Committed Intimacy, Not Serial Sexual Dating

Pacific Pandeist, your view may or may not be correct- but Pandeism is at its fundaments only the belief that God became the universe. Pandeism itself does not dictate sexual proclivity as a reward to God. Even if God did become the universe for the experience of it, there is no assurance that God is particularly looking for the experience that you enjoy, or any physical experience at all. I'm sure I'll agree with you that a God who dictates rules governing human sex lives is as absurd as a God who does so for the sex lives of birds or whales. But that does not make the God of Pandeism desirous of sex either.

Wow.... "Blown Away" has sure found a wonderful way of attempting to impose his narrow and cosmically incorrect viewpoint on me!! Well if you call PanDeism "rationalizing sin" do you call eating tasty food instead of tasteless glop "rationalizing gluttony"? You say PanDeism amounts to "do what feels good because by so doing you are giving to God what God could not get for himself".... well.... yeah, why else would God bother to become the Universe?

Please, do remember that one, friend!!

Sir Jim: Saw you on "Tucker" talking about "faith and politics" You failed to mention that the Bible is a proved hoax. You did make the point, religion WILL control the government until it becomes the government.

That's a bit of swimming up stream for westerners. Religion WAS the government for a thousand years but then something happened, the flat earth rounded up. The earth hasn't flattened out again?

All the protestants must rejoin the church before the Vatican, the oldest government on earth can rule the known world again. Don't give up. Both parties will make sex a sin unless done by YOUR rules.

Bruce,

You need to stop getting your "news" from the supermarket checkout rags.

George Bush ist not hooking up with Condi

Now Condi and Hillary......hmm.......

Is sex good or bad that is indeed a major issue between a lovely Christian married couple: George and Laura Bush. In fact the arguments are so heated up that they are heading for a divorce. The issue is that George likes Condi and then some. Question: who is at fault here? What is life all about? Some countries or religions allow more than one wife. What should the rules be here in Christian USA?

I agree with Jim wholeheartely. As a single divorced woman, who has been single for almost 35 years, the sexual revolution has put a confusing spin on sex. Without caring and committment, for a many women, sex is truly degrading AND dangerous. In my view, it is critically important to know your partner well. This is essential for both emotional and physical safety. This is in line with the mores of the major religions. There are universals here that each religion as adopted and are God's word and common sense based on the negative experiences of those who cross that line. Some of the experiences are immediate: feeling empty, sad,or contracting an STD. Other negatives are pervasive and slow to realize: a mindset that trivializes something sacred, and the decline of the sense of wonder at the beauty of intimacy.

WHO CARES WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS JIM .SEX STRAIGHT OR GAY IS FUN FOR ALL TO BE ENJOYED! BY THE WAY JIM YOU ARE ABOUT THE ONLY RELIGIOUS PERSON THAT HAS ANY CREDIBILITY MOST OTHER PREACHERS ARE HOMOPHOBIC MONEYHUNGRY BSsers!

AHHHHH....the "slightly pregnant" argument.....

I'm just wondering - has it occurred to anyone that 'god', in the old testament sense, couldn't HAVE sex? And made it a FREE WILL CHOICE for the flesh....(that weird ripping out of the rib of Adam....hey...the ick factor just rings off the wall..what was WITH that anyway?)

In other words, GOD has nothing to do with it - it's a HUMAN ANIMAL THING.

All animals "do" it for a reason.

Humans should "do" no more or less.

"...exploitive or manipulative relationships is indeed sin, because it can be so abusive and destructive of the human spirit." --- Wallis

I heartily agree with this.

I saw this firsthand in my own parents. My mother married because she needed a man to take care of her. She had not ability or desire to take care of him or his needs.

However, having seen how unhappy my father was, I still did not understand this fully until I tried dating myself. I waited a long time before I tried to include sex in a relationship. And I found out sex without equal caring caused a feeling of being used. It's degrading.

I decided never again to treat sex as just a casual sport. It's too important.

PRESIDENT WALLIS: You said, "In the Bible, and most religious traditions, sex can, of course, be either."

The Bible and most religious traditions are man made. Thus we can say that eveything the Bible and most religious traditions say are the OPINIONS of men. And I mean men and not women.

The Bible is a proved hoax. You need a new source of absolute truths, you know, things so absolutely so they require faith to be believed.

To Griffin --

To answer your question, both are technically sinful, though any church that I would consider valid would think that the first was more reprehensible than the second.

As for your second comment, I think that those who advocate such measures to protect the sanctity of marriage really ought to support constitutional bans on divorce, which is a far more pervasive problem. Of course, I have yet to hear the Rev. James Dobson support such a move... :)

All of the pro-Christian writers answering the question have used some variation of the 'within a committed relationship' arguement.

They all come up with a version of "Hey, we think sex is great, so long as it's within the confines of marriage."

Ok, let's work with that.

A husband forces his wife to have sex with him at any time he demands. He uses sex to enforce his dominance over her and uses sex as a means to control her. He demands sex whether she desires it or not.

Two people, unmarried, engage in sex through mutual agreement, love, and the desire for the betterment of the other.

Which example is an example of sin? The first? the second? Neither? Both?

* * * * *
The question that ON FAITH should have asked is, why does religion (or at least religion in America) treat 'sexual' sin differently than other sins?

Eating shellfish is a sin. Back-talking your mom is a sin. Working on Sunday is a sin. But nobody writes legislation against those. We only attempt to ammend our Constitution to legally discriminate against people engaged in 'sexual sin.'

(I accept that murder and theft are also 'sins' that are also legislated against. I argue that these sins, unlike dietary restrictions and sexual mores, do direct harm specific to specific parties. Providing laws requiring personal property and personal safety allow for the establishment of a viable economy, society, and state. Considerations about 'sinfullness' is beside the point.)

Wow... Pacific Pandiest has sure found a wonderful way of rationalizing sin. Essentially, do what feels good because by so doing you are giving to God what God could not get for himself. I'll have to remember that one!

As for Wallis, your characterization of the appropriate context is much too broad. Sex is sacred and must be retained within the bounds with which the lord has set -- between husband and wife, legally and lawfully married. Mere commitment is not enough. You must be married.

Here I must disagree most strongly....

My belief is in PanDeism (the marriage of PanTheism and Deism) which teaches that God not only created the Universe, but in fact became the Universe in order to experience existence through the experiences of the Universe (and thereby to learn what it was like to face obstacles and limitations unknowable to a deity).... under PanDeism, our sexual practices are understood to be a fantastic gift to God, who shares in these experiences.... thus there can be few better lives lived than those in which the experience of giving and receiving pleasure is maximized by the sharing of this joy with as many willing partners as possible!!