Bible Discussion: SEXUAL Sin

SEXUAL Sin
Posts: 69

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

Robert Shepherd
2003-11-07 14:45:54 EST
It has been said that Christianity has been the most repressive,
atrocious, oppressive, self-hating and body-denying force in all
history. (Thomas Szasz broadens it a bit, declares that MONOTHEISM is
the most oppressive, body-hating force in history.)

>From what I see of the history of the Church, through the ages, there
seems indeed to be a rather anti-sexual attitude beginning with the
earliest fathers of the church, including the apostolic age, right
down to the present. Augustine and Paul were both highly conflicted
regarding their sexuality. Paul found two laws within him, and finally
in exasperation said OH WRETCHED MAN THAT I AM.

Augustine was a bipolar, schizophrenic, neurotic who experienced
extreme self-hatred on account of his sexual drives, was essentially a
momma's boy who sought relief from the guilt he suffered all his life.
(And only found it in his mystical relationship with Christ.)

Origen made himself a eunuch for the Kingdom of God, as the Heaven's
Gate Cult was to do in our own era. Marshall Applewhite felt "called"
to put an end, once and for all, to the drives originating in his evil
member. He neutered himself, and his followers did the same.

If your eye offend you, pluck it out.

Origen did the same thing, and the Church declared him to be in error.

Yet in our day and age, conservatives continue to voice horror at the
more honest folk amongst us, folk who dare to declare that they are
(and the human race is) SEXUAL BEINGS.

One strident conservative I have recently encountered (in book form)
is Daniel Lapin, who jumps on the religious right bandwagon with more
of the anti-sexual "Ten Commandments" negativity that Judeo-Christian
tradition has passed down, handed down, from time immemorial.
Actually, not immemorial, but within recorded history, from the time
of MOSES.

Freud never declared there must be no morals. But he sought a balance,
which seems proper and reasonable, neither right wing nor left wing.

Freud's attitude seemed to encourage greater honesty, self-disclosure.
Yet he validated morals, affirmed the "super-ego" and the importance
of the youth internalizing the values of society.

Drives and impulses must be CHANNELLED appropriately. Call it
sublimation if you will.

Freud never castrated himself, but of course he killed himself in
advanced age, as Hitler closed in on Austria.

Many folk might regret Freud's stated atheism, but clearly he was a
prophet of sorts, with a very beneficial message, a factual, clinical
openness that we today are "holpen by."

Fletis Humplebacker
2003-11-07 15:06:43 EST

"Robert Shepherd"

> Yet in our day and age, conservatives continue to voice horror at the
> more honest folk amongst us, folk who dare to declare that they are
> (and the human race is) SEXUAL BEINGS.
>
> One strident conservative I have recently encountered (in book form)
> is Daniel Lapin, who jumps on the religious right bandwagon with more
> of the anti-sexual "Ten Commandments" negativity that Judeo-Christian
> tradition has passed down, handed down, from time immemorial.
> Actually, not immemorial, but within recorded history, from the time
> of MOSES.



What anti-sexual commandments? You hurl allegations about
quite freely. I suppose anyone that may not support whatever
your proclivities are must be demonized.



Daniel Jetson
2003-11-07 15:55:46 EST


Robert Shepherd wrote:

> It has been said that Christianity has been the most repressive,
> atrocious, oppressive, self-hating and body-denying force in all
> history. (Thomas Szasz broadens it a bit, declares that MONOTHEISM is
> the most oppressive, body-hating force in history.)
>
> From what I see of the history of the Church, through the ages, there
> seems indeed to be a rather anti-sexual attitude beginning with the
> earliest fathers of the church, including the apostolic age, right
> down to the present. Augustine and Paul were both highly conflicted
> regarding their sexuality. Paul found two laws within him, and finally
> in exasperation said OH WRETCHED MAN THAT I AM.

In fact the modern concept of sexuality as it applies to the
bible is not supportable. Many say for instance there is a sin
of having sex out of wedlock, using the word fornication as
proof, yet Jesus said a "wife" can be put away (divorced)
for fornication Mat 5:32, 19:9. Obviously a wife is married
therefore fornication has nothing to do with sex out of
wedlock and has everything to do with temple prostitution to
the fertility gods. Adultery is the stealing of a man's property,
women and children were the property of the man or husband.
And of course in every instance the christians say is a sin of
homosexuality is in fact dealing with temple prostitution.


> �
>
> Augustine was a bipolar, schizophrenic, neurotic who experienced
> extreme self-hatred on account of his sexual drives, was essentially a
> momma's boy who sought relief from the guilt he suffered all his life.
> (And only found it in his mystical relationship with Christ.)

Wasn't it Augstine that said, in having sex with lots of prostitutes,
Oh god save me from this sin, but not right now?

> �
>
> Origen made himself a eunuch for the Kingdom of God, as the Heaven's
> Gate Cult was to do in our own era. Marshall Applewhite felt "called"
> to put an end, once and for all, to the drives originating in his evil
> member. He neutered himself, and his followers did the same.
>
> If your eye offend you, pluck it out.
>
> Origen did the same thing, and the Church declared him to be in error.
>
> Yet in our day and age, conservatives continue to voice horror at the
> more honest folk amongst us, folk who dare to declare that they are
> (and the human race is) SEXUAL BEINGS.
>
> One strident conservative I have recently encountered (in book form)
> is Daniel Lapin, who jumps on the religious right bandwagon with more
> of the anti-sexual "Ten Commandments" negativity that Judeo-Christian
> tradition has passed down, handed down, from time immemorial.
> Actually, not immemorial, but within recorded history, from the time
> of MOSES.
>
> Freud never declared there must be no morals. But he sought a balance,
> which seems proper and reasonable, neither right wing nor left wing.
>
> Freud's attitude seemed to encourage greater honesty, self-disclosure.
> �Yet he validated morals, affirmed the "super-ego" and the importance
> of the youth internalizing the values of society.
>
> Drives and impulses must be CHANNELLED appropriately. Call it
> sublimation if you will.
>
> Freud never castrated himself, but of course he killed himself in
> advanced age, as Hitler closed in on Austria.
>
> Many folk might regret Freud's stated atheism, but clearly he was a
> prophet of sorts, with a very beneficial message, a factual, clinical
> openness that we today are "holpen by."




Gabby
2003-11-07 16:14:21 EST

"Daniel Jetson" <Jetson@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3FAC0249.2C96228A@nospam.com...
> In fact the modern concept of sexuality as it applies to the
> bible is not supportable. Many say for instance there is a sin
> of having sex out of wedlock, using the word fornication as
> proof, yet Jesus said a "wife" can be put away (divorced)
> for fornication Mat 5:32, 19:9. Obviously a wife is married
> therefore fornication has nothing to do with sex out of
> wedlock and has everything to do with temple prostitution to
> the fertility gods. Adultery is the stealing of a man's property,
> women and children were the property of the man or husband.
> And of course in every instance the christians say is a sin of
> homosexuality is in fact dealing with temple prostitution.

Interestingly all these arguments stem from an English translation of the
Bible.

The commandments I learned in French :

Impudique point ne sera de corps ni de consentement.

L'oeuvre de chaire ne desirera qu'en marriage seulement.

Translated:
Thou shall not be impure.
Sex thou shall desire only within marriage.

When I was told by other girls in university that it was impossible for me
to have broken all 10 commandments since I had never been married I thought
the English kids had it easy. ;o)

G.




Daniel Jetson
2003-11-07 17:01:33 EST


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

> "Robert Shepherd"
>
> > Yet in our day and age, conservatives continue to voice horror at the
> > more honest folk amongst us, folk who dare to declare that they are
> > (and the human race is) SEXUAL BEINGS.
> >
> > One strident conservative I have recently encountered (in book form)
> > is Daniel Lapin, who jumps on the religious right bandwagon with more
> > of the anti-sexual "Ten Commandments" negativity that Judeo-Christian
> > tradition has passed down, handed down, from time immemorial.
> > Actually, not immemorial, but within recorded history, from the time
> > of MOSES.
>
> What anti-sexual commandments? You hurl allegations about
> quite freely. I suppose anyone that may not support whatever
> your proclivities are must be demonized.

The bible say next ot nothing about sex as you christians have
perverted the text. It says nothing about sex out of wedlock
(See Mat 5:32, 19:9 a wife fornicating) it says nothing about
sex within wedlock see Gen 38:8-10 Onan was to have sex
with his brother's wife and there is nothing what so ever in the
bible on homosexuality, that is impossible, they did not have
a concept of homosexuality at the time the bible was written,
therefor there cannot be a sin of homosexuality in the bible.

Now you were saying something about some proclivities
thingy? What proclivities?




Shan
2003-11-07 17:25:31 EST
Thank you. Very informative post.

Shan

r*5@hotmail.com (Robert Shepherd) wrote in message news:<5288895f.0311071145.4faf262a@posting.google.com>...
> It has been said that Christianity has been the most repressive,
> atrocious, oppressive, self-hating and body-denying force in all
> history. (Thomas Szasz broadens it a bit, declares that MONOTHEISM is
> the most oppressive, body-hating force in history.)
>
> From what I see of the history of the Church, through the ages, there
> seems indeed to be a rather anti-sexual attitude beginning with the
> earliest fathers of the church, including the apostolic age, right
> down to the present. Augustine and Paul were both highly conflicted
> regarding their sexuality. Paul found two laws within him, and finally
> in exasperation said OH WRETCHED MAN THAT I AM.
>
> Augustine was a bipolar, schizophrenic, neurotic who experienced
> extreme self-hatred on account of his sexual drives, was essentially a
> momma's boy who sought relief from the guilt he suffered all his life.
> (And only found it in his mystical relationship with Christ.)
>
> Origen made himself a eunuch for the Kingdom of God, as the Heaven's
> Gate Cult was to do in our own era. Marshall Applewhite felt "called"
> to put an end, once and for all, to the drives originating in his evil
> member. He neutered himself, and his followers did the same.
>
> If your eye offend you, pluck it out.
>
> Origen did the same thing, and the Church declared him to be in error.
>
> Yet in our day and age, conservatives continue to voice horror at the
> more honest folk amongst us, folk who dare to declare that they are
> (and the human race is) SEXUAL BEINGS.
>
> One strident conservative I have recently encountered (in book form)
> is Daniel Lapin, who jumps on the religious right bandwagon with more
> of the anti-sexual "Ten Commandments" negativity that Judeo-Christian
> tradition has passed down, handed down, from time immemorial.
> Actually, not immemorial, but within recorded history, from the time
> of MOSES.
>
> Freud never declared there must be no morals. But he sought a balance,
> which seems proper and reasonable, neither right wing nor left wing.
>
> Freud's attitude seemed to encourage greater honesty, self-disclosure.
> Yet he validated morals, affirmed the "super-ego" and the importance
> of the youth internalizing the values of society.
>
> Drives and impulses must be CHANNELLED appropriately. Call it
> sublimation if you will.
>
> Freud never castrated himself, but of course he killed himself in
> advanced age, as Hitler closed in on Austria.
>
> Many folk might regret Freud's stated atheism, but clearly he was a
> prophet of sorts, with a very beneficial message, a factual, clinical
> openness that we today are "holpen by."

Steven Spence
2003-11-07 17:49:13 EST
The coming fire (fight) over "who is right" will melt her veil
(religion) and leave her with nowhere to hide.

In the near future it will be greater to fornicate with everyone than
it will be to fight with one of them. Stephentree

www.dnatree.us/change

No One
2003-11-08 01:55:58 EST
r*5@hotmail.com (Robert Shepherd) writes:

> It has been said that Christianity has been the most repressive,
> atrocious, oppressive, self-hating and body-denying force in all
> history. (Thomas Szasz broadens it a bit, declares that MONOTHEISM is
> the most oppressive, body-hating force in history.)

See the recent film _Luther_ for a graphic indication of what
went on. Making people feel guilty in general was also highly
profitable as the priests sold "indulgences," not only for
the living, but for long-gone relatives rotting in Hell until
a small fee to the Church would bail them out. What a racket
that was!




Fletis Humplebacker
2003-11-08 08:53:17 EST

"Daniel Jetson" <Jetson@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3FAC11B5.623EEC8B@nospam.com...
>
>
> Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>
> > "Robert Shepherd"
> >
> > > Yet in our day and age, conservatives continue to voice horror at the
> > > more honest folk amongst us, folk who dare to declare that they are
> > > (and the human race is) SEXUAL BEINGS.
> > >
> > > One strident conservative I have recently encountered (in book form)
> > > is Daniel Lapin, who jumps on the religious right bandwagon with more
> > > of the anti-sexual "Ten Commandments" negativity that Judeo-Christian
> > > tradition has passed down, handed down, from time immemorial.
> > > Actually, not immemorial, but within recorded history, from the time
> > > of MOSES.


> > What anti-sexual commandments? You hurl allegations about
> > quite freely. I suppose anyone that may not support whatever
> > your proclivities are must be demonized.


> The bible say next ot nothing about sex as you christians have
> perverted the text. It says nothing about sex out of wedlock
> (See Mat 5:32, 19:9 a wife fornicating) it says nothing about
> sex within wedlock see Gen 38:8-10 Onan was to have sex
> with his brother's wife and there is nothing what so ever in the
> bible on homosexuality, that is impossible, they did not have
> a concept of homosexuality at the time the bible was written,
> therefor there cannot be a sin of homosexuality in the bible.

> Now you were saying something about some proclivities
> thingy? What proclivities?


Your proclivity for living in a dream world, for starters.
You were saying something about the Bible? Which version
says sex out of marriage is OK?





Daniel Jetson
2003-11-08 11:10:54 EST


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

> "Daniel Jetson" <Jetson@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3FAC11B5.623EEC8B@nospam.com...
> >
> >
> > Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> >
> > > "Robert Shepherd"
> > >
> > > > Yet in our day and age, conservatives continue to voice horror at the
> > > > more honest folk amongst us, folk who dare to declare that they are
> > > > (and the human race is) SEXUAL BEINGS.
> > > >
> > > > One strident conservative I have recently encountered (in book form)
> > > > is Daniel Lapin, who jumps on the religious right bandwagon with more
> > > > of the anti-sexual "Ten Commandments" negativity that Judeo-Christian
> > > > tradition has passed down, handed down, from time immemorial.
> > > > Actually, not immemorial, but within recorded history, from the time
> > > > of MOSES.
>
> > > What anti-sexual commandments? You hurl allegations about
> > > quite freely. I suppose anyone that may not support whatever
> > > your proclivities are must be demonized.
>
> > The bible say next ot nothing about sex as you christians have
> > perverted the text. It says nothing about sex out of wedlock
> > (See Mat 5:32, 19:9 a wife fornicating) it says nothing about
> > sex within wedlock see Gen 38:8-10 Onan was to have sex
> > with his brother's wife and there is nothing what so ever in the
> > bible on homosexuality, that is impossible, they did not have
> > a concept of homosexuality at the time the bible was written,
> > therefor there cannot be a sin of homosexuality in the bible.
>
> > Now you were saying something about some proclivities
> > thingy? What proclivities?
>
> Your proclivity for living in a dream world, for starters.
> You were saying something about the Bible? Which version
> says sex out of marriage is OK?


Well you prove bigotry is born out of ignorance. A Wife is
married, Jesus said you can put away a Wife for fornication.
Fornication for sparkies like you is a sin of sex out of
wedlock, which proves you wrong, because a Wife is married.
It is the sin of idolatry of temple prostitution or receiving the
seed to a fertility god, instead of building the nation of God.



Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron