden]

It would be a notion to say that in this society, abstience or safe sex, would be considered responsible in a general idea by soceity.

 

Yet, Biblically, it list fornication(Paul) and most sexual corruptness(Sodom-Gommorah, Leviticus) as wrongful and unmoral in the eyes of God.

 

I have an even deeper thought, that I believe relates to the topic. Jesus paid taxes with a coin from the fish when encountered by an officer, saying let us not offend them. Lot, is good as well; as he was saved from the destruction that came upon the land, in just offering his daughters as some sort of bargain.

 

I mean, that wasnt moral, yet Biblically, Sodoms corruptness was heard "up to the heavens". He lived in a, I would assume, more corrupt enviroment than humanly imaginable, considering his offering, and being saved from the destruction after this.

 

Is having safe sex in a society that is sex driven, morally wrong in Gods eyes?

 

Look, Yo, God don't have no eyes, so just go ahead and screw her -- but be safe.

[godlessgrrl]

Hm.

 

I'm having a bit of a problem with the question, as it assumes the existence of god, which simply isn't known for sure, despite how loudly anybody might insist that there is indeed a deity to worry about. That's quite the assumption, and a debate all its own.

 

I have an easier time with it if we just shave off the last 3 words, and leave it as "Is having safe sex in a society that is sex driven, morally wrong?"

 

I don't know. Do you think it is? I don't. My conscience tells me that sexual escapades between consenting adults is a personal matter, and so long as no one is being harmed or having their will violated, it's all good. Including the choice to abstain, if one wishes.

 

However, if your guide is the Bible, and you believe that there is indeed a god, and that he is the god of the Bible, then yes, safe sex outside of a limited context is indeed morally wrong (per the verses you quoted). No two ways about it.

 

If the Bible is the pointer on your moral compass, I'd advise you to stay away from sex outside of Biblical constraints.

 

But that's just me.

[snookums]

which god? exactly.....

I haven't read or heard many 'believer's' express a sense of being 'pissed off" with their god...for creating sexually transmitting critter's....that kill innocent children.

 

*sigh*

 

I read that the bible is okay with that....lots of killing of children...That's not particularly 'moral' in anyone's book!

 

as far as the 'gossip'..factor goes.....

 

are you thinking Yoyo...that it would be 'better' for people to have 'unsafe sex' because at least everyone would find out when they got a disease....

which of course happens ..cos having sex it so dirty..? (need I say...I'm being sarcastic)

 

I not sure I follow your logic?

or

are you suggesting some kind of 'sacrifice' today.....that could equal the biblemyths ....is having unsafe sex so you could be 'saved'...?

[Asimov]

It would be a notion to say that in this society, abstience or safe sex, would be considered responsible in a general idea by soceity.

 

Yet, Biblically, it list fornication(Paul) and most sexual corruptness(Sodom-Gommorah, Leviticus) as wrongful and unmoral in the eyes of God.

 

I have an even deeper thought, that I believe relates to the topic. Jesus paid taxes with a coin from the fish when encountered by an officer, saying let us not offend them. Lot, is good as well; as he was saved from the destruction that came upon the land, in just offering his daughters as some sort of bargain.

 

I mean, that wasnt moral, yet Biblically, Sodoms corruptness was heard "up to the heavens". He lived in a, I would assume, more corrupt enviroment than humanly imaginable, considering his offering, and being saved from the destruction after this.

 

Is having safe sex in a society that is sex driven, morally wrong in Gods eyes?

 

 

What the fuck does this mean and why are you asking people who don't believe in your God?

[Abiyoyo]

YoYo cryptically penned:

 

Is having safe sex in a society that is sex driven, morally wrong in Gods eyes?

 

What "god"? Which version of "my imaginary friend has a bigger crank than yours"?

 

Which play on morality, set of rules, set of engagements you want us to set a foundation on so we all have some idea of what you want to discuss?

 

If you are gonna toss an overhead "shotgun" question out, try to pick one bird out of the flock so we all can shoot at it..

 

kFL

 

The Christian God. The moral perception regarding sexual matters Biblically.

 

 

 

(Oh and society is sex-driven, otherwise you wouldn't have a society for very long. Just another example were the biological facts contradict the alledged truth of the bible.)

 

 

I am referring to our present society compared to past. I will say the focus point being the United States.

 

 

 

2) The fact that Lot was good. What?

The guy I read about in the bible was self-centered, thoughtless, and cruel (willing to give his daughters to be raped).

 

Even when I was a christian, I was told that not all the stories portrayed "good" people. Lot definitely wasn't on my list of good biblical characters. I can't imagine why he would be in yours.

 

Peter's considered Lot to be "delievered" by God out of this society.

 

2 Pet 2:7-9

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

(KJV)

 

3) The fact that god cares what I do with my life

Really, if god does exist, he's got to know better than to stick his nose in other people's lives. He couldn't possibly be as pitiful as the old ladies that go around judging people in the church.

 

 

 

My big thing against calling behaviours right or wrong is that we aren't god to go around deciding. It is hard enough to run my own life--I don't want to be involved in deciding what's right or wrong for others. And I am sure god, if he does exist, doesn't care to be involved in such degrading business either. He is supossed to be smart, isn't he?

 

How is the prevention of deadly and illstruck dieases degrading; and not smart to consider? Thats my point. We live in a present society that safe sex, in lue of having sexual relations with different people; is considered ok. Does the God of the Bible consider it ok as well, or are Christians suppose to "vex' our souls as Lot did?

 

[quicksand]

(Oh and society is sex-driven, otherwise you wouldn't have a society for very long. Just another example were the biological facts contradict the alledged truth of the bible.)

I am referring to our present society compared to past. I will say the focus point being the United States.

Hey YoYo, all societies are driven by sex. The need to reproduce. It just that with the media today is so much better at advertising and proliferating these images then in ancient and archiac Rome and Greek where advertising for prositution consisted of a rock carving in the shape of V. (Closet example I can offhand come up with.)

 

If you like brkas and no affirmation of the innate aspects of sexuality in a culture, move to a Muslim theoracy like Saudi Arabia or Afganstian or Iraq. However ,repressed these countries are, the repression is an affrimation that we are creatures driven by sex and lust and love.

[Abiyoyo]

However, if your guide is the Bible, and you believe that there is indeed a god, and that he is the god of the Bible, then yes, safe sex outside of a limited context is indeed morally wrong (per the verses you quoted). No two ways about it.

 

If the Bible is the pointer on your moral compass, I'd advise you to stay away from sex outside of Biblical constraints.

 

But that's just me.

 

Thats my point though. The Bible, other than Paul's letters, doesnt really give clear direction as far as sexual relations between man and woman.

 

which god? exactly.....

 

Christian God

 

 

I haven't read or heard many 'believer's' express a sense of being 'pissed off" with their god...for creating sexually transmitting critter's....that kill innocent children.

 

*sigh*

 

I read that the bible is okay with that....lots of killing of children...That's not particularly 'moral' in anyone's book!

 

 

What country do you live in?

[Curtdude]

Look, Yo, God don't have no eyes, so just go ahead and screw her -- but be safe.

 

So, Yoyo, I get the same feeling about your post as the Chef. You wanna screw some chicky-pooh, and wanna bounce off the idea that being "safe" (to reducing meaningfully your risk of contracting or giving HIV) is somehow more "moral" than sticking to your god's command not to fornicate.

 

I take it things aren't going well between you and the wife which you have posted about in the recent past, but honestly I have not been following your posts lately and I don't know how that has panned out.

 

Ethically and from this agnostic's point of view, the actual physical sex act is void of any moral content -- having sex with someone is a very private act and, as long as it's consensual, you must make a decision about how comfortable you are with your sexual actions. And you must be ready and willing to take all consequences for them. It is totally up to you to take all precautions re Hiv and pregnancy, consider the whole subject of sexual fidelity for yourself, etc. Whether it's banging some one night stand, or getting involved in some complicated, often sleazy and behind-everyone's-back love affair, it's rife with risks as well as pleasures, and being an adult means taking total and complete responsibility. Do a risk assessment, for the love of god!

 

If you'd feel guilty, don't do it. But I know you probably will, 'cause you're a guy and guys are pigs.

 

Am I holding out here that you're actually going to decide that christianity is a crock? Honestly, I can't even follow your logic in your posts, but you seem to be coming back for more, so "hope springs eternal" here that maybe you'll see the light...

[white_raven23]

YoYo cryptically penned:

 

Is having safe sex in a society that is sex driven, morally wrong in Gods eyes?

 

What "god"? Which version of "my imaginary friend has a bigger crank than yours"?

 

Which play on morality, set of rules, set of engagements you want us to set a foundation on so we all have some idea of what you want to discuss?

 

If you are gonna toss an overhead "shotgun" question out, try to pick one bird out of the flock so we all can shoot at it..

 

kFL

 

The Christian God. The moral perception regarding sexual matters Biblically.

 

See YoYo....this is retarded. You are asking us the opinion of a being we don't believe in. Don't you get it?

 

That's just like asking a bunch of Fundementalist Christians the same question with Allah attached to it instead of Christian god. You cannot reasonable expect them to respect that question.

 

Just like you can't reasonably expect us to respect a question that makes an assumption most of us don't believe in. Such as the Christian God being IT.

 

You want to ask questions that make that assumption, go ask them on a CHRISTIAN forum....not an EX-CHRISTIAN one.

[Gaura]

All societies are sex-driven. It's required to keep a society around for more than a century (or even less) but different societies dealt with the issue differently. Some preChristian European socieites demanded that the couple prove their ability to produce BEFORE they could get married. They would get engaged, get pregnant, and then get the knot tied. Other societies seek to strictly limit the availability of sex, such as many Islamic socieites. Others seek to enslave the sex act to the marriage bed without restricting actual availability. It's a volatile combination.

 

The truth is that we are dealing in history here when the variables have changed. It used to be essential for societal members to produce abundantly and quickly because stillbirth, neonatal death, and childhood deaths were so common. The simple truth is that our medical abilities have gotten so good that people who never would have had a chance now do. A modern American who has gone through stillbrith is very rare now, and I can tell you firsthand that people don't know how to react. In Afganistan they have specific mourning rituals for the situation.

 

So before we can even begin to answer "in god's eyes" we have to look at "society's eyes" which in this case (at least in America) are turning more toward safe sex. Despite all the abstinence talk in the schools, the truth is that America relies on condoms, the Pill, etc to keep pregnancy at bay. Clearly, many people now believe that there are plenty enough people to go around and we don't need the extra hands around the house the way it was centuries ago.

 

I also believe that "god" as I definte it anyhow, would be far more inclined to favor a reasonable balance rather than slavish devotion to some extreme. If we were to ban unsafe sex tomorrow, America would be gone in a century-- if we were to remove all sexual restictions whatsoever and perhaps even demand that all Americans participate in sex no matter what-- we would be overrun with babies in a short while.

 

For me, the balance point is to raise a single child. This single child needs his nappie, so must close for now

[mwc]

The Christian God. The moral perception regarding sexual matters Biblically.

...

I am referring to our present society compared to past. I will say the focus point being the United States.

Lets see...bible god, who we'll assume exists for sake of argument, doesn't change morally so it doesn't matter what timeframe we wish to discuss. YoYo, my dear friend, if we are discussing you (and I feel we are) can never have sex even if you divorce unless your wife had an affair and even then it's "iffy." Did she? Based on what I know she did not. So you get to keep it in your pants until you die. This is the biblical way of things.

 

If you wish to toss that whole bit out then window, and you're divorced then go ahead and have safe sex. What's the problem? God allows sex with lots of different "pairings" (incest and rape are especially popular but prostitutes and others are up there as well...no bestiality though) as long as you're righteous. Are you righteous? If not, then you might want to wait.

 

So my real advice is forget the whole god/bible business. Wait until you are divorced (not just separated since this can be used against you since you are still married) and then have all the safe sex you want.

 

mwc

[Crunk Bishop]

the only reason the bible suggests sexual morality is because it was written by a patriarchal society in which women were considered "commodities" rather than full human beings.

 

so in the biblical world you shouldn't covet your neighbor's wife's ass cuz he paid for her, and you shouldn't covet his daughter either because one day he's hoping to exchange her for a "son" from another family.

 

so the whole idea of "sexual immorality" presupposes a world in which women are not sovereign over their own bodies...

[snookums]

the only reason the bible suggests sexual morality is because it was written by a patriarchal society in which women were considered "commodities" rather than full human beings.

 

so in the biblical world you shouldn't covet your neighbor's wife's ass cuz he paid for her, and you shouldn't covet his daughter either because one day he's hoping to exchange her for a "son" from another family.

 

so the whole idea of "sexual immorality" presupposes a world in which women are not sovereign over their own bodies...

 

Yay - exactly! Another closet feminists...? good for you.

 

 

 

However, if your guide is the Bible, and you believe that there is indeed a god, and that he is the god of the Bible, then yes, safe sex outside of a limited context is indeed morally wrong (per the verses you quoted). No two ways about it.

 

If the Bible is the pointer on your moral compass, I'd advise you to stay away from sex outside of Biblical constraints.

 

But that's just me.

 

Thats my point though. The Bible, other than Paul's letters, doesnt really give clear direction as far as sexual relations between man and woman.

 

which god? exactly.....

 

Christian God

 

 

I haven't read or heard many 'believer's' express a sense of being 'pissed off" with their god...for creating sexually transmitting critter's....that kill innocent children.

 

*sigh*

 

I read that the bible is okay with that....lots of killing of children...That's not particularly 'moral' in anyone's book!

 

 

What country do you live in?

 

 

Yoyo...have you heard of Africa?........there's a hell of a lot of babies dying of AIDs - HIv related

and still the catholics won't promote the condom.

 

Come to think of it....even the god Pres Bush Jr...has given 'aid' on the grounds that the promotion of condoms is last resort.......umm....Have you heard of the "absinence' programme? of course you have....

[Lorena Rodriguez]

Yo-Yo said:

Peter's considered Lot to be "delievered" by God out of this society.

 

2 Pet 2:7-9

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

(KJV)

 

Lorena responds:

That goes to tell you how screwed the bible is. Why don't you use your common sense instead of relying on the brains of 1st-century underdeveloped individuals such as Peter?

 

Frankly, using the bible to justify horrific actions like those of Lot is circular logic and a cope out.

 

 

Thats my point though. The Bible, other than Paul's letters, doesnt really give clear direction as far as sexual relations between man and woman.

 

 

Hmm... I think Paul did not give any specific instructions about sex because

(1) he realized it wasn't any of his business

(2) he was enjoying very good sex with his travel companions Silas and Luke

[Crunk Bishop]

there's actually some first century lore that Paul's wife was a major bee-atch (isn't it funny how she's never mentioned in the Bible?), but i can't remember or find the source...

 

I've also read some academic speculations that Paul was doing it with Lydia in Philippi, and that's really why the tone of the NT book Phillipians is so joyous....

 

but then again, the theory that Paul was a "homosexual" with subconscious hangups about sex has been widely circulated too.

[Trancelation]

Yoyo:

 

"Thats my point though. The Bible, other than Paul's letters, doesnt really give clear direction as far as sexual relations between man and woman."

 

The Bible does not give clear direction as far as any matters are concernced.

[jjacksonRIAB]

At the risk of answering a question with a question, is a God flying down from heaven and impregnating a woman who he did not marry or obtain consent from morally wrong?

 

Using Ockham's razor, the simplest explanation is that she was impregnated by another guy and just didn't want to face the music. It happened then, it it happens even today - where almost 30% of men who have paternity testing done find out the child isn't biologically theirs.

 

Some might consider the question an ad hominem, but it is really an ad diem - a perfectly acceptable question for a supposedly perfect God.

[sithprincess]

I don't really know what I believe right now, but I have learned some interesting things about the bible recently regarding original translations. One of them is regarding sex. The common assumption is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But look at the OT. Men had multiple wives, concubines etc. In the NT, the word fornication was, in the original Greek "porneia", and it probably had to do with temple prostitutes for pagan gods at the time. For example, farmers would go to the temples and have sex with prostitutes of fertility gods etc to make their fields grow and crap like that. And this meaning seems to fit in, as in the NT it is usually used in cases in which idolatry is being addressed. Also, people got married at like, age sixteen, so when would they have much time to screw around? The word fornication shouldn't have been used at all, really. It's my opinion that a lot of this stuff began with the RCC in the Dark/Middle Ages. It was probably an excellent money making venture - make sex a sin and every time they do something remotely sexual they have to pay for it. The RCC even tried to make most sex within marriage sinful. Of course, the priests could have concubines etc. I blame the old RCC for a lot of the crap that goes on in churches today....

 

Check into it yourself...

[southdakota2005]

If there is a God then sex outside of marriage is wrong