NEVER said child baring is the ONLY reason for having sex. You guys must pick and choose what you wish to read in someone's post(s). It is the first and foremost reason to have sex yes. And it is done between a married couple, yes. Again, never said child baring was the ONLY reason to make love, lol...... think the other reason is in the name of the action, who woulda figured.

A mouse told me? Doesn't truly matter where I got my information. The reference was not mentioned, and that is exactly what this thread stated to be done. No verse(s) were mentioned.

Okay then I misunderstood.
So having sex with your wife after she can no longer have children is not a lustful sinful act?

Ok, just for the heck of it Funches. Next time I state something of a belief, please show me where I'm wrong. If I say something that is accordance to my religious views, please tell us on how it's not so. Things I say about the Christian faith, can be backed up by verse(s) at any moment. I'm no spokesperson for anything. Again, this is a discussion on personal beliefs, not proclaiming all of Christianity believes as I do.

Well, you've just CONFESSED right here then, that you would continue to engage in the act of "love-making" for reasons beyond that of procreation!

If you're going to do that, then you can apply it to planned parenthood, and everything else.

What purpose could you possibly have for continuing to engage in the act of "love-making" if you can no longer procreate?

Besides, this ISN'T about people "just having sex" around the world.

The real issue that you are attempting to get at there are people who totally refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

But Christianity doesn't hold the patent rights on being responsible!

A person can be responsible whilst totally refuting Christianity as nothing more than a total fable that has no more merit than Greek Mythology.

So you're not even truly discussing religious superstitions at all. All you're attempting to address here are simple concepts of responsibility in general.

And those concepts can indeed be addressed equally well by a secular atheist. No need to bring religion into the picture at all.

All you're saying is that having sex for pure pleasure is perfectly FINE if done responsibility.

Well duh!

You don't need any religion to draw that conclusion!

No it is not, how could it be?

Lust = desire of physical pleasure to extremes at time.

When a married couple makes love, it's not about the physical pleasure. It's about the raging emotions between the two, pleasing each other, not specifically giving direct attention to pleasing themselves. It's about pleasing the other. It's about physically showing the love one holds for the other, rather then just verbally as the most usual way. It's on a higher level of sharing this compassion then dinners or something else romantic.

I see nothing wrong with wanting to please yourself as well as you partner. If both partners just wanted to please the other, no one would be pleased.

It has to be mutual pleasure.

Yes they can, not going to argue. Again, I'm not preaching or trying to convert anyone or anything along those lines. Just discussing or "chatting" about my own personal religious views, as this is the forum for that eg., General Religion Chat. General means any and all religious views.

cool...so that would mean that it's your own personal belief that you flesh is sin...and why to think of yourself in such a way is a form of self hatred

Sure they would be, why would they not be? What is pleasing to you in the sexual area then? Is it your own personal physical desires? Or is it that you just shot your partner to the stars and back? Don't have to specifically answer the question(s) on the board, as they are quite personal. Just mentioning them for something for you to think about in this discussion.

Are you pleased by the physical things that are done to YOU.
or
Are you pleased physically and emotionally knowing that you just shot your partner to the stars and back?

Is it a selfish and self centered pleasure that pleases you most? Or is it knowing that you just gave your partner a night of ecstasy in your loving arms?

Is it about the physical pleasure, or the passion shared?

ect ect

You have a fetish with hatred I guess. There is absolutely no hatred. It's a fact of controlling yourself. Controlling your flesh through your spirit. Doing actions with your flesh that pleases the spirit. Working the two in harmony. The flesh automatically desires sinful things, sex, drinking, drugs, ect. *yes I know not ALL has these desires* But it about if one is willing to act upon these desires to please the flesh, or to seek the things the spirit wishes.

I think Cowboy got in over his head here.

He's arguments are slowly deteriorating into an argument that it's ok to have sex for reasons other than procreation IF it's done responsibly.

His claim seems to be that it can only be done responsibly if a person believes in "Christianity".



Clearly, that's not going to fly.

So he's already lost.

Christianity does not hold the patent rights to "responsibility" in general.

For example, Cowboy previously wrote:


He's claiming that all of these things would cease to exist if EVERYONE kept to one partner.

But that's not what the problem is.

The problem has nothing to do with keeping to one partner.

All of these problems are simply a result of irresponsibility it has nothing at all do to with how many partners were involved.

For example, "single parents".

That's irresponsible. If the father didn't stick around to provide for the kid he procreated, that's just irresponsibility period.

Also if the woman allowed herself to get pregnant without making arrangements for properly raising her child, then she too was being "irresponsible".

Moreover, Cowboy is WRONG.



No, all of this would not cease to exist if EVERYONE kept to one partner. Because people DIE! So children could still lose a parent, or even BOTH parents.

So even if mankind's behavior was "perfect" the world would still not be "perfect" because God did not create a "perfect" world.

It's all God's FAULT. And the blame cannot be laid on mankind.

At least not in every case.

In fact, how many woman actually MARRIED a man, had kids, and only after all that discovered that the Guy was INSANE and totally irresponsible.

So even an individual person cannot CHOOSE to do the right things and have them work out properly because they can't control the behavior of their MATES.

So Cowboy would need to go further and claim that if EVERYONE were responsible, then,..... blah, blah, blah.

But again, Christianity does not hold the patent on "responsibility" even though the religion would arrogantly would like to believe that it does!

But you do argue and preach your views in this manner:

You tried to hold out the following:



But your error here is assuming that "Just having sex" is the cause of any of that.

It's NOT

The cause of all those problems are a direct result from having "irresponsible sex" only!

Not from "just having sex".

People are having "unprotected" sex, and "unsafe" sex, and refusing to take responsibility for the results of their neglect and irresponsibility.

In theory, if they had RESPONSIBLE sex, they could "just have sex" to their heart's content and never cause any problems at all.

So it's not the act of having sex that is the problem.

It's having sex irresponsibly that is the problem.

In other words, if people could have protected, safe, and responsible sex, then having sex freely with just anyone wouldn't cause any problems at all, except perhaps emotional problems if vows, contracts, or covenants with other people are being broken.

But once again, if a person is breaking vows, and covenants that they have made with other people, then once again they are acting irresponsibly.

So it isn't about sex at all.

It's entirely about being responsible or irresponsible.

Sex itself has absolutely nothing to do with it really.

It's all about being responsible.

Period.

If everyone kept to just one partner, a married partner. This would not happen. Or atleast not as often as it does today. Yes it is a problem of irresponsibility.



Lol, it's not about being wrong or right. We're having a DISCUSSION of PERSONAL BELIEFS. There could be no such thing as wrong or right. If the two were married, they would have obviously made arrangements for properly raising their child.



Yes people do die. That's not what was being discussed with this though. We were discussing single parents as in one of the spouses left the other, as in breaking up the relationship. Or along the lines of no one night stands when people sleep with someone they don't even know and get pregnant for any number or reasons. And it's nto God's fault. God doesn't necessarily choose who's gonna die and when. This is brought upon ourselves by ourselves, except for when someone dies of old age. Someone dies of a heart attack, this could have been solved by taking better care of themselves, someone dies in a car wrech, this would be caused by wreckless driving of them or someone else. Not specifically by God.



Should have waited to get married then. Should have waited and made sure that was the one they wanted to spend their life with.

There is no difference between "just having sex" and "irresponsible sex". They are the same lol.

Cowboy ...I'm only going by what you posted....anyone that claim that their flesh is sin means that they don't like their flesh

you also claim that you are posessed by a spirit that helps you deny yourself any pleasure but the spirit insist that you please it

now do you understand why it sound like you don't like yourself

I'm not "possessed" by any spirit lol. We are spirits, we are spirits in flesh. The flesh is merely a holding container. That is why if you read in the old testament, sins are passed down from generation to generation until it it is forgiven. Sin is in the flesh until it's forgiven.

If one partner only wanted to please the other, and the other partner only cared about pleasing the other, then nobody would be pleased because the only thing that pleases both of them is pleasing the other.

In order to please the other you HAVE to allow the other to please YOU. You have to learn to receive as well as give pleasure for both to be pleased.

oh oh...Cowboy.....did you mention The Old Testment? ....see this is positive proof that you been preaching from the bible

That's your assertion, not mine.

If two people "just have sex" and have taken "full responsibility" for any consequences of that action, including having taken precaution to make it as safe as they possibly could.

Then this sex could not in any way have been deemed to have been "irresponsible".

In other words, let's say that I "just have sex" with a woman. I take full responsibility and precaution for this act.

Thus if some "disease" results that same disease would have STILL resulted even if we had married. Viruses and germs no nothing of marriage vows.

Also, if I'm responsible I will be a "father" to any child that might be caused by that event.

If after nine months pass and the woman had no child, then I can move on to another woman without being 'irresponsible' for having created any child that I'm unwilling to support.

There is no way that you could claim that this is "irresponsible" other than to merely object on personal subjective grounds that you just like to JUDGE other people, irregardless of how responsible they might be.

In short, in my scenario no life-long commitment or marriage was necessary for this act of "just having sex" to be done responsibly. It was done "responsibility" and no marriage or life-long vows were required.

So your claim that "just having sex" and "irresponsible sex". They are the same, is indeed laughable Cowboy, because you can't support your judgment of this. It's merely a judgment that you are personally subjectively making.