About as many times as we point out that Christianity is not made up solely of the beliefs of your sect of Christianity.
This is along the lines of my belief. I think sex can be a sin under certain situations, (such as rape, or infidelity). I think sex is also a sin if you sin in order to accomplish it: For example, a male lies repeatedly just to “bag” a woman. I think intent is an important factor, in regards to sin.
If it’s not, then I can’t understand God’s plan, because some sins don’t make much sense in the modern day.
i have problems with this issue.
i’ve had bad experiences with sex.
i know that my rape was a sin, and not mine .
i’m sure that the one-night-stands, which made me feel even cheaper and more used, were sins. i’m absolved of those.
And, despite what every christian book or preacher will say, i know that my relationship with irishfella, which gives me only joy and happiness, cannot be a sin.
and so, i feel guilty because i don’t feel guilty, when i feel that i should.
does that make sense?
so yes, anything with love cannot be a sin.
how can we proscribe how love can be shown?
Irishgirl, it looks like your definition of sin varies according to what you feel. Hard to build an objective, universal philosophy around that, but more power to ya!
How about looking at it from a standpoint of God being a realist, in that He wanted human society to function a smoothly as possible, and so decreed certain anti-social acts as sins because of the problems they could cause?
For example (in no particular order):
-
Sex: As ** Manda Jo ** said, sex outside of a marriage has the potential of creating children which might have no paternal support, leaving them a burden on the community. Adulterous sex can lead to jealousy and rage, and possibly, violence.
-
Stealing: makes the victim angry, which also possibly leads to violence.
-
Coveting: might lead to #2.
-
Murder: takes productive communtiy members out of circulation, leaving their wives and children as a burden on the community. Plus, it might lead to Hatfield-McCoy type vendettas, possibly escalating into tribal war.
-
Dietary laws: According to Marvin Harris’ * Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches * one of the problems with pork, besides the obvious sanitation issue, is that pigs consume more than they produce. Hunting and gathering societies actually don’t work as hard getting their food as agrarian societies who raise domestic animals. This “sin” might be an economic suggestion.
-
Honoring parents: this one is obvious. A child who respects his parents and who heeds their teachings is more likely to be an honest, productive member of society. Respect for parents in this aspect means respect for all authority.
-
Sabbath, and No Other Gods: When a society is focased on one diety and one set of moral laws, there is less confusion over what is allowed and what is not. Putting aside the xenophobic aspects of these commands, differences in faith and codes often leads to a good deal of community strife.
So, the commandments, if not embellished by man, actually give a pretty good system for a functioning society.
And which of these other sects DO teach that sex is inherently sinful? Eh? :rolleyes:
If God were a true realist, and wanted society to function properly, the Bible would be rife with commandments involving the environment, as well as universal provisions for human rights. Surely God would have been aware of the problems humans would be facing thousands of years hence. 
As for my feelings about whether sex is inherently sinful, I think my posts in this thread pretty much sum it up.
Manda JO wrote:
That is a wonderful definition! Thank you! 
I also define love as the conduit of God’s goodness.
[JThunder** Let me put it this way: human sexuality is in inherently sinful out side the Christian approved context. The only way sex is not sinful is in a Christian approved marriage with the possibility of conception in every act.
I am amazed that no one has mentioned guilt in this thread!
To say that such and such is a sin is to manipulate the emotion of guilt in an individual. Guilt is positive in that it reinforces negative emotion - when the guilt arises as a result of truly reprehensible action the bad feeling really ought to serve as a reminder not to repeat the offence.
But telling someone that a sexual act is sinful is extremely ignorant. As Libertarian said: “It is impossible to love AND to sin.”.
But I reckon to sin is to feel guilt about ones actions, whether the guilt has been instilled by an organised religion or not.
The trick is to understand that the guilt arises as a result of prevalent social attitudes, and transcend it.
First of all, the Puritans were actually very much in favor of sex within marriage, or at least the ones who settled America were. There is documentation for this, although I’m afraid every newspaper article Google linked me to is out of print.
I struggled with this issue a bit after my engagement ended some years ago. I loved the man. We certainly had sex, and at times it seemed there was something holy about it. I also know that there have been a variety of attitudes toward sex and marriage throughout the history of Christianity. At times, it’s been customary for couples to marry until after the bride is pregnant to ensure fertility.
The understanding I have come to is that sex in and of itself is not sinful. Indeed, between a comitted couple, it can be downright holy. In some ways, it’s a bit like food. Both serve vital functions and give great pleasure, but both can be indulged in for the wrong reasons.
The instances in the Bible where God condemns sex seem to be more related to lust – instances where sex is used to harm or to the excess of other concerns. In my church’s Baptismal covenant, we are called upon to renounce “all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God.” In my opinion, going out and screwing someone just because you’re feeling horny is such a misuse of sex, while having sex with the person you love is not a misuse of sex. I also realize that it is possible to screw the person you love just because you’re feeling horny, and, assuming he consents, I don’t consider it a sin, just a lot of fun!
Where is your heart? Where is your focus? My Wiccan friends refer to sex as “The Great Rite.” If your focus is on the love you share with the person (or people) you’re having sex with, it’s not a sin, in my book. If your focus is solely on your own pleasure with no regard for the welfare of the other person (or people), then I’d have to say it is.
Then again, I’m just a renegade Episcopalian.
CJ
Yeah, but how much do you want to bet that a lot of people who identify themselves as Christian still have sex outside of marriage, even though most of the major Christian denominations (like mine does, for example) teaches that it’s wrong?
I’m nowhere near being a fundamentalist, and I think that sex outside of marriage is wrong.
And ignoring the morality of it, it just seems practical too. I mean, think of all of the sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies that would be reduced, or eliminated if people only had sex after marriage.
sex cant be a sin since it is a natural method of procreation.
illicit sex is covered by certain events in the bible and the events are pretty well in line with God’s plan.
sin is a word which is bandied about as a manipulative cudgel by orthodox christians who want to point fingers
the basic sin is pride and who is not proud of something
some christians are proud of their humility:)
dont put yourself down.
Well, duh. That’s still not the same as saying that it’s inherently sinful per se.
Moreover, your creative “rephrasing” amounts to saying “Christianity teaches that human sexuality is inherently sinful outside of situations where it is not.” As I said, DUH!
Huh? Where in the world did you get that idea?
The Catholic church teaches that the possibility of conception is a prerequisite, but this is not something that’s taught by Christendom in general. And even if it were, that STILL, STILL, STILL wouldn’t mean that sex is inherently wrong.
I am absolutely ASTOUNDED that anyone thinks “Sex is wrong, outside of situations where it is right” somehow implies that it is inherently sinful. Do you really need me to explain why that is fallacious thinking?
So? That simply means that human beings are flawed, and that most people don’t properly act on their convictions. The same can be said of people from all religious or atheistic stripes.
Remember, the question AT HAND is what Christianity teaches, not how the run-of-the-mill people who profess that faith choose to behave.
If it makes you feel cheap and used, then it’s certainly wrong in the sense “wrong for you,” the way drug abuse or obsequiousness are wrong, even if they’re not hurtful to others
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, sex makes babies, and babies make responsibility, a responsibility that ties the parents to the child and each other for years. The thing is, people really like to have sex, and if people are strongly tempted to do something socially destructive, there has to be an equally strong taboo against it. There are bound to be people who go overboard with that taboo and condemn all sex.
I can’t explain why gay sex and masturbation aren’t sacraments, though.
Don’t be condescending, jthunder. Having grown up surrounded by Calvinists, be assured that the official line in the Reformed Church, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was that any sex outside of marriage was indeed a sin. The Predikant was quite clear on that in a number of sermons. The Catholics say the same, plus more on the topic of masturbation. These are mainstream christian denominations that teach that sexual intercourse along with many other sexual behaviors, are sins unless they are sanctioned within marriage. And that many of these measures are also sins within marriage (coitus interruptus for the catholics for one).
Of course, they teach that! So do most Christian denominations. Nobody denies that!!!
That is not (repeat: NOT) the issue at hand, though. The question isn’t whether sex can be sinful. The question is whether Christianity teaches that sex is INHERENTLY sinful. It does not. We have repeatedly shown that it doesn’t, and so far, nobody has shown any evidence to the contrary.
Let’s spell this out again. You can not prove that Christianity teaches sex to be inherently sinful by pointing out instances wherein it IS considered sinful. Is this really so hard to understand?
I haven’t read this entire thread. There’s your “warning”.
I’ve done a lot of thinking about this. Having done more than I wish I had along these lines, I think I’ve reinforced my conclusion.
Fooling around with someone you’re not married to steals the ability to give something pure after he/she gets married. Something that intimate should not be thrown around, but given only to the person you are spending your life with.
Whether you agree or not, this would get a good response in many Christian churches.