Yeah, baby!
(1989, one hippie dude boyfriend, some good weed, and a whole day without college classes or work or other obligations! WHOO HOO!)
Absolutely true. But not for the reason you think!
Obviously, God created that sensation because He wanted to ensure the world was adequately populated with motorcycles.
Imagine coupling the two experiences. Maybe that explains the existence of Live Sex Shows.
The Romans were good record keepers so therefore Jesus must have really risen from the dead?
I can’t see any point in engaging with this level of foolishness. You’re joking, right?
Let me flip the question. Assume God is real. Assume He created the orgasm and He made it immensely pleasurable.
Why then is there a requirement that sex must be within the confines of marriage? “Be fruitful and multiply” He said. Not “Be married and multiply.”
If God desired sex to be within marriage, why make it pleasurable across the board? Surely it’s within His power to make sex whiz-bang-wow for married couples and anywhere from ho-hum to hurtful for non-married couples, thus encouraging marriage.
And are you assuming that if orgasms were blah, people wouldn’t bother with sex?
If so, does that mean animals experience awesome orgasms thanks to God? Why? Do you think God cares how happy a dolphin is when sexing up anything that moves (and they do!)?
Do you think penises that are spiked shape or punch through abdomens and hurt the female are part of God’s orgasm-is-amazing plan?
Why would God create an orgasm that’s so amazing that many animal species will have sex even though they KNOW they’re walking into certain death once the deed is done? Wouldn’t a less-than-amazing orgasm have been good enough there?
Do you think God wanted animals to be married too?
So many questions. What answers have ye, Phu Cat?
Just to give another reason why this argument is a load of shit, consider this: can anyone think of a physical sensation more pleasurable than the feeling you get after you eat a juicy cheeseburger with all the fixings? Thus, God wants us to binge on cheeseburgers and die from heart disease. He must be so proud of the global obesity epidemic.
I don’t have sex. Never had the desire to. And my life is no worse for it. I guess God’s magical powers of orgasm don’t work on me.
If God wanted to maximum our fecundity, there are much better ways to do this other than via the universal gift of orgasm. I mean, he could have made it so that only married couples can experience orgasms. Wouldn’t that have best way to reward us for “good” behavior?
Oh, I forgot. God doesn’t work in logical ways.
And let’s look at DNA. If ever there was proof of an “Unintelligent Designer”, it’s DNA. No designer worth his salt would have designed it to have so much unnecessary junk. And I don’t mean junk DNA. I mean genes that are there, but are turned off. I mean genes that code for things they clearly weren’t originally designed to code for. It’s like the designer was learning while designing. “Almost” the way natural selection would work!!
Never mind DNA. The human knee and the human lower back are proof that intelligent design is a crock.
Especially given all the kneeling and the bowing and scraping god expects us to do.
The Romans were even far more fanatical with their records and testimonies of their owns gods. Why don’t you accept these testimonies and records as factual? Why are you following a different god that has far less “evidence”?
I was talking comedy, so I’m not sure it works.
“Take my cock, please!”
From the National Academies Press (1 Evolution and the Nature of Science | Science, Evolution, and Creationism | The National Academies Press)
“In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.”
And from Astronomy Notes (Scientific theory meaning):
"“Scientific Theory” Meaning
Now I just used the word “theory”. “Theory” in the scientific use of the word is different than the everyday language usage today. Most people today use “theory” as just a hunch, guess, belief, or proposal. Science uses the original meaning of “theory”: a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has been verified—has stood up against attempts to prove it false. In my astronomy class, students learn about how Newton’s theory of gravity explains the motions of falling objects on the Earth and the motions of objects orbiting each other and we also dabble a little in Einstein’s theory of General Relativity to understand what happens with black holes and the development, the evolution, of the universe. Astronomy students also learn about the atomic theory and how it explains the type of light we see from objects and what we see when we spread that light out into its rainbow of colors. Physics and chemistry students learn those theories too and how those theories explain other observations. Since I’m an astronomer, I hope you’ll understand if I toot astronomy’s horn: astronomers have been able to verify that nature uses the same rules or laws everywhere in the universe and since it takes light a long time to travel the great distances, astronomers have verified that nature has used the same rules or laws throughout its entire history. Another thing astronomers have discovered is that the universe has changed, or evolved, throughout time, just as geologists have discovered that the Earth has changed, or evolved, throughout its history.
Features of “Good” or Successful Theory
A few more notes about scientific theories. A scientific theory must make testable or refutable predictions of what should happen or be seen under a given set of new, independent, observing or analysis circumstances from the particular problem or observation the theory was originally designed to explain. For example, the seeming contradiction between Uranus’ predicted position from Newton’s celestial mechanics was explained by the presence of a previously unknown planet, Neptune, whose position was predicted from Newton’s celestial mechanics. Astronomers found Neptune just where the theory said it should be. Newton’s theory was not originally developed to explain Uranus’ or Neptune’s motions and it was tested via telescopic observations."
Phu Cat, most of us try to do our homework. This is not a good place to go without doing so.
My God!
[Err…well…actually Phu Cat’s God, I guess…]
We’ve gotten to almost a hundred responses and nobody here has really looked hard at the OP’s original premise?!?
[Phu Cat] Being that …I am a theist,[/Phu Cat]
Not just a theist, but a monotheist – and a Christian one, at that. This is important, because it means you are trying to draw from a particular scripture and mythos (e.g. **not **the Enuma Elish, the Upanishads, the Mahabaratha, or Eddas).
[Phu Cat]I find it very easy to accept that God wanted to insure@ His children kept His earth adequately populated.[/Phu Cat]
Indeed. Remember, he ended with Eve (discarding Lilith) as Adam’s mate in that little terrarium, and then said, “This is yours now. Deal with it.”
And the original plan was just to have those two tend the garden forever.
[Phu Cat]Could there be other possible explanations?[/Phu Cat]
Yes, again from the scripture you prefer: Serpent encouraged Eve to eat from that one plant that *Elohim *said they shouldn’t touch, under pain of death. And Eve followed Serpent’s encouragement anyway and she gave some to Adam, too. And THEY DIDN’T DIE, either! But *Elohim *was pissed about it and kicked them out and made Eve be pregnant. In other words, he either lied about the plant killing them or lied in threatening to kill them for pilfering his favorite plant.
Oh, but that doesn’t explain why their descendants LIKE it.
Maybe Serpent gave that [the fact that they like it] to Adam and Eve. Or maybe Adam made Eve pregnant – Wow! What a twisted form of masturbation (seeing as how she was made from his rib…) and she liked it. And that would mean she was pregnant before they got kicked out. How did the omniscient *Elohim not know that? Or, if he knew that, how could HE be such a jerk? It would be like kicking your pregnant daughter out on the street for being pregnant when she’s – Oh! Is that where that patriarchal tradition comes from?
Oh, but that still doesn’t explain why Adam & Eve’s descendants LIKE it.
Maybe that was something Adam & Eve gained after eating from the fruit of that plant. Funny how *Elohim *didn’t know about it – or knew but, in his omnipotent wisdom, didn’t take it away…
–G!
@It’s ensure, by the way–but that’s just the former editor in me getting picky.
*Yeah, I know…“Duh! You’re talking about a ‘he’ after all!”
Okay, then. How about a different mythos: Brahma decided to split into a gazillion parts, including both males and females of every species. Particularly in the higher incarnations of Brahma, it is the (re)union of the male and female atman that most approximates the reconstructed reunification of Brahma. Humans are thus inclined to engage in emotional and physical bonding behaviors because such actions bring them into greater spiritual unity with the universe. Oh, and when the activity is hetero-gender-ous, sometimes the creation of offspring is a byproduct.
I guess you mean without ‘God’ life couldn’t exist. Too much has to be just so.
Things in the universe don’t have to be just so for life to exist. Just in one place. A place like earth for an example. Or another system with different types of life. Maybe not carbon based. Who knows.
There are ~400 BILLION stars in our galaxy; the Milky Way, alone. Plenty of opportunities for things to be ‘just so’. If you want to bring the entire universe into question, well…
I would have to disagree. If animals enjoyed sex as much as we do then they wouldn’t need to go into heat. Also there is no way female cats enjoy sex. Google it. :0
One species were the female always gets good head. 
As is eating and breathing through the same tube.
God makes snakes Funnier if you think about the Adam and Eve angle.
Why didn’t God made sex less pleasurable, so people would be less inclined to engage in sexual immorality
It’s pot before, coke during, heroin after. I looked it up.