Sex in heaven?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2014, 12:36 AM
RE: Sex in heaven?
(26-08-2014 06:44 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  So is there sex in heaven? Of course, heaven is an imaginary place like never-never land but is there sex in heaven? If you're there for eternity, which is a fuckingly long time, what else is there to do......knit? Just hang out with god? If there's no sex in heaven then it must be hell.

I kind of like the gnostic gospel of St Thomas, which points to the idea that heaven isn't a place, it's actually a state of mind, e.g. heaven is just "here and now" when my head is in a good place.

Against that idea, perhaps it makes more sense to look for heaven in sex, rather than sex in heaven?

Thomas 113 - His disciples said to him, "When will the Kingdom come?", Jesus answered and said, "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look here!' or 'Look there!'. Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the Earth, and people don't see it!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 12:48 AM
RE: Sex in heaven?
(26-08-2014 07:40 PM)Sam Wrote:  Why does religion have such a problem with sex?

Ethics and rational thinking go hand in hand - if you can't do the latter, you won't be able to do the former.

Without ethics to manage it, sexual attraction is a powerful and dangerous instinct that has the capacity to destroy communities via rape and other inappropriate sexual behaviour.

Rational thinking (and therefore ethical behaviour) only really started to go mainstream in the general population in the european renaissance, so before then - other systems were required in order to ensure social stability. Cue religious morality systems, with heinous punishments for infringement. Unpleasant - but in that pre-rational social reality, quite possibly a requirement for social stability.

It may well be true that religion is an irrelevance in the modern world, but 2,000 years ago it may actually have been "fit for purpose".

Another issue - without antibiotics and condoms, STDs presented a real and genuine threat to society. Another reason for the draconian laws around sex, these social rules were probably their only weapon in the fight against STDs

Just be very grateful you weren't born 2,000 years ago....

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 01:00 AM
RE: Sex in heaven?
(27-08-2014 12:48 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 07:40 PM)Sam Wrote:  Why does religion have such a problem with sex?

Ethics and rational thinking go hand in hand - if you can't do the latter, you won't be able to do the former.

Without ethics to manage it, sexual attraction is a powerful and dangerous instinct that has the capacity to destroy communities via rape and other inappropriate sexual behaviour.

Rational thinking (and therefore ethical behaviour) only really started to go mainstream in the general population in the european renaissance, so before then - other systems were required in order to ensure social stability. Cue religious morality systems, with heinous punishments for infringement. Unpleasant - but in that pre-rational social reality, quite possibly a requirement for social stability.

It may well be true that religion is an irrelevance in the modern world, but 2,000 years ago it may actually have been "fit for purpose".

Another issue - without antibiotics and condoms, STDs presented a real and genuine threat to society. Another reason for the draconian laws around sex, these social rules were probably their only weapon in the fight against STDs

Just be very grateful you weren't born 2,000 years ago....

Phil

I'm pretty sure that archaic sex practices and restrictions had much more to do with 'property rights' than any health concern. God didn't seem to have issue with allowing men to have however many women as they can afford (concubines, slaves, etc.), but only one designated as the 'wife', with whom property rights passed on to her children.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-08-2014, 01:12 AM
RE: Sex in heaven?
Mark Twain wrote an essay on this - very entertaining read. I haven't been able to find it on google just now though Sad

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 01:36 AM
RE: Sex in heaven?
(27-08-2014 01:00 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that archaic sex practices and restrictions had much more to do with 'property rights' than any health concern. God didn't seem to have issue with allowing men to have however many women as they can afford (concubines, slaves, etc.), but only one designated as the 'wife', with whom property rights passed on to her children.

I'm sure property rights are tangled up in there too, there are probably multiple perspectives on this one.

What about the issue of celibacy outside of wedlock and monogamy within marriage though? Wether or not STDs were the sole impetus for these customs is debatable, nevertheless both create clear biological barriers to infection within society by breaking up 1 big petri dish into lots of much smaller petri dishes.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 02:02 AM
RE: Sex in heaven?
(26-08-2014 07:40 PM)Sam Wrote:  Why does religion have such a problem with sex?

Paul, the original proponent of many Christian ethics, thought sex was distasteful; an annoying but necessary nuisance, like going to the toilet. He ordered people to get it over with quickly, so they could get on with praying. He thought people got married so sex was on tap; that a spouse served a similar function to a convenient toilet.

Where did Paul get this sour, jaundiced perspective? He may have been sexually abused as a child, or had erectile difficulties, or been disgusted by his own attraction towards men, or been brainwashed with Platonic ideas about base bodily functions. He may have genuinely thought the end of the world was imminent, so it was better to not reproduce. None of these reasons excuse his unhealthy attitude.

I think he was perturbed that the public found sex way more interesting than his spiritual profundities, so he tried to put limits on people doing, and even thinking, about it.

Consider the psychological damage caused by negativity about sex inflicted on millions of innocent people through their Christian upbringings. All youngsters explore their sexuality; yet the child or adolescent is told that such behaviors—even thoughts—are sins! The consequence is unnecessary guilt and shame. The psychology here was worked out centuries ago. The church’s agenda is to get people to dislike themselves. When an ego is wounded, a person is easier to control. Jesus, pure, sinless and sexless, comes to the rescue, sins are forgiven, and the church has conned another customer. The punter is “saved” from a problem he or she never had in the first place.

Sex should be a special, natural, wholesome, and beautiful part of life. Guilt about our most natural instincts is a filthy stain that’s hard to wash out of people’s minds once it has taken root. Shame on churches for promoting this as the word of God!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
27-08-2014, 02:20 AM
RE: Sex in heaven?
(27-08-2014 02:02 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The church’s agenda is to get people to dislike themselves. When an ego is wounded, a person is easier to control. Jesus, pure, sinless and sexless, comes to the rescue, sins are forgiven, and the church has conned another customer. The punter is “saved” from a problem he or she never had in the first place.

That's exactly it.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
27-08-2014, 02:34 AM
RE: Sex in heaven?
(27-08-2014 02:02 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Consider the psychological damage caused by negativity about sex inflicted on millions of innocent people through their Christian upbringings. All youngsters explore their sexuality; yet the child or adolescent is told that such behaviors—even thoughts—are sins! The consequence is unnecessary guilt and shame. The psychology here was worked out centuries ago.

I hear what you are saying, but I kind of view it as the other way around - I think the problem back then was rather, that the psychology was not yet worked out, that was in fact the problem. If Paul had a neurotic and judgemental relationship with sex, then surely that's just evidence he needed therapy which simply wasn't available back then.

Why I think it's different today is that after 2,000 years of human reflection and thinking - that the psychology now has been worked out, at least to an extent.

Also, I'd suggest that working the psychology out actually occurs at the coal face of life, in terms of individuals with urges that don't fit in to societal norms feeling a pressure to punch a hole through taboos by actually going out into the world and creating a new space of human possibility that was previously lacking.

I've had quite a lot of direct experience of this process, since I'm a gay man who was born in a time and a place were homosexuality was taboo. Rather than considering other people "to blame" for the unreasonable taboo, I instead took the view that it was my job on earth to transform the taboo and create a new space of human possibility.

It's been a fun and a challenging job! And the biggest delight I receive from all my efforts is knowing that generations of gay people being born today can take as a given the space of possibility that I helped create! It's my legacy, so even when I'm dead, I'll live on as the joy of their relationships.

At least until earth is consumed by a red dwarf sun (so no actual immortality) - but I digress.


Quote:Sex should be a special, natural, wholesome, and beautiful part of life. Guilt about our most natural instincts is a filthy stain that’s hard to wash out of people’s minds once it has taken root. Shame on churches for promoting this as the word of God!

well ahhhh men to that one :-)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes phil.a's post
27-08-2014, 05:28 AM
RE: Sex in heaven?
(27-08-2014 02:02 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 07:40 PM)Sam Wrote:  Why does religion have such a problem with sex?

Paul, the original proponent of many Christian ethics, thought sex was distasteful; an annoying but necessary nuisance, like going to the toilet. He ordered people to get it over with quickly, so they could get on with praying. He thought people got married so sex was on tap; that a spouse served a similar function to a convenient toilet.

Where did Paul get this sour, jaundiced perspective? He may have been sexually abused as a child, or had erectile difficulties, or been disgusted by his own attraction towards men, or been brainwashed with Platonic ideas about base bodily functions. He may have genuinely thought the end of the world was imminent, so it was better to not reproduce. None of these reasons excuse his unhealthy attitude.

I think he was perturbed that the public found sex way more interesting than his spiritual profundities, so he tried to put limits on people doing, and even thinking, about it.

Consider the psychological damage caused by negativity about sex inflicted on millions of innocent people through their Christian upbringings. All youngsters explore their sexuality; yet the child or adolescent is told that such behaviors—even thoughts—are sins! The consequence is unnecessary guilt and shame. The psychology here was worked out centuries ago. The church’s agenda is to get people to dislike themselves. When an ego is wounded, a person is easier to control. Jesus, pure, sinless and sexless, comes to the rescue, sins are forgiven, and the church has conned another customer. The punter is “saved” from a problem he or she never had in the first place.

Sex should be a special, natural, wholesome, and beautiful part of life. Guilt about our most natural instincts is a filthy stain that’s hard to wash out of people’s minds once it has taken root. Shame on churches for promoting this as the word of God!

It makes me wonder about the writers, were they just stupidly backwards and ignorant? Or were they deliberately malicious and clever in devising a system of psychological sadism/masochism that set up the cycle of guilt/punishment/forgiveness that creates powerful ties to this pernicious ideology?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
28-08-2014, 03:41 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 03:45 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Sex in heaven?
(27-08-2014 05:28 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 02:02 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul, the original proponent of many Christian ethics, thought sex was distasteful; an annoying but necessary nuisance, like going to the toilet. He ordered people to get it over with quickly, so they could get on with praying. He thought people got married so sex was on tap; that a spouse served a similar function to a convenient toilet.

Where did Paul get this sour, jaundiced perspective? He may have been sexually abused as a child, or had erectile difficulties, or been disgusted by his own attraction towards men, or been brainwashed with Platonic ideas about base bodily functions. He may have genuinely thought the end of the world was imminent, so it was better to not reproduce. None of these reasons excuse his unhealthy attitude.

I think he was perturbed that the public found sex way more interesting than his spiritual profundities, so he tried to put limits on people doing, and even thinking, about it.

Consider the psychological damage caused by negativity about sex inflicted on millions of innocent people through their Christian upbringings. All youngsters explore their sexuality; yet the child or adolescent is told that such behaviors—even thoughts—are sins! The consequence is unnecessary guilt and shame. The psychology here was worked out centuries ago. The church’s agenda is to get people to dislike themselves. When an ego is wounded, a person is easier to control. Jesus, pure, sinless and sexless, comes to the rescue, sins are forgiven, and the church has conned another customer. The punter is “saved” from a problem he or she never had in the first place.

Sex should be a special, natural, wholesome, and beautiful part of life. Guilt about our most natural instincts is a filthy stain that’s hard to wash out of people’s minds once it has taken root. Shame on churches for promoting this as the word of God!

It makes me wonder about the writers, were they just stupidly backwards and ignorant? Or were they deliberately malicious and clever in devising a system of psychological sadism/masochism that set up the cycle of guilt/punishment/forgiveness that creates powerful ties to this pernicious ideology?

I think Paul was a bigot. He had a neurosis about sex for whatever reason, and he clearly disliked feminine sensuality. He wrote about his personal prejudices, and unfortunately some of his writings became Scripture.

The Jewish priests who wrote the Old Testament were not so hung up about sex, at least if you were male. You could have (heterosexual) sex with you whoever you wanted, unless it was another jewish man's property, his wife. If you were a woman, however, you could only have sex with your husband.

I think the early church fathers adopted Paul's ascetic doctrines because they found them useful in controlling the crowds. A priest could forgive sexual sins, and that gave the church power.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: