Most cultures, especially Jewish, Christian, Islamic cultures, separate religious and sexual life sharply. Sex is sin. It is, they said, cause of the deprived nature of man. That is the belief of theologians (and they quote the most famous tale of the Bible, called the "Fall of Man", that means Adam's Fall). But I don't believe them - yet as secularized, but confessing Protestant! Because paradise without sex became too dull and boredom for Adam and Eva. So they were happy to go to Earth, they were happy that it was allowed them to die a natural death after a long life (like all other biological beings) looking back on a happy life with work, many sons and daughters. So it is reported with Adam, who reached an age of 930 years, but he was so sexy, (if you are willing to understand rightly the Holy Bible), that he fathered a son in the age of 130 and named him Seth (Gen. 5,3-5). It is well-known in history that leaders of religion, theologians, religious groups, churches used the common interpretation of Adam's Fall as an instrument of rule of man. If you don't, so really understood, religion opens the door to a satisfying sexual life. I know the objections, and you may raise them, now. But my question should indicate, that - at least in modern Western societies - religion and sex have more things in common as people are quite aware. See, for instance the fact of suppression of both phanomena in every day life: Also religion (not only sex) has become a private affair. Many chat about their sex experience, only a few report about their religious attitude. "Shame" you find not only as a sexual but also as a religious phenomenon. Sex is, anthropological seen, necessary, but also religion. In an insecure world also the absolutely secularized man compensates the insight in his own helplessness by a religious sensitiveness - seeing in an unknown future, knowing that death is the only secure fact of life. What do you think?
It seems to me that man is the only living thing that does sex for pleasure and not just to reproduce. Religion generally considers this fact as a "sin". This "sin" makes sex more attractive and intriguing. Because it adds to the pure and simple sexual pleasure the charm of transgression.
It seems to me that man is the only living thing that does sex for pleasure and not just to reproduce. Religion generally considers this fact as a "sin". This "sin" makes sex more attractive and intriguing. Because it adds to the pure and simple sexual pleasure the charm of transgression.
Healthy (unforced) sex between woman and man is the foundation of a sane society. I do see a common ground between religion and sexuality in the concept of procreation, i.e. purity of the family, in Biblical sense, e.g. the human responsibility for offspring. W. Reich was well ahead of his time, concerning sexuality and human health (see: pdf), in psycho-medical terms.
I understand my challenging question as an unhewn block of stone, connected with the invitation to give it a formed figure by your intelligent answers, enriched with statements which discuss truth and limits of such truth to come to a satisfying result. Therefore I appreciate your answer, dear Leonardo, as an reasonable, very recommendable amount of such a discussion. Nevertheless we have to take in account that today, in our modern world, not the religion but the morality of the public plays such a role you have mentioned. The phenomenon of transgression is - in my view - typical for the sexual sphere, with its temptations and sometimes bad consequences; religion is less touched. But to interpret transgression as "transforming" drives, will, longings etc. opens a wide field of phenomena of arts and esthetics. The problem to see similarities of sex and religion begins with the fact that the gender differences are fundamental, also their strategies. Perhaps the stated "common ground" of religion and sex is valid more for females than for males regarding social aspects - and valid more for males regarding religious rule and sex rule (enclosed aggression). Sigmund Freud's basic theorem that LUST (libido) principally is suppressed by everyday life and work (Freud saw suppression of libido as the most important condition to produce culture) is worthy of note, also in its limitations.
Islamic culture do not separate religious and sexual life sharply. The Koran mention marriage many times. And put rules for it. But sex without marriage is forbidden.
Thank you, dear colleagues, for your precious answers. I think, in general is the question of relations between the sexes one of the most sensitives. Tthings would be more complicated if we compare the situation of man and woman in Western Christianity and Islam. Could it be that only therefore is no difference between religion and sexuality in your belief and experience, because in Islam religion and traditional culture determine preliminary all other fields of life, - law, the influence of family, and last not least the gender relations? The Western culture is coined by the Enlightenment that separated morality (and privacy) from religion; the Enlightenment formed the responsible autonomious personality and developed first steps for mutual and equal relations between man and woman. Mutual equality and equal rights for women is apparently not an end in Islamic culture, I suppose. I have no objections, every culture has its own valuable aspects. The Christian culture of monogamy generates special problems, for instance for men to remain true. Their sex drive and hormone level demand sexual activity. In Islamic cultures this fact is the same, but not a big social problem (and not a problem of public discussion how it is in Western countries. ) Faithfulness in marriage is today a problem for many partnerships in Western culture - with an increasing number of divorces, in Islamic culture it is quite normal that men (and their family) decide things. So there are interesting cultural differences we have to discuss.
I don't feel qualified to speak to other religions, but as far as Christianity is concerned there is definitely a link between sex and religion. I dispute your assertion that "sex is sin" and offer an alternative: Sex is an act of worship. Recall that God instructed Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28 KJV) which necessarily entails sexual intercourse, immaculate conception notwithstanding. There are very specific conditions under which sex is to take place (ex: your partner must be your spouse), but never is the act of sex itself called a sin by the scriptures. It follows that sex, an act of creation, would glorify a creator God. Furthermore, there is a precedent in the scriptures of extremely restrictive instructions being placed on sacred rituals, such as the detailed descriptions of appropriate sacrifices or the establishment of the tabernacle in the Mosaic Law. Under similar restrictions, sex is not a sin, but a sacred act following specific guidelines as per Christian tradition.
“Judaism is not committed to a doctrine of original sin and knows nothing of the inherent depravity of human nature. The word “flesh” did not assume in its vocabulary the odor of sinfulness; carnal needs were not thought of as being rooted in evil. Nowhere in the bible is found any indication of the idea that the soul is imprisoned in a corrupt body….” (Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel in Man is Not Alone, p. 264).
It is indeed a tragic misnomer that the ancient Hebrew Scriptural story of Adam and Eve has been yanked out of context and applied toward religious notions and agendas never intended. Judaism views sex not only as a beautiful gift but as healthy and not at all confined to propagation. The sensuous is encouraged and even taught as a potent means of spiritual evolution. In the words of the 13th-century Rabbi Isaac of Acco: "One who lacks sensual lust has as much a chance of spiritual development as does a mule of giving birth."
Hi Al, hi Gershon, our talk perhaps is moving too much in details, which studied experts - I am not a theologian - may discuss on a higher level. My modest contribution to your statements is: Sex and sexual desire we find both in the Tora and the Christian message of the Bible (New Testament) as human drives of the "flesh", which the divine commandment don't allow, (see Onan, see David and Bathseba and other not "normal" kinds of begetting); for centuries the Songs of Salomon were interpreted not as poems of love and sexual desire but as an symbolic relation between God and Israel. A dramatical enhancement of the thought that sex is sinful you find in the preaching of Paul, for instance 1Timothy 5,11: "But refuse the younger widows; for when they have began to grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, having condemnation because they have cast off their first faith." Paul must invent a new story about the deeper reason of the death of Jesus: Jesus died for the mankind, because the first man, Adam f... Eva. So he put Adam and Christus in an common context: Adam was the first sinner and brought the sin to mankind, Christus Jesus is the Redeemer who freed by his death men from sin (Romans 5, 12-21). As missionary in Asia Minor Paul was forced to do so, this explains a deeper interpretation: Normal Romans or Greeks couldn't understand the message of Paul, that all men (especially Romans and Greeks) of the Roman Empire should be sinner, they couldn't beiieve, that soon they would come into hell, because the end of the world and the Last Judgement is coming immediately, and the only way not to be damned for ever is the faith in the Redeemer Christus Jesus - a fantastic, magic fairytale, but nobody of the pagan world could believe such preaching as real truth. Only some people who were interested in Jewry and the - only one - God of the Jews, followed Paul. The dead Jesus was for normal Greeks and Romans an entirely unknown and insignificant Jew, or at least a man who was executed by the Romans for his incitement of the Jewish people: a criminal.That a criminal should be God's son - who should this believe? Also today for normal (not Christan-bound) people it is not clear why they should need salvation. To have firm faith is a mercy of God, a gift, but there is much evidence that you can lead your life better, also in a morally responsible manner, if you don't believe statements of the bible which produce anxiety or hatred against God's enemies (some psalms have this tendency). Only who believes that after death comes heaven or hell has a problem. If you don't believe this, then you have the chance of a normal death. In Paul's preaching the human death is not the normal biological fate, but the consequence of the sin. This became, still stronger stressed with Augustine, a Chnristian dogma - caused by Adams first sin by sex which depraved the nature of man and made him guilty; see Romans 5,14.
A priest may calm you down: You, as a Christian, are always saved from God's wrath! Not at all. See Matthew 25,31-46; only the elected by God, the chosen few, have a chance, says the Holy Bible. It is reassuring, though, that today you don't be forced to believe that. A Buddhist or a Shintoist, for instance, prefer other religious ideas.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Emotional Psychology
- Happiness