A question to Christians

Misusing it by....doing it too much?

 

I was the one who really got the ball rolling on pleasurable sexual sins, and I must say that I feel my questions has not even come close to answered.

I DID NOT ask why are some sexual things a sin; I am not really questioning that they are. I am asking why are they the only sins that are inherently pleasurable and I want to think about the consequences of the fact that they are.

Just a few base assumptions that I am going on; God did not make sin, and saying that He did something specifically to tempt us contradicts that a lot (and if that is your stance, please back it up with scripture). God made everything good, but He put a catch 22 in the universe by giving us free will, meaning it is us who is making the sin, not God. Sin is a perversion of the gifts He gave us (at the very least free will if not some other gift as well). But if there is something of that gift, something still good in an act of evil, then it is not absolutely wrong (even if it is overall bad). Absolute morality now no longer exists (absolute means absolute). This I feel does not sit well with Christianity.

 

We are sexual creatures. We are creatures that need love as much as we need food to survive.

Unfortunately, I think the gift of sexuality that our Creator has given us, is sometimes abused.

The sexual act is the ultimate expression of love, its not a game.

Sexuality is taken much too lightly , as well as people's feelings.

 

"So your god deliberately made sex appealing to tempt you, then he's going to punish you for giving in to that temptation?
If a man or woman should resist this temptation, it reveals imperfection in the design, and that your god just couldn't nail it. Should a person give in to this temptation, it's essentially obeying God's will through his design. I therefore ask you why would a benevolent being create human nature one way, but expect a human to act contrary to that very god-given nature?"

God did not make anything too hard or impossible for anybody. Every rule, or every piece of guidance He gives you is for your own good and is something that every person can achieve. The only difference is who WANTS to do it and who doesn't. Who has enough faith in God to follow His will no matter what the rest of society is doing, no matter what the person himself feels like he wants to do...I think something like that definetely deserves a reward. And as for the punishment, if you know that something is forbidden and you do it anyway, in any place in the world you get punished. But if you don't know, then God won't punish you for your ignorance. Unlike if you trespass on someone's property and they sue you and you go to jail, which is human punishment, God is all-knowing...so if you didn't know something was forbidden and you did it, He knows what your true intention was.

"Of course, you are overlooking the fact that sex is reproduction. You may well survive without sex, but the human race won't."

We're talking about pre-marital sex and sexual SINS. Nobody ever said you can't have sex when you're married, and populate the world all you want...

Now as for what Space_Man said:

"This discussion is obviously dependant on what a ?sin? is in the first place. I have been taught that it is an archery metaphor meaning to ?miss the mark;? it is essentially falling short of God?s ideal that we not engage in things that hurt either ourselves or others.
Seen in that light (I?m not saying its ?right? or ?wrong??just to be clear on that), pre-marital sex isn?t necessarily a sin. For example, we could have a hypothetical couple who loved each other deeply, and were very committed to each other and to their mutual relationship, and have been together for 50 years?but were never married. Are they sinning? To my mind, no. Conversely, if we have a ?swinger?-type, for whom sex is a competitive sport, and this guy doesn?t care one bit about the hundreds of women he has ?scored? with?he is just out to have sex?then, IMO: yes, this guy is probably a little closer towards having sinned by his actions.
Sex is pleasurable, to my mind, because it most closely approximates Divine ?love.? We are drawn to it because it is, in a way, familiar to us; it reminds us of a union that we long for in some way. With that said, a silly little marriage certificate from the government doesn?t really figure into the picture in any significant way?"

I think your point of view is the same as the way most people feel these days. It seems logical, but if you want to follow God's will to the letter, you'll find a lot of the more religious people feel differently. If you look at why it's advised that people be married before engaging in sex, you'll see a variety of reasons:
1) a guy and a girl can be together and then the girl gets pregnant and the guy gets scared and ditches her. This happens so often in America and all over the world that it's getting depressing.
2) before people get married, a lot of couples perform medical tests, either as a rule in the place their living in or for personal reasons. Thus you're decresing or practically eliminating the fear of AIDS or other STD's.
3) I knew a couple who were together for 20 years without being married. The woman left her job and practically her whole life behind to be with the man, but they never felt the necessity to be married. Me and my dad kept telling them to just get married and get it over with, but they didn't want to. One day, out of the blue, the man got very sick

 

But why does your god feel the need to test you in this way? You still have given an answer to this fundamental question - why? Why does an all-knowing god need to create beings to follow his whims, even when it means those beings have to act against a nature he gave them?

I refer you to Al Pacino's rant at the end of The Devil's Adovocate. As the creator, God is responsible for our sin and really has no right to complain when we adhere to our nature over his will. Not to mention, this chucks out free will.

And I certainly didn't wish to imply that that was said, only that sex is as much about reproduction as it is about pleasure. I find the concept of sex being a sin unless you're married to be ridiculous, not least because marriage is merely an expression of committment. I'd quite like to see where the Christian God says this too.

 

You guys are completely missing the point of sinful sexual relations.

God was the originator of the marital arrangement. The purpose of sex is to procreate, and the by-product of it is the great pleasure experienced.
That sexual pleasure is a gift that God has given us.
But along with that there are great responsibilities when engaging in such a pleasurable act, and there are rules that were established regarding it.

Its like drinking alcohol. Its intoxicationg effects can cause pleasurable experiences in some, but there are leagal rules and ramifications to drinking as well.

You drink under age you get in trouble.
You drink too much you puke.
You drink and drive you go to jail.

Why do people make it such an issue when it come to the pleasurable act of sex?

People don't like to follow rules that they don't agree with, regardless of whether or not they are religious, agnostic or even atheist.

People just seem to be more antagonistic towards certain rules just because they come from a non-secular source.

 

Seems like there is at least one personal assumption at-work within this statement?

 

Couple of points. Going to try to support these with Scripture while at work. The request for Scriptural evidence is commendable by EnforcerSG. If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. - 1 Pet. 4:11

First, God does not hide that sins are pleasurable.

Heb. 11:25 (Speaking of Moses)
choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin

So sin, by God's own admission, is pleasurable. This includes, but is not limited to, sexual sins. Again, sexual sins are not the only ones that are inherently pleasurable. Man has the desire to eat, and eating is pleasurable, yet glutteny is a sin. Man has the desire to relieve stress, and whether one does so sinfully or lawfully, it is pleasurable.

Does this mean that God created us with built in temptation? No, He didn't. God did create us with desires, but He also created us with will and self-control. Temptation comes from a failure of will to control one's desires (James 1:13-15). Is God to blame for creating us with desires? I, for one, am thankful He supplied these desires, as is anyone who controls their desires to be within the law (of Christ).

Second, while all sin is pleasurable in some sense, the Bible also indicates that sexual sins are a unique set of sins.

1 Cor. 6:13-20
13 Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power.
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh."* 17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.

The apostle begins by disputing the idea that sexual immorality is God's design for man. The argument was being made that since man ate when he was hungry because that's how God made him, then man should have sex (outside of marriage) whenever the desire arose. Obviously this is sinful as is seen here as well as a myriad of verses.

Now, according to this passage, the thing that makes sexual sins unique is "he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body". Now, it is true that many other sins harm the body, but Paul doesn't mean just physical or emotional harm, though sexual sins do cause that as well. What's so spiritually harmful is that sexual sins make you "one" with the other person, per God's description of the sexual relationship to be enjoyed in marriage ("two shall be one flesh" - Gen. 2:24). In marriage, becoming "one flesh" is acceptable and God-ordained (Heb. 13:4). However, outside of marriage, you are attempting to force the Holy Spirit who dwells within you to become "one flesh" with an unlawful participant. What fellowship does God have with sin, yet here one is attempting to involve Him in the closest of fellowships available to mortal man.

Hope that in some way answers your question, EnforcerSG.

 

Everyone

You are only (some better than others) answering why sexual sins are pleasurable, but that does not get to any of the other more important issues. If it is pleasurable because God made it so (if as DarthOB1 says, it is a gift from Him), then we are getting something good out of an evil deed. If that is the case, then the act is not absolutely wrong. If it is not absolutely wrong, then absolute morality goes out the window.

Even if (Darth Dogbert) other sins are pleasurable, they may just fall into the same problem that sexual sins have.

aPPmaSTer

i think my previous post has the answers you seek.

No it doesn't, and I wonder if I should consider that an insult to my intelligence given that I asked the question after your post (do you think I am too lazy to read your post or to arrogant to consider it?). Ahh, don't worry about it though, I really don?t care.

You may have answered why sexual sins are pleasurable (although I disagree with your answer. Why is sex in the confines of marriage pleasurable then? We are not being tested anymore. Sometimes it is even pleasurable in the exact same way as a sexual sin.), but you didn't come anywhere close to the real meat of my question; its effects on 'absolute' morality.

DarthDogbert

So sin, by God's own admission, is pleasurable. This includes, but is not limited to, sexual sins. Again, sexual sins are not the only ones that are inherently pleasurable. Man has the desire to eat, and eating is pleasurable, yet glutteny is a sin. Man has the desire to relieve stress, and whether one does so sinfully or lawfully, it is pleasurable.

I am not sure if I disagree or if we are having a failure of communication. To me, sexual sins are the only ones that are inherently pleasurable. Yes, any other sin can be pleasurable, and it is theoretically possible for a sexual sin to not be.

Look at it this way. Could you force yourself to sin? Would you enjoy it? If you are currently a good Christian (I don't mean that as a sarcastic label, and I hope it does not come off as such), I doubt you would enjoy it. But to commit a sexual sin is usually done first and formost for the pleasure involved.

Is God to blame for creating us with desires? I, for one, am thankful He supplied these desires, as is anyone who controls their desires to be within the law (of Christ).

That does not really answer the question. It could still be His fault, but you can still thank Him for it.

Now, according to this passage, the thing that makes sexual sins unique is "he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body". Now, it is true that many other sins harm the body, but Paul doesn't mean just physical or emotional harm, though sexual sins do cause that as well. What's so spiritually harmful is that sexual sins make you "one" with the other person, per God's description of the sexual relationship to be enjoyed in marriage ("two shall be one flesh" - Gen. 2:24). In marriage, becoming "one flesh" is acceptable and God-ordained (Heb. 13:4). However, outside of marriage, you are attempting to force the Holy Spirit who dwells within you to become "one flesh" with an unlawful participant. What fellowship does God have with sin, yet here one is attempting to involve Him in the closest of fellowships available to mortal man.

But even this still is not answering the question; you are getting a good thing out of immoral sex, the union, yet it is bad. An act that is both good and bad is not absolutely wrong. So how can a Christian believe in absolute morality when clearly morals are not absolute?

 

This post is a quickie, so I don't know how coherent or accurate it is, but here we go:

God created everything. Everything God creates is good. Evil is defined as the absence of good. Therefore abolute evil is the absence of anything (i.e. nothing), and therefore aboslute evil cannot exist. What is commonly refered to as "evil" is something that was originally good but has become so tarnished, like an old, torn rag, there is nothing left of it to speak of.

Emotions and desires are in themselves neither good nor evil, so it is inaccurate to say that something good comes out of sinful sexual acts because they are pleasurable. In a perfect world, one would take pleasure only in licit sex and have a complete aversion to illicit sex. But because of original sin, man's appetite has a tendency towards evil instead of good(called concupiscence).

 

<b>People just seem to be more antagonistic towards certain rules just because they come from a non-secular source. </b>

Yes indeed. Because people don't want their rules based on an ancient mythology in which they don't believe. It's better for everyone when rules come from a better source (for example, science) than "because my God said so".

 

And thats the whole problem. That kind of thinking is why mankind is in the mess we are today.

Science does not and cannot define morality.
There is no scientific study that says we should not have sex with animals. Sure you will not be able to procreate, however you can get great pleasure from it.

It must be ok, right?

Just because some feel this "ancient mythology" is bogus does not hinder the reality and pacticallity of its wisdom.

 

If the laws preached by a religion are indeed practical and useful, then this practicality and usefulness will be evident for reasons OUTSIDE the religious stance of "my god says this so it is true".

For example, many of the things preached by Jesus hold great meaning to me on a non-religious, philosophical level. I agree with these teachings not "because he is God and so whatever he says is right" but because these teachings MAKE SENSE.

My point is that laws should not be made solely because they are founded in a religious text. At least in America, law transcends religion, so you have to come up with more reason for a law than "because my god says so". If you want a Jewish shop owner to close his shop on Sundays, you have to give him more of a reason than "because my god says Sunday is a day of rest," because otherwise all you are doing is enforcing your religion upon him.

The comment I originally responded to was:
<b>People just seem to be more antagonistic towards certain rules just because they come from a non-secular source. </b>

I suppose my view would be better phrased as:
<b>People are more antagonistic to rules when they just come from a non-secular source.</b>

If the value of a rule or law is self-evident, then I'm fine with it. I'm not going to object to "don't murder people," because it's a good rule. The fact that it happens to be in the Bible is not going to make me unreasonably cast it away.

 

I would love to see how you plan to support such a theory.

 

Science does not and cannot define morality.

This is correct.

There is no scientific study that says we should not have sex with animals. Sure you will not be able to procreate, however you can get great pleasure from it.

But when you make comments like that you are making it look like people would run out and have sex with animals because there isn't a scientific morality study. I've seen many a generalization comment, but that takes the cake.

 

I thought we had gotten off that metaphor.

Religious values are an integral part of what has formed our laws. The laws of a country are based on the culture of the country. If a nation was founded by canibals, there would be nothing "uncivilized" about it.

The whole point is actually moral relativism. Is everything relative, or there actual limits to morality?

 

Easy. Open your eyes and look around. Ask your grandma or grandpa if things are worse today than when they were growing up. Then ask yourself why that is.

Yes it was an extreme generalization, but I think my point has been made. Just because something can cause pleasure does not mean its good or even OK to do.

 

I think I'm starting to understand your question better, but the problem is that I believe you're approaching the question from an invalid assumption, that is that pleasure equals good. Certainly, things that we consider to be good we find pleasure in, yet the problem is the "we consider" part. Your question is seeking to compare two incomparable things, God's law and the mind of man (Is. 55:8-9).

Pleasure should never be relied upon to be an indicator of the goodness of an act (Jer. 17:9). This is because pleasure is highly subjective and dependant on the conscience and mindset of the individual (1 Cor. 4:4). If one has a conscience and mindset that closely matches that of God, as in your example of the faithful Christian, they will not find pleasure in a sinful act (Ps. 119:104). However, the further one's mind digresses from the mind of Christ, the more pleasure they find in sin.

If the mind of Christ, then, is so incomparable to the mind of man, then how do we align ourselves and our mindset with God's? Through His revelation of the gospel, we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:13,16).

Let me know if I'm getting closer to addressing the exact question you're asking.

 

"The whole point is actually moral relativism. Is everything relative, or there actual limits to morality?"

as a Christian, my personal belief is that if something you do is harmful towards any person (including yourself) than its morally wrong. i don't agree with the moral relativists who say that there's no such thing as wrong or evil actions, just like i don't agree with religious fundamentalists who think that pretty much everything is a sin.

 

DarthDogbert

I think I'm starting to understand your question better, but the problem is that I believe you're approaching the question from an invalid assumption, that is that pleasure equals good.

Not exactly (well, maybe, but if so it hasn't been shown to me yet). I am saying that a gift from God is a good thing, and that leads to the possibility of good in an evil act. It doesn't matter that it is pleasure, just anything from Him.

You are getting closer though (and if we can figure out that you are right, well then, my question will be answered).


Espaldapalabras

The whole point is actually moral relativism. Is everything relative, or there actual limits to morality?

Not sure if you agree with this or are just summarizing someone else's point, but I don't see it that way.

Take green. There are many different shades of green, and some people may only see blue when someone else sees green. Yet that does not mean that there are not limits.

Morality is just a word, a very vaguely defined word. No word is absolute, every one is different to who speaks it. It makes no sense to clam that a word is absolute, and since absolute means in every single possible case, how can morals be absolute?

 

"It's not easy being greeeen..."





"Take green. There are many different shades of green, and some people may only see blue when someone else sees green. Yet that does not mean that there are not limits."

Color blindness would seem an apt diagnosis. (Uhh, think about it. It's really pretty obvious.)


"Morality is just a word, a very vaguely defined word. No word is absolute, every one is different to who speaks it. It makes no sense to clam that a word is absolute, and since absolute means in every single possible case, how can morals be absolute?"

Nonsense of high order. Absolute is absolute if even for the minute. Today I am absolutely alive. Minutes from now this body may be absolutely dead. Life is chock-full of all sorts of absolute-y goodness.




"...just like i don't agree with religious fundamentalists who think that pretty much everything is a sin."

Some are overly sin-tamental.

 

We're only a people.
I and most of my friends are Christians, and I don't think that is wrong. Every religion has a rules with must be obeyed. But everyone have a right ot heave an own opinion.
Nobody is perfect, so live, and let live others.

 

So, if a sinful act involves a gift from God, and every gift from God is good (James 1:17), then is there good present in the evil act?

Absolutely not.

Consider this. Everything that God created in this world is a gift to us, and thus is inherently good and pure (Gen. 1:31). God, however, put laws and restrictions on how every gift should be used. One sins when they use one of these gifts in a way that God either forbade or did not authorize. The gift is still good, but its use is evil.

Does this, then, make the act any less evil? No, because that is exactly what sin/evil is. It is using a good thing in a lawless way. If I use a hunting rifle for murder, that doesn't change the nature of the rifle. However, the act was absolutely evil. Our bodies are just as amoral as that rifle in that they were both designed with functionality that doesn't care how it is being used. But God cares, and thus He said to use our bodies as instruments of righteousness and not unrighteousness (Rom. 6:13). If we use our bodies to sin, it doesn't change the nature of our bodies, but it does change the condition of our spirits (that part of you that is the real you and has been given stewardship over a body) in that we are charged with sin.

In short, morality is absolute because God's law is absolute.

 

Very nicely put dogbert!

 

At the risk of sounding like a cheering section, I also found that to have been well put.

The cynic in me suspects that even so it will be to little avail...