What is wrong with sex

I am sorry, but are you implying life without sex is satisfactory? I do agree that life with sex is unsatisfactory.

First, usefullness is subjective. Same reason people complain about "wasting time playing around when you could learn something you dont want to so you become more superficially pleasent". Second , OP, most Christians either claim its Satan fucking around or that God doesent like it when you touch your peepee.

Think of all the energy and time a man wastes in a family, for god's sake

So then why is it never ok for an unmarried couple to have sex even if they do it out of love?

Their love isn't committed until marriage, and real love involves commitment.

But marriage can sometimes be no more than singing a peice of paper, why does that make the act any different? How does that make their love stronger? And who said that a couple can't be commited without being married? Isn't having sex a way of showing their commitment?

>But marriage can sometimes be no more than singing a peice of paper
Not from a Christian perspective.

The thing is people are not robots that have a "wait till marriage" switch. My parents took me to church every day of the week and I lost my virginity at a ridiculously young age in a relationship that lasted less than a month. Chastity vows usually fail because it's not what the body is designed to (which really shows your God didn't design them). After I had sex and realized literally nothing bad happens I realized Christianity was crap. All it did was make me feel guilty and provided no solutions or answers.

Adultry and STDs have always been a thing it's just that when you did it in the past you were supposed to sweep it under the rug. Frankly divorce rates started climbing in the 50s when Christianity was still the cool thing. The reason people divorce has nothing to do with "degeneracy" it's just become a good strategy for women so the will to power takes it's course. Once it got easier for women to win a settlement, get alimony, take control of the material stuff and she could trigger a divorce whenever she wanted of course you would see a rise in divorces. This in turn makes men less likely to want to marry and makes casual sex seem a lot better.

Only in the modern context of no fault divorce.

>muh dick

No.

If everyone ran around fucking sleeping and eating all day you'd be nothing more than an animal.

Look at Africa. All they do is fuck and fight over territory and other dumb shit while lions and rhinos do the same thing.

Europe and India developed amazing cultures and scientific advancements because they had religions which required discipline to set aside basic urges to seek pleasure and allowed them instead to pursue more noble advanced goals.

None of today's comfort would be possible without virgin monks writing down history or copying down scientific knowledge.

Or possible if Isaac Newton was fucking on the weekends instead of inventing calculus.

On an individual level it might seem like 'I want sex tho and I can't ever do anything else' but if a whole society practices it its gives the brilliant people the discipline they need to change history and make life better for everyone else.

Civilization and art is built off of virtue and Christian ethics which essentially create an environment that allows humans to have an environment that is free from violence and creates a system that allows them to be free distractions such as booze and sex.

If you are still stuck on simple pleasure principle that's fine but I gave you a 10/10 answer to ops question.
>but I want sex tho
isn't really an objection to my answer in the context of OPs prompt.

It's like this, OP. Religion is between you and your spirituality. People take that and run with it, through various mechanisms, to mean everyone must think and feel as you do. Humans get caught up like that, like when an alcoholic is finally dry for 3 months, therefore might think everyone must not drink or they're hurting themselves, or a man baby finally unfucks himself to be functional in the real world and thinks every human is a loser who isn't immersed in the rat race.

I'm a christian and I'm not thought police. The way I choose to conduct myself based on interpretation is between myself and God, meanwhile I'm to care for the human aspect inside everyone else, and this includes being aware of the fact I don't control their lives. What you're arguing is what humans do with religion, the way they express it, not the religion itself.

I swear if some of you took an extra 30 minutes to rationalize these things out we wouldn't need to have conversations like this, because you'd see you're mis-associating cause and effect, the same thing you accuse "ignorant religious people" of doing, and you don't see, in your fervor, you're just as dogmatic to a different close-minded philosophy.

But from a legal perspective it is.

And once you get inside a court room guess which one actually matters?

What is marriage then from a christian perspective, then?

people used to get married when the sex hormones kicked in (which coincidently was about half of their life expectancy. Modern economic factors don't allow marriage until after college realistically.

>which coincidently was about half of their life expectancy
This meme still exists? Stop pretending that living past 30 was unheard of in aincent times

>implying a piece of paper in a government file folder is what makes me married to my wife.

I was married by God not some smug liberal faggot who works downtown.

That's what I never understood about fag marriage.

Why do they act like the government gets to decide if they are married or not?

My wife and I made that decision. The government's acknowledgement of this fact is not relevant to the reality of my marriage.

God did not give a shit about marriage when he had sex with Mary.

If not even he cares neither should you.

30 was the average life expectancy dude. That means half of everyone lived over 30 which is a lot.

But at the same time if you fell and tripped the cut yourself the infection could kill you because you wouldn't know to clean it or have anti-biotics to kill it. Your doctor would cut you again to balance your humors.

A judge can end your marriage by filing documents. He can make your loose half your wealth, or be forced to take care of the child all your life, or decide who raises the child, he unify your wife with a new man (or woman) and grant them the same standing your previously had.

The judge can even destroy you if you do not recognize another marriage as legitimate.

The State is the one with real power of marriage, God's power is just some feel-good shit.

The OP is about a Christian perspective, not a materialist perspective. From a materialist perspective, all morality is little more than superstition.

A Holy Sacrament, a spiritual union before God and in Christ.

The numbers are inflated by high child and infant mortality rates. But if you lived past 20 you were expected to live until ~60-65, so saying "the average life expectancy was 30" is misleading

>what is child mortality and how will this affect the average life epectancy

If you are talking the Greek time (which is when the science of humors existed) the average life span was 65 if you exclude deaths at birth (which is a 50/50 chance, hence the 30 year number). Ancient medicine was almost fairly sophisticated as long as the religious folks stayed out of it.

If you got cut your doctor would say you are out of blood (one of the humors) making you lose more blood would be the opposite of the treatment. You would lose the humor which is opposite of blood (earth) which means staying away from vegatables. You could also increase your blood humor by drinking lots of water.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. It's also a shitty opinion, but that's beside the point. OP was asking why jerking it and sex outside of marriage is wrong from a Christian perspective.

>people are going to sin anyway so it shouldn't be a sin
This is your argument, correct?

>A Holy Sacrament, a spiritual union before God and in Christ
This is a dodgy answer which tells me barely anything. What would one have to do to get married? Just talk to a priest or soemthing? Why does God have to be involved in order for my commitment to be legitimate? Are atheist or pagan marriages not legitimate from your point of view?

I would like more than just one scentence answers please.

Which one is the superstitious one? The one backed by the legal power that can take everything from you or the Christian one which has no real enforcement.

Neither the right, the wrong, the real, or the fake perspective prevail. The perspective backed by the most power, and will to use it's power, wins.

>Are atheist or pagan marriages not legitimate from your point of view?
Right-o

Enforcing an opinion hardly makes it correct. Did the earth cease to orbit the sun when the RCC made Galileo recant?

What does calling it a sin do if I've already had sex other than making me feel like shit?

Praying and moping about it some entity that never responds is at best a placebo effect. After that happened I really felt like the concepts of sins were arbitrary. The only effect of thinking "sin" had any merit was feeling like shit and turning what was otherwise a magical moment into something sad. I felt it was like those rules about not eating pork, completely meaningless and divorced from reality.

>other than making me feel like shit?
It's called contrition.

What about Jewish or Muslim marriages then?

Does it matter? The state is the one deciding how marriage functions regardless of how you feel about it. If you decide you are still married and the state says you aren't you are going to end up paying alimony one way or another and your wife can still get with another man.

A judge can 'end' a 'marriage' between chad and Stacey.

A judge has no actual authority in actual marriages.

ALso for the record marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Logically a man and man are not married the same way a three sided shape is not a square.

A judge can write down on a piece of paper that the triangle is a square but that does not make it so.

We don't recognize them.

That state has a radically different definition of marriage. We use the same terms, but otherwise, we're talking about something different than the state does.

> energy and time you waste in sexual conquest and looking at porn
You mean like ten minutes of porn at a day? Just imagine all of the insane skills that you could just learn if only you used that time better!

You are one of those people who thinks that all non-Christians are going to hell, aren't you?

Not a Christian, but I think it has more to do with self-control. It's probably to stop people from making permanent decisions over temporary pleasure. Maybe to stop crimes such as sexual assault and rape. What I'm getting to is that I don't think it's about spirituality, but about order and control.

I don't know where non-Christians go. I'm simply telling you the position of the Orthodox Church,

Nonsense.

We don't. We don't even recognize RCC marriages.

So basically there's two marriages, one that is backed by real power and the other which is a nice idea you have in your head which dies the moment one party wants to end the higher, legal, marriage.

Changing the word doesn't change the meaning behind it. I could have given it any name and it wouldn't change the fact that Christianity failed to provide any meaning, solution, resolution, or even coherent statements. Like it would be like if I felt bad about eating pork, sure it's in the bible but it's arbitrary. All it would do is make me feel like shit for something that is a core part of being human. Come to think of it the kosher lays are a lot less arbitrary since humans are not born with a basic urge to eat pig. At least the pork laws came from God, chastity came from Paul.

It's immoral because having casual sex with strangers is immoral.
And every sperm is sacred. (I'm not joking).

If you want to rule out God, literally all morality is arbitrary.

Eating pork was wrong, by the way, because it was unclean. Pigs were very unclean animals in ancient times. We literally got the flu from them.

>So basically there's two marriages, one that is backed by real power and the other which is a nice idea you have in your head which dies the moment one party wants to end the higher, legal, marriage.
Yeah.

Is marriage not even about love to you then? Would your church recognize the marrigae of two Christian Orthodox who bitterly hate eachother becore they would recognize the marriage of two Catholics? How does that make any sense?

That makes sense, why should a schismatic Church like the Orthodox who content with being stagnant recognize two Catholics getting married?

Marriage is a Sacrament, like baptism or confession or communion. It can't be performed outside the Church.

> it its gives the brilliant people the discipline
Only mediocre people need a discipline. Brilliant people known for their ability to focus on task as best as they could do. This is why Schroedinger solved quantum physics while dating with girls in his Alpine mansion. Because he focused at that questions days and night, on dates, while eating and in every moment that could be used for this. The truth is that life will always be distractive, so trying to create some sort of the safe space isn't going to work.

>It can't be performed outside the Church.
You aren't the Church though.

Then you belive non-Christian Orthodox should also not be allowed to have sex?

No, Christ is.

I don't think you can stop them for having sex, but I don't think it's right

> stop crimes such as sexual assault and rape
I bet that there is more chance to being raped by some religious fundamentalist than by atheist as we all can see from the our muslim friends.

Morality is arbitrary to the extent that it is not enforced. Might makes right

Funny. That's not mentioned in the bible? Are you just making your own conclusions? Seems like you also like to throw away God's laws you don't want to practice.

How about I make my own conclusions too? Pre-material sex was wrong, it was unclean and dangerous. There wasn't adequate condoms or pills. Now like pork it is no longer wrong.

If God said that (insert completely arbitrary thing here) was morally good it would still be arbitrary. If the Zodiac Killer came to stab me, me fighting back would not be arbitrary. It would be done with a clear reasoning and the reasoning would make sense.

Feeling guilty about having sex is meaningless, it's just beating yourself and nothing changes.

Yes, and Christ instilled that Peter is the foundation of the Church.
Ergo, Catholic Church is the Church.

>No, Christ is.

So if three gay Lutherian men all say that they are 100% sure Christ like their 3-person marriage, what do you say?

Or is "Christ" arbitrary too?

>I don't think you can stop them for having sex, but I don't think it's right

Then you believe sex and marriage to essentially be a religious obligation, it has nothing to do with love. Therefore what you said here is completely invalid

>So if three gay Lutherian men all say that they are 100% sure Christ like their 3-person marriage, what do you say?
You tell them to fuck off and die and pray for them to stop being faggots and hope the AIDs kill them inside.

>All it would do is make me feel like shit for something that is a core part of being human.

The issue here is that you are conflating all sex with sex outside of marriage. The Christian perspective is that the biological urge for sex is a good thing that should be satisfied, but in the way that is going to maximize its goodness, which they believe is in marriage. The only difference between you and Christians is that you put less qualifications on how sex should be done, but you both treat it is something inherent and important to human beings. Ultimately you are more sex negative though, since you treat it as something casual, just like drinking a beer for pleasure, where they treat it as something powerful and ecstatic that has to be done just right,due to their respect for it.

God is also arbitrary because he choose morality for the people by a whim.

>Morality is arbitrary to the extent that it is not enforced. Might makes right
So if you rape a little girl and get away with it, you think that is perfectly moral?

>That's not mentioned in the bible?
Cleanliness is mentioned profusely in the Bible

>Feeling guilty about having sex is meaningless
Contrition is more important than anything. That's why God favored the Publican over the Pharisee, even though the Pharisee was poor and fasted and attended services and was very observant; the Publican was contrite, and that trumped them all.

Nah. Seems like Christians put the formality of the marriage before the inherent importance of the sex.

If they're Lutheran, they're not in Christ's Church, are they?

I believe all aspects of life ought to be done in Christ

Nay, sin is what is counterproductive to theosis. It's very simple and has nothing to do with whim, it is literally Hebrew (and Greek and Latin) for "missing the mark", it means to miss the mark of being more Godlike.

You're right, but don't expect him to understand what you're saying. You'll probably get a completely unrelated response amounting to "checkmate, theists" or "lel, imaginary sky wizard".

> has to be done just right
This is unhealthy perfectionism. Even more if you remember that there is no need to put something that irrelevant at grand scheme of things, as your sexual life, on a pedestal.

>This is unhealthy perfectionism
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

> miss the mark of being more Godlike
You can't be more Godlike like you can't be more close to the infinity. Theosis is a very naive idea.

>irrelevant

Sex is literally what creates life and ensures the survival of the species.

See, you're trying to argue the understanding of Christian terms using materialist presuppositions. If you want to be a materialist, okay, but don't try to tell me what Christian theology is and what Christian terms mean.

I see the words that encourage the unhealthy perfectionism. They only confirm general idea.

I thought sin meant it's a fuck up and you should repent said fuck up so that way you can become closer to God.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "unhealthy"? Are you saying it's unhealthy to not fornicate?

>So if you rape a little girl and get away with it, you think that is perfectly moral?

If I answered "no" than what would happen is I would feel guilty and probably not do it again. If I answered "yes" I would probably do it again. Neither is moral or immoral really.

Either way there's going to be no justice for the girl which is sad. Morality is an abstraction really. You could say the rape was immoral but this is just a label that doesn't change the situation. Bringing the hammer down on the rapist is what would be real.

>Cleanliness is mentioned profusely in the Bible
Yes, I actually know about the Jewish concepts of cleanliness and the way you view it is completely bastardized and arbitrary. It's about spiritual cleanliness, if you don't have enogh you can't commune with God. One of the biggest sources of being unclean is blood and flesh. So the Eucharist should actually repell the holy spirit. But hey, it's not like you actually take these laws seriously?

>Contrition is more important than anything
Feeling guilty is the most important thing huh? Sounds a great way to turn yourself into a loser. You'd figure God would want you to develop yourself or build the community rather than sit all day and feel miserable for being born human.

But nobody is perfect, it even says so in the bible

> using materialist presuppositions
Where in material world you even seen the infinity to justify your usage of buzzwords here?

>If they're Lutheran, they're not in Christ's Church, are they?

So now the church isn't in the holy spirit in each person. It's about which building you walk into.

>Neither is moral or immoral really.
So you see nothing wrong with it so long as you get away with it, glad we got that cleared up.

> It's about spiritual cleanliness
No it isn't, it's more of a stand-in for that. It's religious cleanliness, but not spiritual, there is not spirit involved. It's about the flesh, the covenant is marked with circumcision, morality is an eye-for-an-eye, and so on. Christ completes it with the spirit, and makes religion about the spiritual instead of merely the fleshly.

>if you don't have enogh you can't commune with God.
Jews don't have communion, Christ brought that.

>One of the biggest sources of being unclean is blood and flesh.
Yeah, the blood is the life. If you eat an animal's flesh and blood, you are communing with it, which is a no-no. Communion is only for God.

>Feeling guilty is the most important thing huh?
So long as it's in Christ? Yes.

> unhealthy
It has to be done *just right* or hasn't done *at all* is a practical definition of unhealthy perfectionism.
> Are you saying it's unhealthy to not fornicate?
I am not. That should be very clear.

But everyone is supposed to try to be and show remorse over their failings. Every day you do not lament what you left undone (and not doing what you should is as much of a sin as doing what you shouldn't), it a day wasted, according to Saint John of the Ladder.

Why would you try to do something thats impossible? I'm not saying you shouldn't try to be the best you can be but trying to be perfect will always result in failure.

This is a thread asking for the Christian perspective

The Holy Spirit is conferred with Chrismation.

"Just right" is not like "a microinch", i just means in marriage.

And we are supposed to always lament that failure, and be the Publican, not the Pharisee.

The problem here comes up when instead of trying to do their best, people just put all their faith to the supposedly good method of archiving results. Be it a marriage before sex or some other practices that are guidelines at best and not the perfect solutions.

>Europe and India developed amazing cultures and scientific advancements because they had religions which required discipline to set aside basic urges to seek pleasure and allowed them instead to pursue more noble advanced goals.
And india still had a culture of people boning without the shame.

Marriage before sex is more for moral solution than about felicific calculus.

I agree with you, but you should be more correct. You can't automatically claim all of non-Christian perspective to be materialistic.

So everyone ultimately fails to live up to God's standards? Why would he expect more from us than we are capable of? If he is truly omniscient shouldn't he expect exactly the right amount?

> it just means in marriage
To be honest about it, marriage is not that special life-time commitment in modern world, so you can see how arguments from respect lost their weight.

>So you see nothing wrong with it so long as you get away with it, glad we got that cleared up.

Nope. I wouldn't even use the word "wrong" or "right". The only thing that exists is the event and the outcome. The answer to "is it moral" is not yes, or no. It's null, the question itself is invalid.

>The entire old testament isn't about the spirit
It's amazing how easily you are willing to throw out half your book and basically throw out everything God ever said. You have hundreds of pages of God having a spiritual connection to the people and you throw it away because it upsets your theology.

>So long as it's in Christ? Yes.
This is a stockholm relationship. Stop moping, that's not what any real God would want.