Deep Sight:

But individuals inherit survival instincts that promote GROUP PERPETUATION. SCIENTIFIC FACT.

So what? Paranoia/fear was a survival instinct that helped us survive. DO u prescribe this to everyone? The most paranoid of our ancestors outlived the others. They hid more, were more stealthy, and avoided the dark like the plague.

Nonsense.

Like I've said  gazillion times before. . . u asserting something doesn't make it so. It just makes u feel "right' when u do it.  

Nature gives instincts as needed. If nature has given an instinct for the purpose of survival of a species, the instinct will NOT dissapear simply because that species has developed technology that takes care or the need.
If dogs develop articifial insemination machines tomorrow, will they cease to go on heat? ? ?

The question here isn't whether or not we have the instinct. It is whether it should be acted on. I didn't say a word about technology. . . . don't know where u are getting that from.

My point was that humanity (population) is not going to lose sleep because some people decided to WAIT till they get married to have intimacy. SO this whole catastrophic specie threatening scenario u are trying to paint is just laughable.  


I get frustrated debating you sometimes because u bring up a lot of stuff that has little to do with what is being debated. Once a weakness is shown in your arguments u start bringing in all sorts of extraneous variables . . . and when those are shown to be irrelevant you just keep shifting goalposts till the end of time.

If intimacy was still all about our species' survival we probably wouldn't need birth control. We do not all need to act out sexual urges to continue to thrive as a specie. Cut the c.rap. U're being dramatic, not rational.

That we have an instinct does not mean we must not override it if we choose to. Our decision making processes are much more complex than "Natural Instinct". We have goals, plans, values, morals, priorities, intellect, culture and other things that affect how we make decisions. . . To narrow it down to instinct or/and nature and beat that into the ground like that is the end all and be all of human behaviur is kinda absurd, IMO.

That we may CHOOSE to abstain is a personal thing.

For those that still believe in God, sexual union between a man and a woman is a gift of God. It only remains a gift if it is used for the purpose for which God bestowed us with this wonderful gift. Sexual union has the purpose of both procreation as well as renewal of the cells of the body or to be more precise the animistic currents that animates the physical body. The sexual energy exchanged during sexual intercourse is only healthy and upbuilding if it emanates from a healthy normal body with a pure soul and if the physical union is a a consumation of harmonious relationship between couples and this harmonious relationship is predicated on spiritual as well as psychic compatibilty. To put it simpler, sexual union that is according to the laws of God occures where there is genuine love beween the couples. Only genuine love attracts the power of God and consecrates such a union. Whether or not such a union is blessed by legal, cultural or religious ceremony is irrelavant and of no consequence spiritually. However, there is nothing wrong  in obeying religious, cultural or civil laws in so far as a clear distinction is made between these ceremonies and the act of marriage itself. The act of marriage is only granted to couples whose souls vibrate in pure love and in harmony. Such couples will recieve a consegration of their marriage as well as the power to go through life together in selfless love for themselves, their neighbours as well as love for God who permitted them the sacred sacrement of marriage. Thus some people who by prevailing religious or civil standards are considered unmarried are indeed married in the eyes of God while some who are considered married according to prevailing religious, cultural or civil norms are not married in the eyes of God. Wherever genuine love is the basis of a relationship, love, peace and harmony are the consequence and no matter the earthly trials, the couples go through life with radiant joy that can be infectious. Thus where there is no love and harmony, then all sexual union are immoral even if the couples were married by the pope. We can not judge by the man of today since present humans have an abnormal, overcultivated sexual instinct. That is not the way it was when God first created humans and permitted them to live on this planet. At that time, men and women had healthy bodies that are permeated by the power of God, keeping the sexual instinct natural and normal. At that time there is no need for forced abstinence or uncontrolled sexual desire. Humans can go several months and even years without the thought of sex or sexual desire. Something has gone tragically wrong with modern humans that a natural instinct has turned into a plague that even the pious fights a loosing battle. An abstinence in which the person continually struggle with the sexual instinct is harmful both to the body as well as the finer material coverings of the soul. Such a person is actually dispating large amount of energy meant to enable him or her to be active and creative ion earth. In addition, such constant struggle with the instinct actully strengthens the instinct. Having dispated this energy, he or she may be left with mood swings, unhappiness, over sensitivity and in some extreme cases even depression. If one recognises that he or she has an abnormal sexual instinct, the solution is not in forceful abstinence but rather in seeking help from God. Then he or she will be taught how to permit the spirit to take back the control of the body so that sexual instinct once again becomes natural and does not torment him or her anymore. In this later case an inward purity wells up within the spirit and then spreads to the body. Such an individual have no sexual desire except when the conditions set by the laws of God for sexual union are fufilled. Best Wishes.

Natural instincts indeed!!!

Who do you people want to use and throw away? Nonsense.

@ mnwankwo. How are u? Hope all is well.

In your post above when u talk about the way things were before, and then go on to describe the sexual appetite of modern man as "overcultivated", is that based on your religious or spiritual beliefs, or on some study or research or something of that sort?

stillwater:

Natural instincts indeed!!!

Who do you people want to use and throw away? Nonsense.

let me cultivate your natural instincts

bawomolo:

let me cultivate your natural instincts

Is that the new pick up line you people want to use to deceive girls?

Quote from M-Nwankwo -

Only genuine love attracts the power of God and consecrates such a union. Whether or not such a union is blessed by legal, cultural or religious ceremony is irrelavant and of no consequence spiritually.

Brilliant!

GBAM! GBAM!! GBAM!!!

Just what i've been trying to communicate!

Wwhat do you make of this one Jesoul?

jagunlabi:

Having seks with the one you love is the physical celebration of that which is both ethereal and sacred, LOVE.So in that sense, the act of seks is also sacred, whether done offcially married with papers or not.To turn this sacred act into a sin is an act of blasphemy.

Brilliant again.

Where is Krayola? Jesoul?

Perhaps if you instinctively reject anything said by Deep Sight maybe Jagunlabi & M_Nwankwo's deeper sights above can get the point across to you.

inasmuch as anyone is still living on this planet earth and has to interact with other human beings, there will always be a social and legal contract involving marriage.

Even gay people are demanding full marriage recognition for their unions, so its rather retroactive to say intimacy alone is the be all and end all of everything.

Whether you jumped over a broom or killed a lion with your bare hands as a brideprice requirement, whatever goes in your community as a legal basis of marriage, is what holds.

A wise person understands that while intimacy may be the reason for a relationship in many cases, people cant stay on the bed 24/7 in glorious ecstacy. At some point, you have to get up and rejoin the rest of the world in order to exist.

Krayola -

Please understand me right: everyone is absolutely free to do as they please with their own sexual lives. I have no problems with freewill in that regard. What i have repeatedly tried to point out to you is that i have a problem with the BASIS of such decisions. If people abstain from s.ex because it is bad for their health, because it is too much exercise, because they don’t have a desirable partner, etc, i am at home with this. But you and i know very well that the reason for abstinence in terms of this thread is ONE REASON AND ONE DETESTABLE REASON ONLY  -

THAT THEIR BORROWED RELIGION CRIMINALIZES PRE MARITAL S.EX.

This i find appalling for the very reason that s.ex is a natural instinct which the processes of the body show clearly was intended by nature to be carried out with reasonable regularity.

Can you imagine a similar natural instinct such as hunger being declared sinful? That is surely an affront to nature and common and obvious reason. I regard s.ex as being just as natural and compelling as eating food. You can thus appreciate the level of bizarreness with which i view the attempts at abstention - especially given the indicated BASIS for such abstention.

Let us look at a natural instinct which i think is most similar to the sexual instinct: one that you can surely have no problems with as an example. The instinct to scratch your skin when it itches. You feel an itch. It pricks you. You reach out to assuage it by scratching your skin.

This is perfectly similar to the sexual instinct. You feel a sexual itch - an urge. You reach out to assuage the itch by consummation, or in the absence of a partner people will even masturbate. Can you imagine how ridiculous it will be if people developed a religion that told them it was wrong to scratch their skin in response to an itch until a certain date in their lives? It is quite simply a religious injunction that is completely at odds with the simple prescriptions of nature!

In the same way you can see that my views are not unfounded. I am at severe pains to imagine why a religion would impose on people the need to resist natural itches such as the clearly beneficial and wholesome sexual urge.

Religion is a terrible thing indeed.

traditional African culture and religion doesnt support premarital intimacy, so I dont see where "borrowed" religion comes in here.

Do you have any comments about the traditional practice of spreading a white bedsheet on the wedding night, which is then inspected carefully and used to judge the bride on the basis of her virginity or lack of it? Isnt that a cultural practice? How many men protested this custom in the past?

and single mothers are still looked down on by most naija males. Any comments on that?

Likewise let a girl mention she had one or more abortions in the past, to her naija partner, and see how fast the guy develops cold.

all these attitudes are a result of religion, you say?

tpia.:

traditional African culture and religion doesnt support premarital intimacy, so I dont see where "borrowed" religion comes in here.

Do you have any comments about the traditional practice of spreading a white bedsheet on the wedding night, which is then inspected carefully and used to judge the bride on the basis of her virginity or lack of it? Isnt that a cultural practice? How many men protested this custom in the past?

and single mothers are still looked down on by most naija males. Any comments on that?

Likewise let a girl mention she had one or more abortions in the past, to her naija partner, and see how fast the guy develops cold.

all these attitudes are a result of religion, you say?

The FACT remains that all those rooting for abstention here are not doing so on the basis of their traditional religion but on the basis of what THEIR BIBLE SAYS.

At all events the point remains the same. Whether from the bible or local tradition, supressing natural sexual urges is UNNATURAL.

^^ in your opinion

@TVO1,
you really took your time to dissect what I said line by line! thank you, you have helped a great deal,
My fiance is born again just as I am and he is spiritually mature and responsible, most of the time that is!,
Thanks again!

Deep Sight:

Please understand me right: everyone is absolutely free to do as they please with their own sexual lives. I have no problems with freewill in that regard. What i have repeatedly tried to point out to you is that i have a problem with the BASIS of such decisions. If people abstain from s.ex because it is bad for their health, because it is too much exercise, because they don’t have a desirable partner, etc, i am at home with this. But you and i know very well that the reason for abstinence in terms of this thread is ONE REASON AND ONE DETESTABLE REASON ONLY  -

YOu have no problem with freewill until people choose to believe something different from you.

Dogma is belief without evidence/reason, abi? You keep insisting that intimacy is a natural instinct that is crucial for our survival as a species. . .  in 1950 there were about 2.5 billion humans on this earth. It took hundreds of thousands of years for us to get 2.5 people on this earth. In the next 50 years we more than doubled our population. ENdorsing mass fuckin.g at this day and age is IMO dogmatic.

The more u make this point about sexual urges being  Natural, the more dogmatic u sound. The fact is that we  "overrode" nature the moment we started to think at the "human" level. We devised UNNATURAL ways to make our lives longer, healthier, more comfortable, etc. 90% (i picked that number out of thin air- -  don't ask for my source  ) of the things you do in your life are not natural. U choose to do these things because of your worldview. There are still ascetic monks in the world u know? Why not join them in the name of being natural?

YOu, IMO, should not isolate humans away from the larger context of their lives to make a point . . . clinging to some natural basis for decision making regardless of how badly it holds up under scrutiny is, IMO, dogmatic.

Deep Sight:

THAT THEIR BORROWED RELIGION CRIMINALIZES PRE MARITAL S.EX.

Last time I checked Abdruschin didn't have tribal marks.

Deep Sight:

This i find appalling for the very reason that s.ex is a natural instinct which the processes of the body show clearly was intended by nature to be carried out with reasonable regularity.

BTW our  ancestors needed to have lots of kids because most pregnancies turned tragic. Infant deaths were rampant and they had to have lots of kids out of which only few would make it to an age where they could also have kids. This is no longer the case, so mass fuc.king isnt a must. your point is not valid in today's context.

Deep Sight:

Can you imagine a similar natural instinct such as hunger being declared sinful? That is surely an affront to nature and common and obvious reason. I regard s.ex as being just as natural and compelling as eating food. You can thus appreciate the level of bizarreness with which i view the attempts at abstention - especially given the indicated BASIS for such abstention.
Let us look at a natural instinct which i think is most similar to the sexual instinct: one that you can surely have no problems with as an example. The instinct to scratch your skin when it itches. You feel an itch. It pricks you. You reach out to assuage it by scratching your skin.

This is perfectly similar to the sexual instinct. You feel a sexual itch - an urge. You reach out to assuage the itch by consummation, or in the absence of a partner people will even self-service. Can you imagine how ridiculous it will be if people developed a religion that told them it was wrong to scratch their skin in response to an itch until a certain date in their lives? It is quite simply a religious injunction that is completely at odds with the simple prescriptions of nature!

In the same way you can see that my views are not unfounded. I am at severe pains to imagine why a religion would impose on people the need to resist natural itches such as the clearly beneficial and wholesome sexual urge.

Religion is a terrible thing indeed.

intimacy isn't deemed sinful. . .premarital intimacy is . .  Hunger isn't deemed sinful, but gluttony is. 

There are non religious reasons for these . . . e.g The need for cooperation in the group. Sharing food was likely better for the survival of the group so gluttony was frowned upon. Paranoia/concerns over fatherhood would likely have made males hostile towards other males and made cooperation difficult. When u are surrounded by wild animals and have to go hunting etc as a group, for the group, certain practices are cultivated to make things work smoothly. So, my dear friend, if you check anthropological sources, u may understand that just like intimacy was essential for our survival at some point in our history, so was abstinence at other points in other contexts. Times change, contexts change, practices change. Drop the dogma. 



I just woke up and kinda rushed thru this. Please bear with me if it doesn't read well. 

Deepsight I am here sweetie lol.

You are of course free as I am to believe as you wish. Christians believe otherwise when it comes to this issue of intimacy (as has already been communicated on this thread), and nothing Deepsight says is going to change that. We have our belief system, and you have yours, and whether or not you deem ours "ridiculous" or "unnatural" is really of little consequence.

I will however ask one thing of you though . . . pleaseeee, I implore you to listen to Krayola 

JESOUL - It is entirely and altogether impossible to listen to Krayola on this one, my dear.

Let's have a look at what he has put on the table -

But first neither he nor your eminent self have cared to address this –

Deep Sight:

Krayola - CRUCIALLY -

And again the whole doctrine presupposes that everybody will get married at some point in their lives.

This is NOT true. Many people wander though life unable to find a befitting partner. What then? Life long celibacy? Surely even you will laugh at such a suggestion, Krayola.

Do not tell me that it is an individual matter only because -

1. The dogma affects many innocent people by causing them to feel a terrible burden of guilt for the simple fact that they are normal human sexual beings

2. In many societies in the past and even conservative islamic societies up till today, people were and have been stoned to death, ostracized, burnt to death, etc for the simple fact that they did what comes naturally to everybody - they had intimacy.

How do these twin facts appear to you? ? ?

It is thus vitally important that civil society guards against such dangerous dogma very actively.

Note particularly the fact that not every person gets married.

Is it YOUR considered Christian view that christians who do not get married should spend the whole of their lives never having s.ex AT ALL?

I am going to presume on your behalf that you are able to see how scandalous and anti-natural such a proposition should be. That a human being born a sexual creature would spend an entire lifetime repressing the sexual instinct.

Now under your dogma, the only way ANY HUMANBEING would be able to avert this terrible fate is to get married. Thus certain people will per force end up marrying partners they care little for. . . just to avoid a lifetime sentence of celibacy. . .how does that sound to you? ? ?

More crucially Krayola has failed to revert to me on these crucial posers –

1. The dogma affects many innocent people by causing them to feel a terrible burden of guilt for the simple fact that they are normal human sexual beings

2. In many societies in the past and even conservative islamic societies up till today, people were and have been stoned to death, ostracized, burnt to death, etc for the simple fact that they did what comes naturally to everybody - they had intimacy.

Tell me why people should suffer a burden of guilt for expressing their sexuality ? ? ?

I will never accept that such makes any sense or is healthy in any terms in a rational society.


The truth is that all these myths and restraints are already on their way out of the human psyche as enlightenment spreads – you will hardly meet many Europeans who have these perceptions and I bet you that in another 100 years you will struggle hard to find such views ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. Wanna bet?

Krayola said –

clinging to some natural basis for decision making regardless of how badly it holds up under scrutiny is, IMO, dogmatic

This is bizarre in the extreme. Especially since he had already defined dogma as belief without evidence or reason. He here insinuates that when I point out the natural world and natural instincts that is dogmatic? Is the natural world not the best “evidence” and “reason” or “basis” we could have for ANY belief? ? ?

What a stunning contradiction! Krayola has bastardized the application of the word “dogmatic” in applying it to a person such as myself who points at nature as a clear basis for his conclusions.

THE TRUTH is that Krayola who rejects the evidence of nature WITHOUT ANY BASIS, is the only one being dogmatic here! ! !

No; I will not listen to him on this!

Now look at this terrible statement from Krayola again -

intimacy isn't deemed sinful. . .premarital intimacy is . . Hunger isn't deemed sinful, but gluttony is.

When he says that Hunger is not sinful, but that gluttony is sinful – he thereby admits that EXCESSES are what should be regarded as sinful.

So why is he shy of applying that very logic to se.x and reach the conclusion that only excess se.x is sinful? ? ? You see, Krayola is not being honest here! ! !

Instead he states that the issue is about abstention from se.x before marriage. To this I respond –

WHAT ABOUT A PERSON WHO NEVER GETS MARRIED? ? ? ?

Answer me on that!

@estrella
my view on this subject might be controversial,but one thing i have discovered with the bible and its interpretation is that it all depends on what we key into.
first of all,the whole act of marriage is and how it should be done is not mentioned in the whole bible,the only place marriage is mentioned was jesus christ and his disciples and mother "attending"one

and also in genesis when isaac had to take a wife,note that the bible said isaac and the servant saw a beautiful girl,they got talking and she apparently agreed right there and then or was favourably disposed to isaac,and the next thing is that they were together.
the point of my preamble is that looking at the biblical instances as a christian,once your family and your boyfriend's family have collectively agreed to your union,then in the eyes of GOD you are as good as married, the church marriage is only a social formality same as all the other sociological rituals which we feel we must do.
therefore once you and your bf have formally introduced both families to each other,then you are as good as married in my own opinion and from men of GOD who i have listened to speak on this contentious issue.

however it must be quickly noted that if the normal fulfillment has not being done and you both have no intention of getting married to each other or both families dont recognise you both as a couple then it is simply fornication,and you should keep a reasonable distance and barrier from each other,
the bible recognises the danger of temptation that why you will find the bible using words like"flee from temptation"not walk away from or resist but "flee from"

Deep Sight:

But first neither he nor your eminent self have cared to address this –

Note particularly the fact that not every person gets married.

Is it YOUR considered Christian view that christians who do not get married should spend the whole of their lives never having s.ex AT ALL?

  There are hundreds and hundreds of different cultures all around the world - and christians in those cultures. In our culture, the practice is to go before a justice of peace or priest, as a public symbol and proclamation of your marriage or union, it is the proper thing to do. In other cultures, they simply hold a feast, or jump over a broom while holding hands or paint their faces and undergo elaborate dance rituals etc.

 No, one does not necessarily have to have the blessing or recognition of the society to be "married" in God's eyes. I have two friends who got married in their living room, with another christian friend as the witness before God.

 However, this is not to be confused for a nanosecond with today's run-of-the-mill two Hot adults who proclaim "love" for a season, shacking up together, testing out their sexual "compatilibity", and then deciding after a few months or in rare cases a year, that this person is not suited for them. And then they move on to the next piece and repeat the cycle again. Revolving doors, they have a knack for not leading anywhere and resulting in an endless cycle of futility.

 As for your other points, I humbly defer to Krayola's ever so deft responses  

intimacy isn't deemed sinful. . .premarital intimacy is . .  Hunger isn't deemed sinful, but gluttony is.

what's your definition of sinful? is living in excess considered a "sin"?
you lost me there

However, this is not to be confused for a nanosecond with today's run-of-the-mill two Hot adults who proclaim "love" for a season, shacking up together, testing out their sexual "compatilibity", and then deciding after a few months or in rare cases a year, that this person is not suited for them. And then they move on to the next piece and repeat the cycle again. Revolving doors, they have a knack for not leading anywhere and resulting in an endless cycle of futility.

revolving door relationships exist in marriage too, its called polygamy where you get tired of one wife and get a new wife .

I do agree the concept of testing sexual compatibility is bullcrap. You don't need the actual act of sex itself to know if you vibe with someone.

bawomolo:

what's your definition of sinful? is living in excess considered a "sin"?
you lost me there

I believe Krayola was simply stating the christian perspective.

revolving door relationships exist in marriage too, its called polygamy where you get tired of one wife and get a new wife .

lol yeah, those are unfortunate too. If God had intended polygamy, he woulda given Adam not just eve but also evelyn, helen, shaniqua and maria. Because of our fallen state and cultures polygamy took off.

I do agree the concept of testing sexual compatibility is bullcrap. You don't need the actual act of intimacy itself to know if you vibe with someone.

Tell that to Deepsight.

Jesoul did you make a mistake?

Have a look at your post - No. 115 on this thread.

You quoted me where i stated that not everyone gets married and thus what should happen to such persons - lifetime celibacy? -

And then you posted a response that had absolutely nothing to do with the issue i raised. It rather seemed your write-up was directed at the post of Godson?

Perhaps you are tired.

I also notice you totally evaded the many many issues and posers i brought up -

Deep Sight:

JESOUL - It is entirely and altogether impossible to listen to Krayola on this one, my dear.

Let's have a look at what he has put on the table -

But first neither he nor your eminent self have cared to address this –

Note particularly the fact that not every person gets married.

Is it YOUR considered Christian view that christians who do not get married should spend the whole of their lives never having s.ex AT ALL?

I am going to presume on your behalf that you are able to see how scandalous and anti-natural such a proposition should be. That a human being born a sexual creature would spend an entire lifetime repressing the sexual instinct.

Now under your dogma, the only way ANY HUMANBEING would be able to avert this terrible fate is to get married. Thus certain people will per force end up marrying partners they care little for. . . just to avoid a lifetime sentence of celibacy. . .how does that sound to you? ? ?

More crucially Krayola has failed to revert to me on these crucial posers –

1. The dogma affects many innocent people by causing them to feel a terrible burden of guilt for the simple fact that they are normal human sexual beings

2. In many societies in the past and even conservative islamic societies up till today, people were and have been stoned to death, ostracized, burnt to death, etc for the simple fact that they did what comes naturally to everybody - they had intimacy.

Tell me why people should suffer a burden of guilt for expressing their sexuality ? ? ?

I will never accept that such makes any sense or is healthy in any terms in a rational society.


The truth is that all these myths and restraints are already on their way out of the human psyche as enlightenment spreads – you will hardly meet many Europeans who have these perceptions and I bet you that in another 100 years you will struggle hard to find such views ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. Wanna bet?

Krayola said –

This is bizarre in the extreme. Especially since he had already defined dogma as belief without evidence or reason. He here insinuates that when I point out the natural world and natural instincts that is dogmatic? Is the natural world not the best “evidence” and “reason” or “basis” we could have for ANY belief? ? ?

What a stunning contradiction! Krayola has bastardized the application of the word “dogmatic” in applying it to a person such as myself who points at nature as a clear basis for his conclusions.

THE TRUTH is that Krayola who rejects the evidence of nature WITHOUT ANY BASIS, is the only one being dogmatic here! ! !

No; I will not listen to him on this!

Now look at this terrible statement from Krayola again -

When he says that Hunger is not sinful, but that gluttony is sinful – he thereby admits that EXCESSES are what should be regarded as sinful.

So why is he shy of applying that very logic to se.x and reach the conclusion that only excess se.x is sinful? ? ? You see, Krayola is not being honest here! ! !

Instead he states that the issue is about abstention from se.x before marriage. To this I respond –

WHAT ABOUT A PERSON WHO NEVER GETS MARRIED? ? ? ?

Answer me on that!

For Emphasis here are the points again -

1. Krayola said - "Hunger isn't deemed sinful, but gluttony is."

When he says that Hunger is not sinful, but that gluttony is sinful – he thereby admits that EXCESSES are what should be regarded as sinful.

So why is he shy of applying that very logic to se.x and reach the conclusion that only excess se.x is sinful? ? ?


2. WHAT ABOUT A PERSON WHO NEVER GETS MARRIED? Does your christianity require such a person to be celibate for life? How natural does that seem to you?

3. Is it not true that the dogma affects many innocent people by causing them to feel a terrible burden of guilt for the simple fact that they are normal human sexual beings?

4. Is it not true that in many societies in the past and even conservative islamic societies up till today, people were and have been stoned to death, ostracized, burnt to death, etc for the simple fact that they did what comes naturally to everybody - they had s.ex? IS IT THEREFORE NOT GLARING THAT SUCH DOGMA THAT PREACHES AGAINST SOMETHING AS NATURAL AND SIMPLE AS SEX SHOULD BE actively discoraged by all men and women of true conscience?

ANSWER ME!

Oh my bad, I was replying you, just quoted the wrong post.

I was responding to #102 and #103 - your query about "papers" and "official marriage" etc . . . clarifies?

Deep Sight:


Brilliant again.

Where is Krayola? Jesoul?

Perhaps if you instinctively reject anything said by Deep Sight maybe Jagunlabi & M_Nwankwo's deeper sights above can get the point across to you.

  And no, I didn't evade anything at all dear, but rather deferred to Krayola's impending response since you've been dueling with him. I have simply told you you believe A, christians believe Z and will live their lives according to Z, and nothing you say is going to change that.

circular arguments lead us no where.

Escapism leads us nowhere.

Esp escapism based on dogma.

Krayola:

@ mnwankwo. How are u? Hope all is well.

In your post above when u talk about the way things were before, and then go on to describe the sexual appetite of modern man as "overcultivated", is that based on your religious or spiritual beliefs, or on some study or research or something of that sort?

Hi Krayola. I am fine my brother. Hope you are fine too. As to your question, I am not aware of any scientific research to compare sexual desires between modern day humans and humans that lived on earth some one to three million years ago. What I state is based on a spiritual recall of how mankind was until sin entered the world and humans disobeyed God. There are a lot of obstacles if one is to investigate scientifically what happened in prehistoric times. But the obstacles are not insurmountable. But even without going into the past, I think that it is possible even today to look at individuals who have mastered the sexual instinct, that is individuals who are biologically normal and yet have absolute control over their sexual instinct, and those who have become a slave to this instinct, that is those it torments leadiing them to continual battle with this instinct. Such reseach will give pointers to what has gone wrong.

As an aside. There is no reason why young people will engage in courtship lasting years. If people are prayerful and spiritually alert, they can pick who is their wife or husband in seconds. One does not need to travel from one end of the world to another in search of a partner that God made for him or her. Just allow your inner being to be open, and you will not be left in any doubt who God made for you. If you chose a husband or wife that God made for you, then the permanence of the marriage is ensured from the very start. The spiritual love  between the couples is like the poles of a magnet, holding the couples tightly together and all earthly trials will strengthen this bond rather than weaken it. But even when their own strength, threatens to fail them, God who joined them together in the sacred act of marriage will reinvigorate them with his power. Joyful and happy married life on earth is not as difficult as many imagine. One of the sure signs of a genuine love for your wife or husband to be is that the sexual instinct is cut to size and strange as it may sound if true love vibrates in intending couples, then sexual intimacy is actually out of the question. IT is also the same genuine love that eliminates infidelity when a man takes a woman as his wife. The pulsating harmony between a man and woman who are joined in marriage according to the laws of God does not permit even a second thought for infidelity, much less a physical act of infidelity.

Any man or woman who genuinely love his intending partner will not molest him or her with unclean thoughts or sexual advances. It is wrong to gain sexual intimacy on the promise that you want to marry. If one find somebody who God made for him or her, then marry instead of promising to marry.

bawomolo:

what's your definition of sinful? is living in excess considered a "sin"?

I mean "sin" as defined by Christianity. I personally don't believe in sin.

More crucially Krayola has failed to revert to me on these crucial posers –

1. The dogma affects many innocent people by causing them to feel a terrible burden of guilt for the simple fact that they are normal human sexual beings

These people choose to believe what they believe in.

Some people feel great insecurity and depression because they are overweight (hunger instinct. wink wink). Should we as a result punish them for choosing to eat certain foods? These people you talk about made a choice.  . . If they feel guilt for it that is their wahala. Some things just simply ain't your business. Deal with it.

deepsight:

2. In many societies in the past and even conservative islamic societies up till today, people were and have been stoned to death, ostracized, burnt to death, etc for the simple fact that they did what comes naturally to everybody - they had intimacy.

The punishment is excessive IMO (even though this thread isn't about Islam or medieval Christianity or whateva). The authority of Society/ state to regulate such is not out of the ordinary tho.  People get stoned to death and burned for a variety of reasons in different societies. That is messed up. Even, IMO, lockin people up in prisons is messed up, but that is a different matter entirely. But I didn't get into a debate about that with you. . . This is just a distraction. Like I said you are good at bringing in things that have little to do with what is being debated. Red herring abi na wetin dem dey call am for ilu oyinbo  if u want to discuss human rights and religion open another thread and I go jam u there with my cutlass, stones, matches, kerosene and noose. 

This is what I'm debating with you. . . please try to stay on topic. thank you.

intimacy IS UNDENIABLY natural.

Thus resisting intimacy is resisting nature.

Thus resisting intimacy is a sin.

I pointed out other natural impulses that society has deemed appropriate to resist, and u started talking sumn about "positive" and "negative", and how intimacy was essential for our continuity as a specie. I showed you that some of these "negative" e.g fear, paranoia that have been "positive" in a different time and context, and that everyone having intimacy is no longer essential for our continuity. Now you are talking human rights. U for go join red cross.

deepsight:

He here insinuates that when I point out the natural world and natural instincts that is dogmatic? Is the natural world not the best “evidence” and “reason” or “basis” we could have for ANY belief? ? ?

What a stunning contradiction! Krayola has bastardized the application of the word “dogmatic” in applying it to a person such as myself who points at nature as a clear basis for his conclusions.

IMO there isn't much, if anything, that is reasonable about your belief that "positive" natural instincts should direct human behavior universally. What is positive depends on context . . . . I think I have shown you that. And if some people have a worldview in which intimacy is seen as a gift from God, I think you should respect that, whether or not you agree with it. Abstinence can be seen as positive in the context of that worldview. It is a choice they have made, and it does not in anyway hinder your ability to chase your dreams. When it does that, feel free to raise hell. I'll bring the kerosene.

deepsight:

When he says that Hunger is not sinful, but that gluttony is sinful – he thereby admits that EXCESSES are what should be regarded as sinful.

So why is he shy of applying that very logic to se.x and reach the conclusion that only excess se.x is sinful? ? ? You see, Krayola is not being honest here! ! !

I don't believe in any of that stuff. That response was in the context of Christianity, the topic of this thread. Not Islam, deism, or whatever u subscribe to, but Christianity.

The point I was trying to make, and it seems that you missed it. . .  maybe I wasn't clear, was in response to this part of the quote from you that I was responding to.

Can you imagine a similar natural instinct such as hunger being declared sinful?

and I responded with this

intimacy isn't deemed sinful. . .premarital intimacy is . .  Hunger isn't deemed sinful, but gluttony is

I was trying to point out that certain practices are adopted or discouraged depending on how "beneficial" they are to a particular society.  e.g. If polygamy helps to keep things stable, it is encouraged, if it doesn't it is discouraged. There is nothing intrinsically bad about polygamy, gluttony, or oversexing . . . But in the context of a social group it may be beneficial to ration food so that more people can survive, or an overweight person may not be able to put in good work when it's hunting season, so gluttony will be discouraged.  The community out of which the Hebrew religion and Christianity came decided (or believed that God had decided) that certain behaviour was better the group. . . Abstinence was one of these. People may choose to practice these religions because they identify with these values, and may want to see a society based on such principles. Societies have always regulated human behavior for the benefit of the larger group.

That is a lot of what culture is all about. Culture, in this context, is unique to humans, and it is partly because of our ability to both think at such a high level, and, as a result of that, control our instincts (in deference to our intellect), that we are not slaves to nature.

IMO reason is as natural for humans as any other impulse. It depends on what one CHOOSES to do with it. But ultimately, it is what shapes our behavior. Not that we do not have instincts, or that they are not "positive", but it is that at the end of the day we can CHOOSE to do what we THINK we should do, and not what instinct "tells" us. In a free society, if someone has thought it out and decided to be a Christian, that is his/her business. If they choose not to have intimacy, that is his/or her business. If we were in a prehistoric social group and that person's decision affected how much food your children would have to eat, your dissent would be both valid, and welcome. But in 2010 someone else's abstinence has absolutely nothing to do with you.

@Mnwankwo. I'm fine, thank you. Thank you for your response.

@ Jesoul. How nah? 

The christian point of view on pre-marital se.x is fundamentally flawed on this one. Psalm 51, david asks for forgiveness for being conceived in a sinful way. That's by the way sha, the rather obtuse paul is actually an apostle who is a classic example of what women right activists dont need in this present day. In one of his emails to s[i]omewhere[/i]tians, he clearly stated that marriage causes men not to serve GOD well enough that blessed is the man who gives his daughter's hand in marriage but more blessed is the one who does not. you wont hear those scriptures during weddings am sure! 
He goes further on his perversive trip by implying / recommending that men should only get married if they cant hold on their sexu.al urge. In other words, women are property(which is not new in the jewish world) and are to be taken to the altar only because of agro .

St. Paul totally lost it there, he should not get a scrap of praise from anyone of the feminine folk who knows what self-worth means. WHAT? Women only as se.x objects? That's a sweet example of condescending. I am however willing to hear some defense for him from Nlanders here(Barrister Deepsight, offering pro-bono services?  ) and some enlightenment of course.

Here is my ask (jesoul, other ladies and everyone here), for those emphasizing on marriage before bang, would you as the lady(even if you were told) go into marriage because your boyfriend is se.x-starved with a piece of laminated paper as evidence of the legitimacy of the union?  yeah, i thought so too. The jews are a set of chauvinists and it only amazes me why we still swallow all they spit hook, line and sinker!


By a show of hands posts, how many(of the proponents) here really adhere to the no-se.x-before-marriage thingy? You're free to lie though. Only asking. 

I tire o, Ilosiwaju - so much bl.oody hypocrisy on this subject. I am sure perhaps only 1% of those screaming abstinence here actually abstain!

And 90% of the 1% are probably abstaining because no show for them anyway.

Let me start off the poll by handing in my own confession: I DO NOT ABSTAIN.

I am not in the business of deluding myself and contradicting nature.