UNHEALTHY RELIGIOUS TEACHING ON SEX FOR CHRISTIANS
The Roman Catholic position on sex outside marriage comes from the Bible which
strictly forbids it. Some feel that the prohibition in the Bible was just a rule
made by God to test us. The Roman Church feels that it is because sex outside
marriage denies the language of sex which speaks of committing to another
completely and forever. We can be sure that the Roman Church is wrong but we can
also be sure that to start teaching that God made laws to test us or for a
mysterious good purpose is fanaticism. It speaks of putting faith before people.
The Roman Church knows that its reasons for condemning sex outside wedlock are
wrong – it is a philosophically trained faith. But it just ignores the facts and
is a dishonest religion.
The big advantage the Church sees in the idea that sex says to the person that
you give yourself to them forever is in this total self-giving for it gives the
Church an excuse to trick people into accepting or at least not opposing its
stance on contraception. The Church does in fact say that since sex is
self-giving using contraception is holding yourself back and is not
sacrificially giving yourself to the other person. Sex must be great fun when it
is all about sacrifice! Who in their right mind would marry if it were? So sex
then for a Catholic says, “I give myself to you so much that we leave our union
open to life and hold nothing back.” Obviously oral sex must be a sin for it is
not open to life. Logically the man should simply get on the woman and forget
about foreplay and all the rest. Anything else is holding back. But what if they
plan to have full sex? It makes no difference. The other acts do not involve the
self-giving in the way that full sex does. It would be like putting the ring on
every finger but the correct one at a wedding before you put it on the correct
finger. If the couple were having sex for the total self-giving reason they
wouldn’t need the other acts. There is actually more self-giving and sacrifice
in sex that takes place without much enjoyment than there is with sex that does.
The Church says that we only show love by sacrifice.
Surely then a barren couple cannot give themselves as well as a fertile couple
can? Surely their relationship is being said to be defective.
Does the Church forbid sex outside marriage because of the danger of catching
venereal disease?
It doesn’t forbid going to public hospitals and clinics where diseases are
frequently caught. It doesn’t forbid boxing with its dangers and the danger of
infection. It doesn’t command that men and women getting married go and get
checked up first. It forbids condoms which help step venereal disease and holds
that a rapist using a condom sins more than one that does not. It holds that
God’s law sometimes requires suffering – for example, under religious
persecution it is still not right to abandon your Catholic faith so suffering
venereal disease is not a proof that sex outside marriage is wrong for the
Church. The Church teaches an inhuman morality that has no relevance to modern
life.
Does the Church forbid sex outside marriage because of the danger of pregnancy?
The Church holds that sex outside marriage is still seriously sinful even
between a barren couple or a couple that are not just using the pill but condoms
as well to be double sure that they are safe so the fear of pregnancy is not a
major reason for forbidding sex outside marriage. The Church doesn’t forbid sex
in marriage when the wife has been warned by doctors that she will die if she
gets pregnant again. The Church holds that all sex must be open to life and that
remains true even when natural family planning is practiced. An unwanted
pregnancy can cause as much destruction in marriage as outside of it. And yet
the Church forbids contraception or abortion. There is no danger of unmarried
pregnancy from oral sex and the Church holds that it is a far bigger sin than
ordinary sex. The Church holds that “oral sodomy” is an unnatural sin. It is
putting the sex organs where they are not designed by God to be put.
The Church abhors promiscuity. If a man married and was widowed every year by
the end of his life he would have slept with as many women as promiscuous men
have and the Church would approve. There is nothing bothering the Church only
people having sex without its permission. The Church is not concerned about
promiscuity causing disease. It welcomes ladykillers to the altar for marriage
to innocent young virgins. It is law and not people it cares for. It is
astonishing that some people are so naïve as to be happy with the “compassion”
they get from the two-faced load of Christian crap.
It is possible for a man and woman to experience total intimacy in a kiss. They
might have sex later and not feel as close. Assuming that it is possible for
something to express everlasting commitment. It is not necessarily the language
of sex that says, "I belong to you forever". It could be anything. A man can
practice and experience greater intimacy with his wife by her hospital bed when
he visits her than through sex. The Church by imagining a language for sex is
demeaning the intimacy of say the hospital visit. Kissing intimately is a very
sexual act and yet the Church allows actresses and actors to engage in it in
films.
The sex outside marriage ban is just about religious rules not people. It is
sheer nonsense and only hypocrisy can inspire people to support it. The Catholic
Church pretends that its attitude towards sex stems from it regarding sex as
very very holy. The Jehovah's Witnesses use the same excuse to ban blood
transfusions and cause lots of sickness and death. They say that the Bible says
the life of the flesh is in the blood and so to respect blood is to respect
life. The Catholic Church says that the Catholic should be prepared to die in
defence of the Church's teaching on sex. Comparing the two you can see that the
attitudes are really just pretending to reverence something as sacred. If you
hate people enjoying themselves what better way to do it than to say fun is so
holy and sacred that it can only be engaged in in very strict circumstances?
Christians don't mind a man sleeping with his wife even if he intends to leave
her. They do mind him sleeping with her when he is not married though he intends
to spend the rest of his life with her and feels the sex shows her that. It is not
about people but rules. The rules are vile hypocrisy and the Church has always
been good at being hypocritical.
You always know when you are telling a lie. If sex outside marriage is saying to
a person that you will be with them forever and you cannot mean that unless you
are married then you cannot have sex outside marriage with a good conscience.
You lied in the sex and you knew it was a lie. The Church sees lying as a sin.
Lying through sex is seen as a very serious lie and a grave sin. You will never
be able to say that you believed the sex was not wrong. Even if you could
sincerely believe it was right you would still be a bad person. A murderer who
thinks he or she is doing right is still doing wrong. He or she is still a bad
person.
The Church says we must hate sin but love the sinner. The Church says it is a
sin to recognise sin but to fail to be angry at it. And it is worse to even
condone it or laugh at it. When people do wrong, what they fear is people having
condemnatory feelings for them not the people saying they are doing wrong.
People do not fear people who don't care what they do or even laugh at their
sins. It is not being judged to be doing bad or wrong that people fear but
others feeling condemnatory towards them for what they do. God doesn't have
feelings and we are expected to put God first so it would be surprising if the
God concept ever genuinely managed to stop anybody who wanted to do evil from
doing it. Rather it would encourage it for it says we should be worried not
about the condemnations of others but about the wrongness of the evil we do. It
says worrying about the condemning feelings is a sin.
The Church likes to claim that if a couple live together before marriage, the
marriage is more likely to fail. The argument is that as living together is
wrong it will have bad consequences. In other words, the Church wants to think
that cohabiting before marriage encourages the couple to break up after getting
married. But think of it this way. Cohabiting as a kind of trial marriage should
make the marriage stronger. If it doesn't, then it is not the cohabiting that is
to blame but something else. Perhaps the couple got married because they were
under some kind of pressure. Perhaps their living together reflects a suspicion
about marriage that it doesn't work for most people. If a couple feel that way,
even if they don't admit it, it could lead to problems if they get married. The
Church has no right to accuse cohabitation of causing or helping to cause the
marriage break-up - it is only a trick to get people to abide by its rule that
sex must be confined to marriage. The nonsense it spouts plainly shows that it
is lying when it says it loves the sinner and hates the sin. How could it be
doing that when it falsely accuses cohabiters of endangering their future
marriage by the mere fact they are cohabiting? It is like saying you hate a sin
somebody has committed when the sin is in fact not a sin at all.
The Church says that looking at erotica is a sin even if there is no chance of
you being titillated by it. It says that looking at it is giving the producers
and participants a reason to sin. It is looking at sin when you should be
repelled by sin and despise it. All that follows from the notion of sex outside
marriage being wrong. Sexy erotic images have to portray the models as sexually
available. They have to make you want to have sex with the models.
It is said that porn, even when it depicts loving healthy sex, is treating the
person as a body and not a person. It is said that the goodness and virtue of
the person does not matter. If that is true then it must be a sin to look after
your beauty and for people to gaze upon it. People who see your beauty enjoy it
because it is physical attractiveness and they admire that more than your
goodness or virtues.
The Catholics warn about the dangers of lust and how Jesus said it will land you
in Hell unless it is repented. Yet actors and actresses are allowed to kiss on
screen even though attraction and “chemistry” are needed to make this look
authentic. Many married actors and actresses will look forward to love scenes to
enjoy kissing somebody without the stigma of adultery. The Catholics are
hypocrites.
Ignore the Church. Ignore its Jesus. Have sex but have it responsibly.