Are All Sexual Sins Really Second Only To Murder?

[Calm]

We consider sex as a kind of sacrament or ritual and that does not mean we are perverts, so why would incorporation of sex into the rituals of other religions render it perverted. And by the way it is frequently part of religious rituals. You said if the marriage practice was accepted by a culture the okay, I then asked if the culture was more like that of fish with one female and many males how would you feel?

If sex is associated with a perversion, it becomes contaminated itself. Sex can be sacred, a sacrament, but I would never describe a rape as such. An assault is a perversion---an intentional desire to harm another; add sex to the act of assault and it ramps the perversion up several levels imo as the assault is not only external on the body, but an invasion of the person's very identity.

As to polyandrous marriages, yes, I believe God consecrates such to the level they are supportive, caring companionships. If God can sanction a man being married to multiple women, I see no reason why he would not do the same for a woman married to multiple men.

I am not sure about those societies that just use one's spouse as a sperm or egg donor more or less and then has no other relationship with them. My memory says there is a society out there where the male sticks around for maybe a year or so, another where they are simply nighttime visitors at the desire of the woman. I think while God may not condemn the individual for living the law they know, I doubt that the blessings associated with supportive, caring long term faithful companionships are accessible to those relationships that are not supportive, caring, faithful and not ongoing or continuous but rather intermittent.

[Darren10]

All wife beating hurts the victim

All muggings hurt the victim

All burglary or robbery hurts the victim

All child abuse hurts the victim

Some sexual acts hurt the victim. But not all.

Healthy, positive, long-term (but unmarried) relationships do not create a victim.

In fact, often, the way we teach sexual sins (as being elevated to murder) causes a victim.

How many wife beatings are there, would you say, compared to children born in a single home? Doesn't the latter violate inherent divine rights that child has? Are not the children of the latter inherently disadvantaged to many of life's blessings as well as to the blessings of the Father?

Muggings? That's bad. What about taking away a child's parent due to infidelity? And returning to my first paragraph, what of depriving a child of one parent in the first place. cohabitation greatly increases the likelihood of couples not remaining together.

Burglary? That's bad too. How many victims of burglary would you say exists compared to one person taking another's virtue out of marriage?

Child abuse is horrible. So is child neglect. (See first two paragraphs). And children raised in a single home are more likely to grow without discipline including remaining chaste. What of the victims from their undisciplined behavior? What of children these boys fathered and chose not to remain with that child as a father should?

All sexual immorality hurt just in different ways than would child abuse (and you did not explicitly include sex abuse which would further my argument), burglary, muggings, etc. I do not recall societies faltering due to high burglaries but they do and our society is most definitely faltering due to sexual immorality.

In fact, often, the way we teach sexual sins (as being elevated to murder) causes a victim.

Oh, no it does not.

[canard78]

How many wife beatings are there, would you say, compared to children born in a single home? Doesn't the latter violate inherent divine rights that child has? Are not the children of the latter inherently disadvantaged to many of life's blessings as well as to the blessings of the Father?

Muggings? That's bad. What about taking away a child's parent due to infidelity? And returning to my first paragraph, what of depriving a child of one parent in the first place. cohabitation greatly increases the likelihood of couples not remaining together.

Burglary? That's bad too. How many victims of burglary would you say exists compared to one person taking another's virtue out of marriage?

Child abuse is horrible. So is child neglect. (See first two paragraphs). And children raised in a single home are more likely to grow without discipline including remaining chaste. What of the victims from their undisciplined behavior? What of children these boys fathered and chose not to remain with that child as a father should?

All sexual immorality hurt just in different ways than would child abuse (and you did not explicitly include sex abuse which would further my argument), burglary, muggings, etc. I do not recall societies faltering due to high burglaries but they do and our society is most definitely faltering due to sexual immorality.

So you believe that a committed couple having a child out wedlock is a greater sin than a man beating his wife or abusing his children?

What if one of them has been sterilised or are infertile? If there is no chance of a child, then is there still an equal sin given there is no chance of a child being born?

Oh, no it does not.

At the risk of sounding like a British pantomime: "oh, yes it does." I have met several.

[Stone holm]

If sex is associated with a perversion, it becomes contaminated itself. Sex can be sacred, a sacrament, but I would never describe a rape as such. An assault is a perversion---an intentional desire to harm another; add sex to the act of assault and it ramps the perversion up several levels imo as the assault is not only external on the body, but an invasion of the person's very identity.

As to polyandrous marriages, yes, I believe God consecrates such to the level they are supportive, caring companionships. If God can sanction a man being married to multiple women, I see no reason why he would not do the same for a woman married to multiple men.

I am not sure about those societies that just use one's spouse as a sperm or egg donor more or less and then has no other relationship with them. My memory says there is a society out there where the male sticks around for maybe a year or so, another where they are simply nighttime visitors at the desire of the woman. I think while God may not condemn the individual for living the law they know, I doubt that the blessings associated with supportive, caring long term faithful companionships are accessible to those relationships that are not supportive, caring, faithful and not ongoing or continuous but rather intermittent.

Not sure where rape came into the discussion, I don't recall saying anything about rape.

[Darren10]

We consider sex as a kind of sacrament or ritual and that does not mean we are perverts, so why would incorporation of sex into the rituals of other religions render it perverted. And by the way it is frequently part of religious rituals. You said if the marriage practice was accepted by a culture the okay, I then asked if the culture was more like that of fish with one female and many males how would you feel?

You can replace "sacra' with "holy" and still retain the very meaning of the word "sacrament". Thus a "holy"ment is the process of making one holy before God. Sex within the bonds of marriage makes one holy. Extramarital sex is a perversion of the holiness of sex and thus leads to condemnation, not sanctification.

[Bikeemikey]

You can replace "sacra' with "holy" and still retain the very meaning of the word "sacrament". Thus a "holy"ment is the process of making one holy before God. Sex within the bonds of marriage makes one holy. Extramarital sex is a perversion of the holiness of sex and thus leads to condemnation, not sanctification.

Married sex makes you holy! (Let me go tell my wife, wait, what if your wearing a condom?)

Presumably a portion of the holiness comes via the fulfillment of our procreative capacity? Not all married sex targets that, some actively attempts to avoid it.

I think your position is lacking meat. Flesh it out a little for us.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[mfbukowski]

I am writing this as much to remind myself to get into this thread as anything, but let me say first that sexual sin is related symbolically to our relationship with Christ himself- and he as the Bridegroom.

Sexual sin is a betrayal of all that God has given us, and intimacy with the Other is a great cosmic principle that we no longer fully appreciate, to our detriment.

Don't have time to get into it unfortunately.

[Bikeemikey]

I am writing this as much to remind myself to get into this thread as anything, but let me say first that sexual sin is related symbolically to our relationship with Christ himself- and he as the Bridegroom.

Sexual sin is a betrayal of all that God has given us, and intimacy with the Other is a great cosmic principle that we no longer fully appreciate, to our detriment.

Don't have time to get into it unfortunately.

Mikal Bhaktin slam!!!

[Bikeemikey]

I'm still trying to find that awesome article I read about a year ago. I think it might have been written by skousen. All about alma 39. The one I was thinking about is not the one that was linked earlier in the thread.

### found it ###

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V32N01_17.pdf

This one is also interesting:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/143-34-43.pdf

Edited July 6, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Darren10]

So you believe that a committed couple having a child out wedlock is a greater sin than a man beating his wife or abusing his children?

I think a committed couple raising children out of wedlock are abusing the children especially in the long run. It is impossible to set an example of exemplary living before God to those children by refusing to marry. If a man beats his wife the wife should shoot him or leave immediately (my wife would do one or the other if I ever beat her and I sure do love that woman). My argument is not to compare the two in the gravity of the sin, which would in any single instance weigh far more on the wife beater, but in comparing the raw numbers of occurrences. I view the world as there being far more out of wedlock children being raised than there are of wife abusers. I also view one as influencing the other. Not marrying the parent of one's child lessens the importance of relationships and thus the children raised in single parent homes will be morel likely not to seek committable relationships. Not seeking commitment in relationships will, in my view, increase the likelihood of abuse, including physical abuse. In the end I think immoral sexual behavior has done and continues to do far more harm on society than men who beat their wives simply because the sexual immorality is far more likely to occur than physical spousal abuse.

What if one of them has been sterilised or are infertile? If there is no chance of a child, then is there still an equal sin given there is no chance of a child being born?

Frankly, the latter question is a stupid question. If by no choice of their own a couple cannot conceive, how in the world would there be a sin? As for sterilization, what was the first commandment God gave to man? That would be to "multiply and replenish the earth". (like your Alma 39 argument, you can say that God did not say 'have children" but like the counter arguments here, including my own, one assumes that's precisely what god meant, just as Alma meant sexual sin in Alma 39). So, choosing sterilization runs counter to God's first commandment, no? Yes, there's consequences to that. Of course having children is a matter between the parents and the Lord. After our fifth child, Mrs. Darren got herself sterilized. She could no longer handle pregnancies on an emotional level. We're OK with that choice and feel clean before God in making that choice. As for those who seek it simply to not have children, I'd say that's risky in terms of keeping God's commandments and it does indeed have an impact on society.

At the risk of sounding like a British pantomime: "oh, yes it does." I have met several.

Are British pantomimes any better than New York mimes? The British do have their own unique sense of humor, that's for sure.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Married sex makes you holy! (Let me go tell my wife, wait, what if your wearing a condom?)

Tell her indeed and condom not withstanding, sex will definitely help keep your marriage together.

Presumably a portion of the holiness comes via the fulfillment of our procreative capacity? Not all married sex targets that, some actively attempts to avoid it.

Absolutely our holiness is connected to our capability to procreate. That's why using our powers of procreation brings us closer to God and misusing it distances us from God (often severely). I think those who choose to avoid it run the risk of distancing themselves from God but I say that generally. I've yet to meet any couple who chose to avoid it and I condemn them for it. in the end it is a personal matter between the couple and God and that's what should be encouraged by word and example.

I think your position is lacking meat. Flesh it out a little for us.

You really want to use the phrase "flesh it out" and the word "meat" when you are discussing sex?

(On a political level, Anthony Weiner jokes are irresistible).

Edited July 6, 2013 by Darren10

[Teancum]

Do you equate virginity as chastity and lack of virginity as lack of chastity?

It depends. A person who has lost their virginity can repent and become chaste. If one believes 2 Corinthians 5:17 they may indeed be a brand new person.

[Bikeemikey]

You really want to use the phrase "flesh it out" and the word "meat" when you are discussing sex?

(On a political level, Anthony Weiner jokes are irresistible).

Busted !! Couldn't resist.

[Darren10]

What if one of them has been sterilised or are infertile? If there is no chance of a child, then is there still an equal sin given there is no chance of a child being born?

I'm sorry, Canard, was the latter sentence based on assuming the said couple chose to become sterilized? If so I apologize for misreading your statement and responding by calling it "stupid" in my #85 post.

[Darren10]

Busted !! Couldn't resist.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Darren10

[Stone holm]

I think a committed couple raising children out of wedlock are abusing the children especially in the long run. It is impossible to set an example of exemplary living before God to those children by refusing to marry. If a man beats his wife the wife should shoot him or leave immediately (my wife would do one or the other if I ever beat her and I sure do love that woman). My argument is not to compare the two in the gravity of the sin, which would in any single instance weigh far more on the wife beater, but in comparing the raw numbers of occurrences. I view the world as there being far more out of wedlock children being raised than there are of wife abusers. I also view one as influencing the other. Not marrying the parent of one's child lessens the importance of relationships and thus the children raised in single parent homes will be morel likely not to seek committable relationships. Not seeking commitment in relationships will, in my view, increase the likelihood of abuse, including physical abuse. In the end I think immoral sexual behavior has done and continues to do far more harm on society than men who beat their wives simply because the sexual immorality is far more likely to occur than physical spousal abuse.

Frankly, the latter question is a stupid question. If by no choice of their own a couple cannot conceive, how in the world would there be a sin? As for sterilization, what was the first commandment God gave to man? That would be to "multiply and replenish the earth". (like your Alma 39 argument, you can say that God did not say 'have children" but like the counter arguments here, including my own, one assumes that's precisely what god meant, just as Alma meant sexual sin in Alma 39). So, choosing sterilization runs counter to God's first commandment, no? Yes, there's consequences to that. Of course having children is a matter between the parents and the Lord. After our fifth child, Mrs. Darren got herself sterilized. She could no longer handle pregnancies on an emotional level. We're OK with that choice and feel clean before God in making that choice. As for those who seek it simply to not have children, I'd say that's risky in terms of keeping God's commandments and it does indeed have an impact on society.

Are British pantomimes any better than New York mimes? The British do have their own unique sense of humor, that's for sure.

No. A couple rearing a child out of wedlock is not child abuse. I know of some who are excellent parents.

[Calm]

Not sure where rape came into the discussion, I don't recall saying anything about rape.

Just using an example where sex is obviously not a sacred/sacramental experience.

[Calm]

I'm sorry, Canard, was the latter sentence based on assuming the said couple chose to become sterilized? If so I apologize for misreading your statement and responding by calling it "stupid" in my #85 post.

I was going to point out a possible misreading as a matter of fact. I think he meant does it lessen the seriousness of sin of extramarital sex for the couple if they cannot conceive, iow end up harming a child through their conduct? Edited July 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Just using an example where sex is obviously not a sacred/sacramental experience.

I don't know of any religious rituals that involved rape, but possibly there were.

[mfbukowski]

Mikal Bhaktin slam!!!

YAY! You got it-- check this out- it's a longy but well worth it.

Hell is Not Others: Relational Notions of Hell from Boehme to Suchocki and Kearney

McLachlan is Mormon. Hell is not others- it is the inability to form relationships with others and becoming turned inward. It is narcissism. By extension one could say that seeking self-gratification from personal relationships while remaining a narcissist is hell on earth. This idea of course has vast implications which we should probably avoid on this thread.

Suffice it to say that narcissism is hell. Let those who hear, hear.

http://www.ctr4process.org/media/

Edited July 6, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

Married sex makes you holy! (Let me go tell my wife, wait, what if your wearing a condom?)

Presumably a portion of the holiness comes via the fulfillment of our procreative capacity? Not all married sex targets that, some actively attempts to avoid it.

I think your position is lacking meat. Flesh it out a little for us.

Takes the hymn more holiness give me to a whole new level.

[Darren10]

No. A couple rearing a child out of wedlock is not child abuse. I know of some who are excellent parents.

I know of some fabulous unwed parents as well. That said, it is still abuse in the sense that the children's parents are hindering their children's progression, especially eternal. They are also, in my view, setting a horrible example for their children's earthly future.

[Darren10]

YAY! You got it-- check this out- it's a longy but well worth it.

McLachlan is Mormon. Hell is not others- it is the inability to form relationships with others and becoming turned inward. It is narcissism. By extension one could say that seeking self-gratification from personal relationships while remaining a narcissist is hell on earth. This idea of course has vast implications which we should probably avoid on this thread.

Suffice it to say that narcissism is hell. Let those who hear, hear.

http://www.ctr4process.org/media/

I agree but I'm not worried. I'm too dang pretty to end up in Hell.

[Darren10]

Takes the hymn more holiness give me to a whole new level.

Ewwwwwwww!!!

[mfbukowski]

I agree but I'm not worried. I'm too dang pretty to end up in Hell.