The Bible's original sexual revolution (THE original revolution) [kill em with kindness]

Posts: 20
Joined: 2010-04-29
User is offlineOffline
The Bible's original sexual revolution (THE original revolution) [kill em with kindness] "For Christians, sex is a big thing because it's a big thing to God.Those outside the circle of faith often see followers of Christ as we typically see our parents. They couldn't possibly be sexual, save for the few obligatory engagements needed to bring offspring into the world.But this is a false understanding. Truth be told, parents and Christians have a very vibrant interest in sexuality (except my parents, I'm sure!).And Christians have a higher view of human sexuality than most people. G. K. Chesterton hinted at this in an odd way when he said, "When once you have got hold of a vulgar joke, you may be certain that you have got hold of a subtle and spiritual idea."1And Bruce Marshall is even more startling: "The young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconsciously looking for God."2"    "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." G K Chesterton   "Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.

This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.

It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man's life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society." 

As Martha Nussbaum, professor of philosophy at Brown University, recently wrote, the ancients were no more concerned with people's gender preference than people today are with others' eating preferences:

Ancient categories of sexual experience differed considerably from our own... The central distinction in sexual morality was the distinction between active and passive roles. The gender of the object... is not in itself morally problematic. Boys and women are very often treated interchangeably as objects of [male] desire. What is socially important is to penetrate rather than to be penetrated. Sex is understood fundamentally not as interaction, but as a doing of some thing to someone...

Judaism changed all this. It rendered the "gender of the object" very "morally problematic"; it declared that no one is "interchangeable" sexually. And as a result, it ensured that sex would in fact be "fundamentally interaction" and not simply "a doing of something to someone".

To appreciate the extent of the revolution wrought by Judaism's prohibiting homosexuality and demanding that all sexual interaction be male-female, it is first necessary to appreciate just how universally accepted, valued, and practiced homosexuality has been throughout the world.

The one continuous exception was Jewish civilization --- and a thousand years later, Christian civilization. Other than the Jews, "none of the archaic civilizations prohibited homosexuality per se," Dr. David E. Greenberg notes. It was Judaism alone that about 3,000 years ago declared homosexuality wrong.

And it said so in the most powerful and unambiguous language it could: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination." "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed an abomination." It is Judaism's sexual morality, not homosexuality, that historically has been deviant.


Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
If that's what Dobson

If that's what Dobson believes God's design for sex is, why does he spend so much time making it out to be evil?

Or is there good sex, bad sex, and scary sex for him?

Good sex - Father takes son into shower so the kid can see and understand who has the larger penis (whatever proof Dad chooses to use is Christian?).

Bad sex - heterosexuals enjoying sex without a legal document witnessed by a child molester.

Scary sex - homosexuals having any sex at all.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The "sexual revolution" lies

The "sexual revolution" lies mostly in the OT/Talmud, and even then it's a stretch.

edit; ??? lulz

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I suppose there has


been a lot more talk about sex but it's hardly a revolution. Appearances are deceptive. The entire internet is a means of getting hold of porn. What for? Because all those furious wankers out there are not indulging in orgies.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I trust that you are aware

I trust that you are aware that the bible does not have any general prohibition on lesbianism.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."


Brian37's picture
Posts: 16037
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I know this is blasphemous

I know this is blasphemous for you to hear and sounds harsh. But I am not saying this out of hate. I am merely trying to get you to see the cracks in the logic you use to come to the conclusion that a god did it. Please read the following and keep in mind that this is ONLY addressing your claims and IS NOT a personal attack on you.


There is a very simple evolutionary reason that leads females to conserve their eggs. Sperm outnumbers eggs and women have a limited number in their lives. So the female has evolved to be more picky. Whereas sperm are overwhelming in number by comparison and much more expendable. So the male of our species has less incentive to be as picky as the female.

And on top of that there are, for both male and female, more pragmatic reasons other than myth to abstain from sex. Spread of disease is an incentive not to sleep around. Having a baby you cant afford is a pragmatic reason as well, and no invisible being is needed to come to those practical conclusions.

Evolution throughout most of biological life, has some species favoring monogamy, but even in those species, males typically do not stick to that monogamy because the more sex they have the more potential they have to make offspring.

Sex is not magical, nor is it special. And another harsh reality believers don't want to face is that for every baby born, there are countless more sperm and eggs that do nothing. This is typical for all biological life, not just human life. A tree for example, will produce hundreds, if not thousands of acorns, but only one or two will fertilized and reach maturity.

Most attempts in all of biological life FAIL in all species. If one wants to claim a god existing(by any name) it would be hard to justify an all powerful god or perfect god with a record of creating mostly waste will little production to show as a result.

The universe as well is hostile to biological life, and even if we could find biological life elsewhere it would still be a minority.

If this alleged god had to face Trump in the boardroom and explain the huge input and lousy output, what do you think Trump would say?

This strictly address the concept of a god being the cause of life. I think life is much easier to explain as being a crap shoot.  Our species is not dependent on me living. If I die tomorrow our species will still exist. The only thing that life requires, from the bacteria to, cockroach, to a human, is getting to the point of replication.

So why do I as an atheist want to live? If there is not purpose to life, why is it the atheist has a desire to live?

To use a metaphor Bob Spence(another member here):

You go to a music concert knowing it will end. You go to a sporting event knowing it will end. Does knowing that event will end stop you from going to that event? No. Life is what we make it, here and now and we can still enjoy the ride knowing the ride will end.

Sex is not special, nor is human life. Our species will go extinct in the future and eventually all biological life will die on this planet. Even if we manage to not kill ourselves off. Even if we never get hit again by a meteor(which we will), scientists know that our sun WILL eventually expand and fry our planet.

Sex should only be important in a pragmatic sense, not a utopia wishful thinking sense. If you don't want to get someone pregnant, don't have sex, or wear a condom. The emotion of love feels good, but it is far too often used to sell utopias where pragmatism gets lost.

My wife left me. She divorced me. If I took an absolute approach to our marriage as being "the end all" she could have stayed longer and become more bitter and more resentful because of that utopia most people buy into. But after all the pain, since we had both accepted that a relationship should be entered into freely and also the ability to leave one freely, kept us both civil and I am happy for her in that she is happier now. I have no right to be that selfish because my feelings were hurt. She didn't love me anymore and I could not force her to do so.

Which cannot be said of the god/s of Abraham. The common argument used is that humans have a choice.

But lets look at theses two options.

1. Believe in me and you will live forever.

2. Leave me and I will beat you up forever.


If someone came up to you in real life and put a gun to your head and gave you two choices:

1. Give me your wallet and I won't shoot you.

2. You can keep your wallet and I will shoot you.


What would you think of me if I gave my wife, in real life these choices?

1. Stay with me and I won't kill you.

2. Leave me and I will kill you.


How is this a choice? To me it is nothing more than emotional blackmail and selfish egotism based on power and control, not equality or cooperation. It is nothing more than might makes right. Healthy relationships are not dictated on others. I can leave my job, for example, and not worry about my boss hunting me down and killing me for leaving. I find the concept of a god threatening you with hell immoral. If you love some one you have to have the ability to lose their love and let them go without getting revenge.

I know this post was about how "special" sex is supposed to be, and I expounded onto other topics. The point being that the bible treats all issues, including sex, as something no one has any rights over their own body or self determination.

This type of dictatorial wordage in both the bible and koran giving god sole rights to determine what women do has kept women from voting, having control over their own bodies, and keeps women in burkas.





"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37