Happy Atheist Forum

Christians:  If God is anti-sin, then why did God create humans whose pleasures are almost all sins?

Yes, I understand that many other things are considered sins, including some legitimately harmful things as well as some crazy things people have no control over like being born, but I'm asking why almost all pleasurable activities that are not Jesus-centric are considered sins.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Christians:  If God is anti-sin, then why did God create humans whose pleasures are almost all sins?

He didn't. There are limitations on some activities, outside of which they become sin, but otherwise most pleasures can be enjoyed. Sex, food, drink, sports, games, entertainment are all allowed - what is it that's so pleasurable which Christians can't partake in?

Quote from: "Voter"sex

Ideally, you will only have one, opposite sex, partner for life to have sex with, and you have to wait until marriage to do so. According to the Bible, divorce is a sin. Pornography is a sin. Masturbation is a sin.

Hell, some Christians, like Catholics, regard anything other than procreation as a sin -- even with your spouse! No sodomy for you, sorry.

Quotefood

Don't most Christians regard gluttony as a sin?

Quotedrink

Don't most Christians regard drinking alcohol as a sin?

Quotegames, entertainment

It depends on the Christian, but most don't allow excessive violence, sexual content, profanity, etc. Some don't even allow things like Harry Potter, which is immensely stupid.

Quoteare all allowed - what is it that's so pleasurable which Christians can't partake in?

Mostly sex, I would say.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Ideally, you will only have one, opposite sex, partner for life to have sex with, and you have to wait until marriage to do so.

And those people report high satisfaction with their sex lives.

QuoteDon't most Christians regard gluttony as a sin?

I noted limitations. Eating to the point of gluttony would be one. Most people regard gluttony as a negative.

QuoteDon't most Christians regard drinking alcohol as a sin?

No. Catholics serve it on Sunday morning.

QuoteIt depends on the Christian, but most don't allow excessive violence, sexual content, profanity, etc. Some don't even allow things like Harry Potter, which is immensely stupid.

Yes, it's up to the individual. My wife and oldest child go to the midnight showings of each new Harry Potter.

QuoteMostly sex, I would say.

Says the guy who's spanking it to porn.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Ideally, you will only have one, opposite sex, partner for life to have sex with, and you have to wait until marriage to do so.

And those people report high satisfaction with their sex lives.

I wonder why.  

QuoteDon't most Christians regard gluttony as a sin?

I noted limitations. Eating to the point of gluttony would be one. Most people regard gluttony as a negative.

QuoteSays the guy who's wanking it to porn.

Fixed it for you.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Ideally, you will only have one, opposite sex, partner for life to have sex with, and you have to wait until marriage to do so.

And those people report high satisfaction with their sex lives.

Care to back this statement up with some data?

http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-socio.html (http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-socio.html)
Scroll about 3/4 of the way down.
The best sex is found in the marriage relationship. It is reported that if a couple abstains from sex before marriage, they are 29 to 47 percent more likely to enjoy sex afterward. In a study by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis, evidence was found that premarital sex was not as satisfying.

A study by Linda Waite, Ph.D., a sociologist at the University of Chicago and reported in "Psychology Today," found the frequency of satisfaction rose considerably after couples adapted during marriage. Married people lead more active sex lives. While cohabiting couples have similarly high levels of sex, married men and women have more satisfaction in the bedroom. That's because married people know the tastes of their partner better and can safely cater to them, while the emotional investment in the relationship boosts the thrill.

A recent Michigan study, found that individuals who have never cohabited outside of marriage were more likely to rate their relationships stronger than those who have cohabited (49% of non-cohabitors rated their relationship a "10," compared to 36% of those who have cohabited) (Michigan Family Forum 1998).

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Christians:  If God is anti-sin, then why did God create humans whose pleasures are almost all sins?

Before commenting, I think I'd rather ask for a list, not necessarily complete because that might not be possible, but a list to begin with.  I see sex is already on the list, but define that which you want to do that is sin or you think is sin.  Sex is not a sin as by the Christian reckoning, God created man and woman and sex as a means for both pleasure and procreation.

I suppose on that line, what specifically are the sins within sex (as one on the list) that are being missed out on if we abstain from the sinful parts of sex?

That would help me.

The cynic in me says its because the religious institutions want your money (and your mind) focused on the religious institutions, not your own pleasure.

Quote from: "Voter"http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-socio.html
Scroll about 3/4 of the way down.
The best sex is found in the marriage relationship. It is reported that if a couple abstains from sex before marriage, they are 29 to 47 percent more likely to enjoy sex afterward. In a study by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis, evidence was found that premarital sex was not as satisfying.

A study by Linda Waite, Ph.D., a sociologist at the University of Chicago and reported in "Psychology Today," found the frequency of satisfaction rose considerably after couples adapted during marriage. Married people lead more active sex lives. While cohabiting couples have similarly high levels of sex, married men and women have more satisfaction in the bedroom. That's because married people know the tastes of their partner better and can safely cater to them, while the emotional investment in the relationship boosts the thrill.

A recent Michigan study, found that individuals who have never cohabited outside of marriage were more likely to rate their relationships stronger than those who have cohabited (49% of non-cohabitors rated their relationship a "10," compared to 36% of those who have cohabited) (Michigan Family Forum 1998).

The Young Turks did a video on, if not that study, one similar, where they basically debunked it from my perspective. I can't remember all their points, but the major one that I can remember is that people who wait until marriage to have sex don't have any benchmark or standard to go by -- besides their spouse, of course. Obviously they're going to think it's great, because it's sex...duh.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The Young Turks did a video on, if not that study, one similar, where they basically debunked it from my perspective. I can't remember all their points, but the major one that I can remember is that people who wait until marriage to have sex don't have any benchmark or standard to go by -- besides their spouse, of course. Obviously they're going to think it's great, because it's sex...duh.

Are you purposely lobbing me a softball?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The Young Turks did a video on, if not that study, one similar, where they basically debunked it from my perspective. I can't remember all their points, but the major one that I can remember is that people who wait until marriage to have sex don't have any benchmark or standard to go by -- besides their spouse, of course. Obviously they're going to think it's great, because it's sex...duh.

Are you purposely lobbing me a softball?

...What?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Christians:  If God is anti-sin, then why did God create humans whose pleasures are almost all sins?

Before commenting, I think I'd rather ask for a list, not necessarily complete because that might not be possible, but a list to begin with.  I see sex is already on the list, but define that which you want to do that is sin or you think is sin.  Sex is not a sin as by the Christian reckoning, God created man and woman and sex as a means for both pleasure and procreation.

I suppose on that line, what specifically are the sins within sex (as one on the list) that are being missed out on if we abstain from the sinful parts of sex?

That would help me.

• Masturbation and pornography are sins
• Homosexuality and other nontraditional sexualities are sins
• Any sex other than that in a marriage is a sin
• Polygamy and other nontraditional marriages are sins
• ...and basically any and all other restrictions on consenting sex, love, and marriage.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Christians:  If God is anti-sin, then why did God create humans whose pleasures are almost all sins?

Before commenting, I think I'd rather ask for a list, not necessarily complete because that might not be possible, but a list to begin with.  I see sex is already on the list, but define that which you want to do that is sin or you think is sin.  Sex is not a sin as by the Christian reckoning, God created man and woman and sex as a means for both pleasure and procreation.

I suppose on that line, what specifically are the sins within sex (as one on the list) that are being missed out on if we abstain from the sinful parts of sex?

That would help me.

• Masturbation and pornography are sins
• Homosexuality and other nontraditional sexualities are sins
• Any sex other than that in a marriage is a sin
• Polygamy and other nontraditional marriages are sins
• ...and basically any and all other restrictions on consenting sex, love, and marriage.

With regard to masturbation, I lean towards this idea.  Is Masturbation Wrong? - Matt Slick (http://carm.org/masturbation) but there may be more to it than JUST this.

On pornography...define what you count as "sinless" pornography.  There are many articles on pornography and its effect on society, women, men and children.  A quick g00gle check brings up many studies, cases, and heart-wrenching accounts.

There's no (more) sin in BEING homosexual (vs heterosexual) or gay (considering the newest thread suggesting the word homosexual is now not PC) the sin is the act of sex between two same gender individuals.  The mere fact that you cite this as "nontraditional" says something.

Monogamous sex is good.  Would you want your GF/BF/spouse/daughter/son/granddaughter/grandson out and about engaging in sex at their whim?

Your list is a list of ONE...sex as sin.  Are there no more (important enough) pleasurable "sins"?

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Christians:  If God is anti-sin, then why did God create humans whose pleasures are almost all sins?

Yes, I understand that many other things are considered sins, including some legitimately harmful things as well as some crazy things people have no control over like being born, but I'm asking why almost all pleasurable activities that are not Jesus-centric are considered sins.

Because guilt is religion's lever of control.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Because guilt is religion's lever of control.

Are you claiming, Thumpalupacus, that guilt is bad?  It is actually good.  It keeps us from doing things we shouldn't, morally and civily. (sp?)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Because guilt is religion's lever of control.

Are you claiming, Thumpalupacus, that guilt is bad?  It is actually good.  It keeps us from doing things we shouldn't, morally and civily. (sp?)

Why does psychology, then, seek to overcome guilt? Guilt and remorse is stupid and pointless.

Quote1. luxuria (extravagance)
   2. gula (gluttony)
   3. avaritia (avarice/greed)
   4. acedia (acedia/discouragement)
   5. ira (wrath)
   6. invidia (envy)
   7. superbia (pride)

 * Lust was substituted for luxuria in all but name

I'd say it is common sense that an excess of any of these things would be a bad thing, no divine revelation required.

The best things in life are illegal

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Christians:  If God is anti-sin, then why did God create humans whose pleasures are almost all sins?

Before commenting, I think I'd rather ask for a list, not necessarily complete because that might not be possible, but a list to begin with.  I see sex is already on the list, but define that which you want to do that is sin or you think is sin.  Sex is not a sin as by the Christian reckoning, God created man and woman and sex as a means for both pleasure and procreation.

I suppose on that line, what specifically are the sins within sex (as one on the list) that are being missed out on if we abstain from the sinful parts of sex?

That would help me.

Where did I write sex?

I was thinking more of taking credit for the things one accomplishes when I wrote the post.  For example: if you do something good, all credit goes to God and if you do something bad all credit goes to you.  To credit yourself is committing the sin of pride, isn't it?  If you take pleasure in doing good or even believe you are doing good on your own it's a sin, right?  So, no matter how hard you work, you are only allowed to get credit for evil and never for good.  How can you take pleasure in life if you can never feel a sense of accomplishment without sinning?  You miss out on feeling good about yourself or anything you do.  If you take pride in your work, you are sinning.

What about loving your family more than you love God - another sin, right?  Isn't loving anything more than God a sin?  So you've got to curb your love of your family.  

Since you must love God more than you love yourself as well, you must believe you are a piece of crap because the Bible says you are.  How can you enjoy anything if you believe you are a worthless piece of crap?  Where is the pleasure in that?

Since most Christians go straight to sex when it comes to discussions of sin, then I'll go there.  Masturbation is considered a sin yet the majority of women require stimulation of the clitoris to orgasm.  The most effective way for that to happen is for the woman to stimulate her clitoris during intercourse.  So, in order to experience orgasm many women must either masturbate or have their spouses do it for them.  Why not put the clitoris closer to the vaginal opening rather than creating a frustrating anatomical difficulty which requires a sin for the sex act to be enjoyable?  Other effective methods of stimulating the clitoris during sex require the woman to be on top.  Such positions are not allowed in multiple Christian sects.

Some sects of Christianity don't even give married, heterosexual couples the freedom to have sex with each other in any way they want.  They may not have oral sex, anal sex, or masturbate.  They may not have sex in any position but facing each other with the man on top.  (I guess paraplegic men are just shit out of luck, eh?  Don't want to go to Hell for "mouthing" your wife, now do you?)

Then there is the sin of lust.  If a man looks at a beautiful woman who isn't his wife and feels a tingle in his genitals he is sinning even he doesn't want to feel any tingles.  It's a sin to look at a person and take pleasure in their sexiness even if you would never approach them because the thought is exactly equal to acting inappropriately.  So, before you marry your wife-to-be you are sinning if you have sexual thoughts about her.  

And then we have the problem of homosexuality.  Yeah, great, it's not a sin to have sex with a person of the opposite sex to whom you are married as long as you were married in a Christian church.  What pleasure does that give a homosexual person?  Everything they desire sexually is a sin in Christian eyes.  They can't even masturbate to curb their desire for the sex Christians consider sinful.  I was married to a gay man who was following those assertions that he's a useless, deviant piece of shit if he has any sexual feelings for anyone he isn't married to.  He's not.  He's a loving, beautiful man who made both our lives miserable by trying to be a good Christian.  And no, he didn't choose homosexuality, he fought it tooth and nail and hates himself with as great a depth as any good Christian homosexual is supposed to.  Why make a person who can't get pleasure from sex with women and then tell him he can have all the sex he wants so long as it's with someone he doesn't have any desire for?  

It seems to me that to be a good Christian you have to hate yourself and fight every natural urge and desire you have, many of which you have no conscious control over.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Because guilt is religion's lever of control.

Are you claiming, Thumpalupacus, that guilt is bad?  It is actually good.  It keeps us from doing things we shouldn't, morally and civily. (sp?)

Why don't you re-read my post, Dirt, to see what I am claiming, and don't stuff words into my posts that aren't actually there, okay?

As far as your claim that guilt is good, I'd disagree; it's not intrinsically good or bad.  It merely is.  I know of many instances where guilt has been a deeply negative factor in a person's life, but at this point we're derailing from the OP.  If you're that riled up about it, start another thread.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Because guilt is religion's lever of control.

Are you claiming, Thumpalupacus, that guilt is bad?  It is actually good.  It keeps us from doing things we shouldn't, morally and civily. (sp?)

What about people driven to commit suicide or other self-harm due to guilt?  For instance: Christianity teaches homosexual people to hate themselves deeply because every sexual desire they have, whether they act on it or not, is considered a sin.  The homosexual person then hates themselves as deeply as Christianity teaches them to.  When they find they can't stop having sexual urges or desires they may resort to harming themselves to make the urges and desires stop.  What's good about that?

And, do you think it's better for a gay person to live his life in quiet self-hatred than it is for him to look for love and pleasure as other human beings are allowed to?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The Young Turks did a video on, if not that study, one similar, where they basically debunked it from my perspective. I can't remember all their points, but the major one that I can remember is that people who wait until marriage to have sex don't have any benchmark or standard to go by -- besides their spouse, of course. Obviously they're going to think it's great, because it's sex...duh.

Are you purposely lobbing me a softball?

...What?

I think he was trying to say your response sucked...a lobbed softball falls slowly and is easy to catch (an easy out).

I think that both sides being not only being somewhat close to the same percentage but also both under 50% indicates that there is something wrong with how society prepares people for marriage...since western society still shuns sex education I think I'll assume that's what is wrong

I could go find that study that showed atheists are less likely to divorce and use it to prove waiting till marriage is a horrible idea.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"With regard to masturbation, I lean towards this idea.  Is Masturbation Wrong? - Matt Slick (http://carm.org/masturbation) but there may be more to it than JUST this.

Quote from: "Linked Website"We can say this for sure.  If masturbation involves sexual fantasies and/or pornography, then it is certainly not pure and is very sinful.

I stopped reading after I saw this.

EDIT: But yeah, the article you linked just looks like one giant facepalm to me. "Yeah, masturbation may be okay if you have a wife and she's in the hospitable and you're thinking about her the entire time you're doing the act. Maybe."

QuoteOn pornography...define what you count as "sinless" pornography.  There are many articles on pornography and its effect on society, women, men and children.  A quick g00gle check brings up many studies, cases, and heart-wrenching accounts.

Yeah yeah yeah, "the pornography industry hurts women and society and blah blah blah". As far as my understanding goes, most people in the pornography industry choose to be there and are perfectly happy with their job. Of course you can always find stories where somebody was forced into the industry and such, but you can find incidences like that with a lot of other things.

And what about things like hentai, where it's not real people but drawings/animations?

QuoteThere's no (more) sin in BEING homosexual (vs heterosexual) or gay (considering the newest thread suggesting the word homosexual is now not PC) the sin is the act of sex between two same gender individuals.  The mere fact that you cite this as "nontraditional" says something.

"Yeah, you can be gay, you just can't have gay sex."

I said it was "nontraditional" because I didn't know of a better word to use, and most Christians say they want "traditional" marriage, so I'm using their terms.

QuoteMonogamous sex is good.  Would you want your GF/BF/spouse/daughter/son/granddaughter/grandson out and about engaging in sex at their whim?

...Seriously? This is your counter-argument against polygamy?

 

QuoteYour list is a list of ONE...sex as sin.  Are there no more (important enough) pleasurable "sins"?

Well, Christians can have very different views. Something that one Christian says is a sin, another might say is perfectly fine. Tell me what you regard as sin and I'll show you where I disagree.

EDIT again: Another problem I have with the morality of sex according to Christians is that their view of nudity.

Heheh, LegendarySandwich covered most of what I was intending to write about that gasbag Slick and his opinions on masturbation.  Ah well, forging ahead...

Quote from: "Matt Slick"We can say this for sure.  If masturbation involves sexual fantasies and/or pornography, then it is certainly not pure and is very sinful.  The Bible clearly teaches that our minds are as important to God as our bodies are and that we are to remain pure in both.

This is simply laughable.  I don't think I've ever in my life masturbated without some kind of mental imagery of a sexual nature.  I'm not saying that it's impossible, but I doubt that it's normal for a human being to get themselves off without some form of sexual fantasy playing out in their head.  Even if they could, why would they do such a thing?  Sexuality is at least as much about what's going on in a person's head as it is about what's happening physically.  This little gem from Slick is typical of his weaseling style: "Yeah you can rub one out, BUT KEEP YOUR MIND A BLANK OR IT'S A SIN!"  lol

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Because guilt is religion's lever of control.

Are you claiming, Thumpalupacus, that guilt is bad?  It is actually good.  It keeps us from doing things we shouldn't, morally and civily. (sp?)

No, that's your conscious, and common sense/rational thinking/reasoning/yeah. Guilt is feeling bad about prior events, and a lot of the time it's completely unnecessary. In fact, I would say that it's always unnecessary. The past is gone. Feeling bad about it isn't going to help, it's just going to make things worse.

Thanks for elaborating, Recusant.

Saying that something might be acceptable only under very specific and unlikely circumstances is, for all practical purposes, saying that it's not acceptable. I don't know why he wouldn't just come out and say "masturbation is wrong".

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And what about things like hentai, where it's not real people but drawings/animations?

Does that stuff really work?
I still maintain my fondness for tomb raiding was based on the cool temples, mostly.

Maybe the condemnation of anal sex made more sense before the invention of modern lubricants.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And what about things like hentai, where it's not real people but drawings/animations?

Does that stuff really work?

Yep.

QuoteI still maintain my fondness for tomb raiding was based on the cool temples, mostly.

Surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Wow, that would sound really annoying in real life.

QuoteMaybe the condemnation of anal sex made more sense before the invention of modern lubricants.

"Hey, maybe this thing isn't so good for people. So we shall declare it evil!"

QuoteThere's no (more) sin in BEING homosexual (vs heterosexual) or gay (considering the newest thread suggesting the word homosexual is now not PC) the sin is the act of sex between two same gender individuals. The mere fact that you cite this as "nontraditional" says something.

Not according to Matthew's quoting of Jesus:

QuoteBut I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

According to this passage, the sin is in the heart, not the genitalia.  You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

Also, the only reason it is "nontraditional" is because theists of all stripes have bitterly, and often brutally, repressed alternative sexualities such as homosexuality or polyamory.

The first two facts which a healthy boy or girl feels about sex are these: first that it is beautiful and then that it is dangerous.

Suppose a man experiences a really splendid moment of pleasure. I do not mean something connected with a bit of enamel, I mean something with a violent happiness in it--an almost painful happiness. A man may have, for instance, a moment of ecstasy in first love, or a moment of victory in battle. The lover enjoys the moment, but precisely not for the moment's sake. He enjoys it for the woman's sake, or his own sake. The warrior enjoys the moment, but not for the sake of the moment; he enjoys it for the sake of the flag. The cause which the flag stands for may be foolish and fleeting; the love may be calf-love, and last a week. But the patriot thinks of the flag as eternal; the lover thinks of his love as something that cannot end. These moments are filled with eternity; these moments are joyful because they do not seem momentary. Man cannot love mortal things. He can only love immortal things for an instant.

But more to the point, what exactly would qualify a sin as pleasurable?

http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/heret12.txt (http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/heret12.txt)

Quote from: "Voter"http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-socio.html
Scroll about 3/4 of the way down.
The best sex is found in the marriage relationship. It is reported that if a couple abstains from sex before marriage, they are 29 to 47 percent more likely to enjoy sex afterward. In a study by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis, evidence was found that premarital sex was not as satisfying.

A study by Linda Waite, Ph.D., a sociologist at the University of Chicago and reported in "Psychology Today," found the frequency of satisfaction rose considerably after couples adapted during marriage. Married people lead more active sex lives. While cohabiting couples have similarly high levels of sex, married men and women have more satisfaction in the bedroom. That's because married people know the tastes of their partner better and can safely cater to them, while the emotional investment in the relationship boosts the thrill.

A recent Michigan study, found that individuals who have never cohabited outside of marriage were more likely to rate their relationships stronger than those who have cohabited (49% of non-cohabitors rated their relationship a "10," compared to 36% of those who have cohabited) (Michigan Family Forum 1998).

A quick search brings up this sentence a few times "In a study by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis", however never a citing of the actual study. After quite a bit of searching, I've found these articles: Evelyn M. Duvall, Family Development, New York: Lippincott, 1957, p. 355; Evelyn M. Duvall and Reuben Hill, When You Marry, New York: D.C. Heath, 1953, pp. 22-23; Judson T. Landis and Mary G. Landis, Building a Successful Marriage, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1958 p. 166-169; Judson T. Landis and Mary G. Landis, eds. Readings In Marriage and Family Relations, Harrisburg: Stackpole, 1953; Still no studies.

After some more searching I've found this book: Evelyn M. Duvall Why Wait Till Marriage? (New York: Association Press, 1965). After hours of searching, I've yet to find anything that Evelyn Duvall and Judson Landis have worked on together, let alone anything done after the 60's except the 2nd Edition of this book printed in 1970.

You've just wasted hours of my time on something that you could have easily provided a source for. For civility, when someone asks you for some data, provide the actual data. If someone is willing to provide actual data that shows any conception I may have had to be in error, I will honestly check it out to make sure I have as accurate a depiction of reality as I can, however when someone wastes my time, I consider that to be one of the most rude, dishonest and contemptible things a person can do. So do you have this data or not?

Quote from: "Achronos"Suppose a man experiences a really splendid moment of pleasure. I do not mean something connected with a bit of enamel, I mean something with a violent happiness in it--an almost painful happiness. A man may have, for instance, a moment of ecstasy in first love, or a moment of victory in battle. The lover enjoys the moment, but precisely not for the moment's sake. He enjoys it for the woman's sake, or his own sake. The warrior enjoys the moment, but not for the sake of the moment; he enjoys it for the sake of the flag. The cause which the flag stands for may be foolish and fleeting; the love may be calf-love, and last a week. But the patriot thinks of the flag as eternal; the lover thinks of his love as something that cannot end. These moments are filled with eternity; these moments are joyful because they do not seem momentary. Man cannot love mortal things. He can only love immortal things for an instant.

From a book called Heretics by Gilbert K. Chesterton. And you accused my quoting of Hitler attributed to Hitler of being plagiarism?

Quote from: "Sophus"From a book called Heretics by Gilbert K. Chesterton. And you accused my quoting of Hitler attributed to Hitler of being plagiarism?

This is very bad, at least you made sure that people knew where the source came from, this has no indication that Achronos is not the original author.

As far as sex goes there are perfectly reasonable explanations for our apprehension and caution toward it. For males if you were to try and mate with a female that's spoken for by the tribal leader him or one of his friends would likely bash your head in with a rock, this shows itself to be hardwired in our brains and manifests itself in a sense of anxiety when approaching an attractive woman. For females it's much different, sex was dangerous in that if you mated with someone it could result in pregnancy and if that male didn't stick around you and the child could die of starvation. This manifests itself in modern women as well, when you come to the realization that sex is imminent (with a new person) you get a similar feeling that you'd get when you've got $5,000 on black and the wheel is spinning.

The whole time those things are going on our brains are also rewarding us for trying to procreate by giving us all kinds of chemicals that make us happy so it's easy to see why sex can be so confusing. The body is telling you to do it at the same time it's warning you of danger.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Achronos"Suppose a man experiences a really splendid moment of pleasure. I do not mean something connected with a bit of enamel, I mean something with a violent happiness in it--an almost painful happiness. A man may have, for instance, a moment of ecstasy in first love, or a moment of victory in battle. The lover enjoys the moment, but precisely not for the moment's sake. He enjoys it for the woman's sake, or his own sake. The warrior enjoys the moment, but not for the sake of the moment; he enjoys it for the sake of the flag. The cause which the flag stands for may be foolish and fleeting; the love may be calf-love, and last a week. But the patriot thinks of the flag as eternal; the lover thinks of his love as something that cannot end. These moments are filled with eternity; these moments are joyful because they do not seem momentary. Man cannot love mortal things. He can only love immortal things for an instant.

From a book called Heretics by Gilbert K. Chesterton. And you accused my quoting of Hitler attributed to Hitler of being plagiarism?

I thought I added the source to my post, ah thanks for the correction.

Quote from: "Achronos"But more to the point, what exactly would qualify a sin as pleasurable?

...It being pleasurable? What more do you need?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"But more to the point, what exactly would qualify a sin as pleasurable?

...It being pleasurable? What more do you need?

I guess what I am trying to get out of the author of this thread is what exactly is a pleasure, because if almost all pleasures are sins...well I sin on a constant basis.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"But more to the point, what exactly would qualify a sin as pleasurable?

...It being pleasurable? What more do you need?

I guess what I am trying to get out of the author of this thread is what exactly is a pleasure, because if almost all pleasures are sins...well I sin on a constant basis.

I don't quite get what Klyssa meant in her first post, either. I mean, the only pleasure that Christians almost universally regard as a sin that I can think of is sex (unless under the right circumstances).

Quote from: "Achronos"I thought I added the source to my post, ah thanks for the correction.

Then I retract my statement.

Quote from: "Davin"A quick search brings up this sentence a few times "In a study by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis", however never a citing of the actual study...

After some more searching I've found this book: Evelyn M. Duvall Why Wait Till Marriage? (New York: Association Press, 1965). After hours of searching, I've yet to find anything that Evelyn Duvall and Judson Landis have worked on together, let alone anything done after the 60's except the 2nd Edition of this book printed in 1970...

So do you have this data or not?

You know, Davin, I don't think that a single study by these two working together actually exists.  I think that this "citation" has made the rounds of Christian propagandists, and I think that it probably originated with something like this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=j8x7glNGjQIC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=Evelyn+Duvall+and++Judson+Landis&source=bl&ots=mlkTuLVdzE&sig=3XAFai7Pa7gf5g-KXSORhX4yAKg&hl=en&ei=GPMrTZzlOYm6sQOFjoyHBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Evelyn%20Duvall%20and%20%20Judson%20Landis&f=false), Before You Live Together by David R. Gudgel, which on page 45 mentions:

Quote"Studies by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis resulted in the same conclusion: Premarital sex is not as satisfying as marital sex."
(Emphasis added)

Some busy Christian screed writer working late into the night putting together their latest masterwork misread this or a similar sentence, and the spurious "Duvall and Landis study" was born.  It was picked up and parroted through the mutually reinforcing network of Christian soul saving literature, which is the only place you'll find references to it.  I will be very surprised if Voter or anyone else can find the original "Duvall and Landis study," because as I said, I don't think it exists.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Davin"A quick search brings up this sentence a few times "In a study by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis", however never a citing of the actual study...

After some more searching I've found this book: Evelyn M. Duvall Why Wait Till Marriage? (New York: Association Press, 1965). After hours of searching, I've yet to find anything that Evelyn Duvall and Judson Landis have worked on together, let alone anything done after the 60's except the 2nd Edition of this book printed in 1970...

So do you have this data or not?

You know, Davin, I don't think that a single study by these two working together actually exists.  I think that this "citation" has made the rounds of Christian propagandists, and I think that it probably originated with something like this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=j8x7glNGjQIC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=Evelyn+Duvall+and++Judson+Landis&source=bl&ots=mlkTuLVdzE&sig=3XAFai7Pa7gf5g-KXSORhX4yAKg&hl=en&ei=GPMrTZzlOYm6sQOFjoyHBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Evelyn%20Duvall%20and%20%20Judson%20Landis&f=false), Before You Live Together by David R. Gudgel, which on page 45 mentions, "Studies by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis resulted in the same conclusion: Premarital sex is not as satisfying as marital sex." (Emphasis added)  Some busy Christian screed writer working late into the night putting together their latest masterwork misread this or a similar sentence, and the spurious "Duvall and Landis study" was born.  It was picked up and parroted through the mutually reinforcing network of Christian soul saving literature, which is the only place you'll find references to it.  I will be very surprised if Voter or anyone else can find the original "Duvall and Landis study," because as I said, I don't think it exists.

I knew there was a reason I asked for the actual study.

QuoteStudies by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis resulted in the same conclusion: Premarital sex is not as satisfying as marital sex."

I think anyone who's had a threesome with a pair of 19 year old strippers after being married for a few years would disagree. I'm not so sure marriage is really to blame though, in my own tests the quality and frequency of sex dropped significantly upon simply presenting jewelry associated with entering a contract to enter a state of matrimony.

I would agree that marital sex can be equally satisfying as premarital sex, it depends on if you're having sex with the person you're married to or not.

So how would you all view premarital sex versus martial sex? (I'm curious on the opinion from a married person)

Quote from: "Achronos"So how would you all view premarital sex versus martial sex? (I'm curious on the opinion from a married person)

In my personal unfounded opinion based off of personal experience: there is something to be said for the excitement and exploring the unknown with a willing partner. So the first few times with a new person may not be as sexually satisfying, however they are highly enjoyable. As time goes on with a partner, I think it's important that both wish to please and explore desires and when done the enjoyment and satisfaction can escalate very much. However when the one of those begins to go too long without caring to seek out the enjoyment of their partner then it becomes very drab, and when contrasted to how awesome it was when both people were seeking to please their partner, the disappointment can crush a relationship.

The important factors to great sex (for me) are that both of us (I'm a monogamist) are actively seeking to pleasure the other, learning what each other likes and a little more than just physical attraction. Whether I'm married or not plays no factor as it's unimportant, just that a sex partner is willing to learn and desires to please as well as allowing me to please.

I've had a relationship where the woman I was dating was very eager to please, but hardly gave me a chance for me to please her. To me that made the sexual relationship very boring. I find myself very fortunate that I found that out without having signed a legal contract.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The Young Turks did a video on, if not that study, one similar, where they basically debunked it from my perspective. I can't remember all their points, but the major one that I can remember is that people who wait until marriage to have sex don't have any benchmark or standard to go by -- besides their spouse, of course. Obviously they're going to think it's great, because it's sex...duh.

Are you purposely lobbing me a softball?

...What?

You dismissed an actual study in another thread because I only had access to the abstract. Now you offer this. Amusing.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I was thinking more of taking credit for the things one accomplishes when I wrote the post.  For example: if you do something good, all credit goes to God and if you do something bad all credit goes to you.  To credit yourself is committing the sin of pride, isn't it?  If you take pleasure in doing good or even believe you are doing good on your own it's a sin, right?  So, no matter how hard you work, you are only allowed to get credit for evil and never for good.  How can you take pleasure in life if you can never feel a sense of accomplishment without sinning?  You miss out on feeling good about yourself or anything you do.  If you take pride in your work, you are sinning.

I take pleasure in giving the credit to God. Considering that he gave me life and all my talents, he deserves the credit for the things I do. Also consider that we are co-heirs with Christ, and so will share in his glory.

QuoteWhat about loving your family more than you love God - another sin, right?  Isn't loving anything more than God a sin?  So you've got to curb your love of your family.

Not if you expand your love of God. Also, similar to the above point, God gave me my family. Seems rude to love the gift more than the giver.

QuoteSince you must love God more than you love yourself as well, you must believe you are a piece of crap because the Bible says you are.  How can you enjoy anything if you believe you are a worthless piece of crap?  Where is the pleasure in that?

The pleasure is in the grace God gives us.

QuoteSince most Christians go straight to sex when it comes to discussions of sin, then I'll go there.  Masturbation is considered a sin yet the majority of women require stimulation of the clitoris to orgasm.  The most effective way for that to happen is for the woman to stimulate her clitoris during intercourse.  So, in order to experience orgasm many women must either masturbate or have their spouses do it for them.  Why not put the clitoris closer to the vaginal opening rather than creating a frustrating anatomical difficulty which requires a sin for the sex act to be enjoyable?  Other effective methods of stimulating the clitoris during sex require the woman to be on top.  Such positions are not allowed in multiple Christian sects.

Can you support this Biblically? Traditional Jewish interpetation fo the law only requires that sex end in vaginal intercourse, and most any other acts are permitted prior.

QuoteThen there is the sin of lust.  If a man looks at a beautiful woman who isn't his wife and feels a tingle in his genitals he is sinning even he doesn't want to feel any tingles.  It's a sin to look at a person and take pleasure in their sexiness even if you would never approach them because the thought is exactly equal to acting inappropriately.  So, before you marry your wife-to-be you are sinning if you have sexual thoughts about her.  

To the extent that one controls this, the marital relationship and sexual relationship improves.

QuoteAnd then we have the problem of homosexuality.  Yeah, great, it's not a sin to have sex with a person of the opposite sex to whom you are married as long as you were married in a Christian church.  What pleasure does that give a homosexual person?  Everything they desire sexually is a sin in Christian eyes.  They can't even masturbate to curb their desire for the sex Christians consider sinful.  I was married to a gay man who was following those assertions that he's a useless, deviant piece of shit if he has any sexual feelings for anyone he isn't married to.  He's not.  He's a loving, beautiful man who made both our lives miserable by trying to be a good Christian.  And no, he didn't choose homosexuality, he fought it tooth and nail and hates himself with as great a depth as any good Christian homosexual is supposed to.  Why make a person who can't get pleasure from sex with women and then tell him he can have all the sex he wants so long as it's with someone he doesn't have any desire for?  

He didn't enjoy sex with you?

QuoteIt seems to me that to be a good Christian you have to hate yourself and fight every natural urge and desire you have, many of which you have no conscious control over.

As noted above, there's a lot more to it than that.

Quote from: "Davin"You've just wasted hours of my time on something that you could have easily provided a source for.

That makes no sense. If it would have been easy for me, why did it take you hours? I was probably actually having sex - with toys and in wild positions - while you were looking stuff up. Seems like a better use of time. (Although sometimes what seemed like an hour was actually twenty minutes.)

Quote from: "Voter"I take pleasure in giving the credit to God. Considering that he gave me life and all my talents, he deserves the credit for the things I do. Also consider that we are co-heirs with Christ, and so will share in his glory.

But you deserve only credit for things you do that go wrong, correct?  So you feel you are a giant screw up, incapable of doing any good, right?  You didn't do the good thing anyway, God was doing it and using you like a puppet.

Quote from: "Voter"Not if you expand your love of God. Also, similar to the above point, God gave me my family. Seems rude to love the gift more than the giver.

So, yes, it's a sin to love anything more than God.

Quote from: "Voter"The pleasure is in the grace God gives us.

So it's the only pleasure you are allowed, correct?  Just as I stated, only Jesus-based pleasures are allowed you.
 

Quote from: "Voter"Can you support this Biblically? Traditional Jewish interpetation fo the law only requires that sex end in vaginal intercourse, and most any other acts are permitted prior.

So you discount entirely the practices of mainstream Christianity?  

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Then there is the sin of lust.  If a man looks at a beautiful woman who isn't his wife and feels a tingle in his genitals he is sinning even he doesn't want to feel any tingles.  It's a sin to look at a person and take pleasure in their sexiness even if you would never approach them because the thought is exactly equal to acting inappropriately.  So, before you marry your wife-to-be you are sinning if you have sexual thoughts about her.  

Quote from: "Voter"To the extent that one controls this, the marital relationship and sexual relationship improves.

So, it's a sin, right?  Otherwise why would you feel you have to control your lustful thoughts about your bride-to-be?
 

Quote from: "Kylyssa"And then we have the problem of homosexuality.  Yeah, great, it's not a sin to have sex with a person of the opposite sex to whom you are married as long as you were married in a Christian church.  What pleasure does that give a homosexual person?  Everything they desire sexually is a sin in Christian eyes.  They can't even masturbate to curb their desire for the sex Christians consider sinful.  I was married to a gay man who was following those assertions that he's a useless, deviant piece of shit if he has any sexual feelings for anyone he isn't married to.  He's not.  He's a loving, beautiful man who made both our lives miserable by trying to be a good Christian.  And no, he didn't choose homosexuality, he fought it tooth and nail and hates himself with as great a depth as any good Christian homosexual is supposed to.  Why make a person who can't get pleasure from sex with women and then tell him he can have all the sex he wants so long as it's with someone he doesn't have any desire for?  

Quote from: "Voter"He didn't enjoy sex with you?

If "doing it" begrudgingly a few times a year for the first few years is liking it, I suppose he did.  However, he far prefers to indulge his natural inclinations.
 

Quote from: "Kylyssa"It seems to me that to be a good Christian you have to hate yourself and fight every natural urge and desire you have, many of which you have no conscious control over.

Quote from: "Voter"As noted above, there's a lot more to it than that.

Right, you can have God based pleasures and no others.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"But more to the point, what exactly would qualify a sin as pleasurable?

...It being pleasurable? What more do you need?

I guess what I am trying to get out of the author of this thread is what exactly is a pleasure, because if almost all pleasures are sins...well I sin on a constant basis.

What, are my posts invisible?  How about reading my second post?  These threads have pages to them.  The posts that occur before the most recent one do not disappear, they are just sometimes on another page.    

Sin: Taking pride in your work.
Sin: Taking credit for good things you do.
Sin: Loving your family (or anyone) more than God.
Sin: Loving yourself (because God thinks you are a worthless sinner, how dare you disagree?)
Sin: Having any natural urges or desires.

Think of something enjoyable, anything - isn't it a sin unless you find a way to make it Jesus based?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"You've just wasted hours of my time on something that you could have easily provided a source for.

That makes no sense. If it would have been easy for me, why did it take you hours? I was probably actually having sex - with toys and in wild positions - while you were looking stuff up. Seems like a better use of time. (Although sometimes what seemed like an hour was actually twenty minutes.)

Because you made the statement of fact then provided your source for making that statement. I guess you don't actually have the data and just made a baseless assertion.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteThere's no (more) sin in BEING homosexual (vs heterosexual) or gay (considering the newest thread suggesting the word homosexual is now not PC) the sin is the act of sex between two same gender individuals. The mere fact that you cite this as "nontraditional" says something.

Not according to Matthew's quoting of Jesus:

QuoteBut I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

According to this passage, the sin is in the heart, not the genitalia.  You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

Exactly right.  You've just established my point using scripture.  There is no difference.  One is not worse than the other.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Sin: Taking pride in your work.
Sin: Taking credit for good things you do.
Sin: Loving your family (or anyone) more than God.
Sin: Loving yourself (because God thinks you are a worthless sinner, how dare you disagree?)
Sin: Having any natural urges or desires.

We can also credit sin to the sin nature;

Quote from: "Romans 7:14-18  NIV"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.  I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.  And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.  As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.  I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

and because this is so, God dosen't think we are worthless.

Quote from: "Davin"

Because you made the statement of fact then provided your source for making that statement.[/quote]
Exactly. Your charge is nonsensical.

QuoteI guess you don't actually have the data and just made a baseless assertion.

No, I made an assertion based on the source that I provided.

Because the more miserable someone is, the more they'll cling to the hope that what is being offered to them by the church will eventually bring them happiness.

It's a sick catch 22.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "Voter"I take pleasure in giving the credit to God. Considering that he gave me life and all my talents, he deserves the credit for the things I do. Also consider that we are co-heirs with Christ, and so will share in his glory.

But you deserve only credit for things you do that go wrong, correct?  So you feel you are a giant screw up, incapable of doing any good, right?  You didn't do the good thing anyway, God was doing it and using you like a puppet.

You just seem to be repeating yourself here. My above answer is still sufficient.

Quote

QuoteNot if you expand your love of God. Also, similar to the above point, God gave me my family. Seems rude to love the gift more than the giver.

So, yes, it's a sin to love anything more than God.

Yes, which does not preclude me from thepleasure of loving my family.

QuoteSo it's the only pleasure you are allowed, correct?

No. I mentioned sex, sports, food & drink, etc.

QuoteJust as I stated, only Jesus-based pleasures are allowed you.

Incorrect, see last answer. (Unless you mean a pleasure is "Jesus-based" because Jesus is creator, and so all pleasures are Jesus-based from the Christian perspective, but that would be a trivial observation.)
 

QuoteSo you discount entirely the practices of mainstream Christianity?  

No. I'm a mainstream Christian, and I don't follow your interpretation. I'm sure that, with two billion professing Christians, there are some that have restrictions you mention, but I've been in a lot of mainstream chuirches and never been told that only missionary position is acceptable. Our sex life is quite varied and rewarding.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Then there is the sin of lust.  If a man looks at a beautiful woman who isn't his wife and feels a tingle in his genitals he is sinning even he doesn't want to feel any tingles.  It's a sin to look at a person and take pleasure in their sexiness even if you would never approach them because the thought is exactly equal to acting inappropriately.  So, before you marry your wife-to-be you are sinning if you have sexual thoughts about her.  

Quote from: "Voter"To the extent that one controls this, the marital relationship and sexual relationship improves.

So, it's a sin, right?[/quote]
Yes, this one is, but as noted this restraint can lead to even greater pleasure. Most women don't like their men leering at other women or viewing pornography.  

Quote from: "Kylyssa"If "doing it" begrudgingly a few times a year for the first few years is liking it, I suppose he did.  However, he far prefers to indulge his natural inclinations.

This speaks to my last point. If he trained himself to think less about others and more about you, your sex life would have improved.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"It seems to me that to be a good Christian you have to hate yourself and fight every natural urge and desire you have, many of which you have no conscious control over.

Your understanding is incorrect. A good Christian typically loves himself because God finds him lovable (I think AD said something similar). As to natural urges, yes, we have to limit them, but that's not specific to Christianity. An atheist noted that the 7 deadly sins are generally seen as harmful in the secular world as well.

QuoteRight, you can have God based pleasures and no others.

I'm not thinking of God during sex, although I might say a prayer of thanks afterward.

Quote from: "Voter"No, I made an assertion based on the source that I provided.

A source without a basis, hence a baseless assertion.

Quote from: "karadan"Because the more miserable someone is, the more they'll cling to the hope that what is being offered to them by the church will eventually bring them happiness.

It's a sick catch 22.

Hardly. Religious people are already more happy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness# ... _happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness#Religion_and_happiness)
Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[29] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[30] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[31] A meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[32] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[33]

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"No, I made an assertion based on the source that I provided.

A source without a basis, hence a baseless assertion.

Check out the wiki link and quote above, which report that the religious have a higher level of sexual satisfaction.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Voter"No, I made an assertion based on the source that I provided.

A source without a basis, hence a baseless assertion.

Check out the wiki link and quote above, which report that the religious have a higher level of sexual satisfaction.

Which has nothing to do with this:

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Ideally, you will only have one, opposite sex, partner for life to have sex with, and you have to wait until marriage to do so.

And those people report high satisfaction with their sex lives.

Still leaving you with an uncorrected baseless assertion.

Quote from: "Voter"Hardly. Religious people are already more happy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness# ... _happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness#Religion_and_happiness)
Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[29] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[30] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[31] A meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[32] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[33]

And just a little farther down:

QuoteAccording to a 2007 paper by Liesbeth Snoep, published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, there is no significant correlation between religiosity and individual happiness when researchers measure Religion in the Netherlands and Denmark. These countries have lower rates of religious affiliation than the United States, meaning the non-religious are not the vast minority - a fact that Snoep thinks might help explain the different correlations.[34] According to the Gallup World Poll survey conducted between 2005 and 2009 Denmark is the happiest country in the world, and the Netherlands rank fourth.[35]

Quote from: "Achronos"So how would you all view premarital sex versus martial sex? (I'm curious on the opinion from a married person)

The sex is the same. The concept of marriage doesn't change it one iota.

Marriage, as defined by the state, is just a stupid legal binding between two people. It doesn't change anything as karadan said.

Quote from: "Voter"You dismissed an actual study in another thread because I only had access to the abstract. Now you offer this. Amusing.

...And?

Quote from: "Davin"Still leaving you with an uncorrected baseless assertion.

Here's more:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news ... 07136.html (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_107136.html)
The study, done at Brigham Young University in Utah, found that married couples who had delayed sex while they were dating were more likely to communicate, enjoy sex and see their marriage as stable than those who had sex early on. They also were generally more satisfied with their marriages.
...
The longer sex was delayed, the more participants in the study reported better quality of sex, communication, relationship satisfaction and perceived relationship stability. Waiting until marriage to have sex had the strongest correlations with positive outcomes.

Interesting study, and probably much more relevant than the studies carried out 50 or more years ago which seem to have been melded into one and cited earlier. lol

Quote from: "Recusant"Interesting study, and probably much more relevant than the studies carried out 50 or more years ago which seem to have been melded into one and cited earlier. lol

Note that earlier in the article the author gave different reasoning. Both are speculation AFAIK.

It's also relevant that this study is only a measure of the subjective observations of the participants.  As such I look at it as a sort of preliminary assay. I hope that a follow-up is done in five years or so to examine whether those observations are borne out by divorce rates.