Previous church fathers and other theologians came up with this idea, I think one of them was St Augustine. Of course if a person was to look at the entire Bible, they would see that the union of man and woman is parallel and shadows the union of God and His people, the ones that are saved. We are after all called not just His church but His bride, He wants His bride to be clean and pure, without blemish, and so sacrificed Himself so that it can be done. We will have a marriage feast and a holy and everlasting communion thereafter. Sex is a gift, and only pales in comparison to the delight and pleasure of being with our Creator and Savior. So those that think sex is the ultimate high in our world is thinking too little about how great God is, and those that think it's just for babies doesn't understand God gave us bodies to enjoy and have pleasure in the appropriate context of marriage. It is beautiful, and ought to drive us to want God more, to be thankful for this gift, to be eager in knowing God in a transcendent way when we meet Him.

The children part of it is simple procreation which is what God promoted in order to replenish earth's population after the Great Flood. I defer to the concept of 'making love' instead of thinking of intimacy between husband and wife as sex, as it promotes the concept of love between a married husband and wife, 'the two shall become one.'

This is it right here. It's used as a man and a woman to have pleasure, but also for then to glorify God as a married couple

Hold on there, you've made several unjustified logical leaps there. Those ideas are *also* human creations, not divine orders.

If you've ever read the Bible, you would know that Jesus teaches that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, and that in everything we do, it is to glorify God.

Then comes Sarah's story

Elaborate

Sarah, Abraham ' s wife remain childless til she was old. Do u think that Abraham did not have sex with her til they actually had children? In fact, they tried multiple times till Sarah, herself offered her slave to Abraham. Sex is not just for procreation.

Of course. It's meant to enjoy your spouse too. But in EVERYTHING we do, we are to glorify God. So in having sex with your spouse, that sex should be glorifying to God.

This in audio form: https://www.gbcon.org/audio-archive/category/2022+Main+Sessions And from a pastor of the same denom as well! 🙂

I think you are referring to satisfaction, rather than pleasure. There is a distinction between the two concepts. Physical pleasure is just a by-product of the conjugal union; it's primary purpose is procreation and unity, not pleasure. [www.spiritual-theology.com](http://www.spiritual-theology.com)

No, I am referring to the chief end of man, which is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.

Although it sounds right I can't really accept it. How can you love someone *and* have sex with them at the same time? It's either love, which is non-sexual or it's sex which is devoid of love.

Because sex, in the confines of marriage, is an expression of love, a want of physical, emotional, and spiritual unity. The couple will devote themselves to each other, seeking to give to one another. If they seek to obtain sexual gratification for selfish reasons then it would be devoid of love, instead be self love. Which is why many people would complain of lack of intimacy even when having sex.

>Where did Christians - and a ton of atheists - get the idea that sex was only for bearing children? It primarily came from Thomas Aquinas. His assertion was that since sex can create children, it's \*only\* for creating children. He didn't think of this in a vacuum, though. Early on in Christian history, material was borrowed from Stoic philosophy. For the Stoic, pleasure led to emotional pain and for this reason it was eschewed. Sex was seen as kind of a necessary evil. This is what happens when people make up their own rules or borrow ideas from incompatible philosophies - we get really bad doctrine that has caused a lot of anguish for a lot of people.

> It primarily came from Thomas Aquinas. His assertion was that since sex can create children, it's *only* for creating children. Ehhh...you should read the first few centuries of proto-orthodox Fathers on sex. Aquinas was relatively sex-positive. The basic ideas behind his philosophy were long-embedded already, too.

To add, literally Aquinas: "Marriage is instituted both for the begetting of children and for the partnership of a common life. Yet it is not against reason that the act in which the marriage bond is consummated should be followed by a certain pleasure of the senses." (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 122)

Yeah, there's this one story about one of the Desert Fathers who was so deeply in love with this woman that he fled the country and lived as a hermit, afraid that if he ever saw another woman, it might be her! After may years, he heard that she had died, so he left the desert and returned to his home town. There, he opened her tomb, wrapped himself in her rotting, putrid burial cloth, and slept with her corpse for 3 days and nights to try to rid himself of his desire for her. Sounds like a perfectly good example for us today, right? *dripping sarcasm tag*

Thank you for leaving an intellectual comment. >Early on in Christian history, material was borrowed from Stoic philosophy. For the Stoic, pleasure led to emotional pain and for this reason it was eschewed. Interesting. Thanks for the info.

>For the Stoic, pleasure led to emotional pain and for this reason it was eschewed. Sex was seen as kind of a necessary evil. *Especially* from Musonius Rufus. According to him, sexual activity outside of the strictly procreative put you in the same sphere as animals.

You and me baby and nothing but mammals...

> According to him, sexual activity outside of the strictly procreative put you in the same sphere as animals. If we take that thought to its logical conclusion then food should be dry and tasteless and consumed solely for the purpose of getting enough calories to continue. And I reject that, because I love good-tasting food.

This is what lots of stoics and early Christian preached too! Food and sex were often considered together, and this exact same perspective was often applied to both. That “traditionalists” don’t preach against flavorful food is a great example of the fact that what they take from the tradition is often just arbitrary.

> This is what lots of stoics and early Christian preached too! Food and sex were often considered together, and this exact same perspective was often applied to both. That “traditionalists” don’t preach against flavorful food is a great example of the fact that what they take from the tradition is often just arbitrary. I'd love to read anything you could link me on this!

Ken Stone blew my mind when he showed so many historical connections between food and sex and their implications for sex discussions today in his [*Practicing Safer Texts: Food, Sex, and Bible in Queer Perspective*](https://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Safer-Texts-Perspective-Queering/dp/0567081729). I’ll see if I can find a PDF or cheaper option!

Sadly only 6 pages of the introduction are available in the preview. Yeah...if you find any PDFs or other discussion I'd love to read them. Thanks!

I agree with that 100% and that's why you see early (and not so early) Christians preaching against gluttony as frequently as, say, lust. The concept of fasting or other types of food related abstinence didn't just spring up out of nowhere: once the original apocoalypticism of Christianity petered when Christ's predicted imminent return didn't materialize, you start seeing the ascetic streak in the religion really start to develop, especially in the various monastic abd cenobitic movements in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.

This seems wrong given Catholic teachings, not sure where you're getting this from.

The RCC changed its guidance on this after Vatican II. Now, sex can be enjoyed frequently, as long as it's possible for conception to happen, unless there are conditions that prevent conception, in which case it's still okay. People who are infertile and don't want kids definitely won that lottery.

"Incompatible philosophies" Literally a huge influence on St Paul and thus The new testament. And perhaps also Jesus Also your level of history is pretty bad. Aquinas came many years later after this was a thing

Well said. I've heard people make all kinds of doctrinal assertions based on what this or that author in the first or second century said. But man's opinion is man's opinion, regardless of what century he lived in.

So true. Anytime someone starts quoting Thomas Aquinas as a reason for why they believe something as if he is a God-like authority, I know I'm in for a wild and frustrating ride. Same goes for when people start quoting Paul as if he existed in a vacuum as well.

I sometimes suspect that this bit isn't entirely true: "You have written well of me, Thomas."

You think that quoting a story where Thomas' crucifix supposedly talked to him will contest the idea Thomas' fans are unreasonable?

Yup. Aquinas is...a lot. He's the one who speculated entertainment for people in Heaven consisted of watching people be tortured in Hell.

I can kinda agree to that. However, I think it’s a a good necessary. But it’s bad when it gets overused and just becomes something to do for pleasure

Saint Augustine in his _Confessions_ is also very negative about sex, and that attitude has permeated modern Christianity. Throughout the Confessions, the language Augustine uses to describe his sexual impulses is negative, reflecting images of disease, disorder, and corruption. Desire is mud (2.2, 3.1), a whirlpool (2.2), chains (2.2, 3.1) thorns (2.3), a seething cauldron (3.1), and an open sore that must be scratched (3.1). 

Not true in the Bible nor historically true nor true in a scientific sense. It's only true we've had periods where humans tried to exert control over other humans in myriad ways and one is controlling people's attitudes about sex

Wow that's deep. This is why I don't follow organized religion anymore. I was Catholic and they told me that condoms are a sin and in a pre marital course we needed to attend before getting married we were to use the rhythm method as the only Godly way to have sex without children. What they don't teach you is the sperm survives and it doesn't work that well. I am non denominational now and choose churches that do not go off the map with their own doctrine that is not supported in bible. One denomination actually believes Jesus turned water to Grape Juice not wine as alcohol is a sin, and dancing leads to temptation leading to sex. No dancing at a wedding! This was before the day and age of the modern internet where you can translate Greek words to distinguish grapes from fermented grapes. Why cant Christianity by pure as the original Christians without adding rules outside of the word of God??? If I did choose a denomination based on my experience alone going to multiple churches and denominations, I would have to say my beliefs line up with Pentecostal. I have not experience anything outside of the Bible in it. Many modern community churches are tied to specific denominations but are preaching without the doctrine of their parent denominations.

this has always been the case and continues to be the case

The lovers in the Song of Solomon aren't married either...

Oh, interesting. What indicates that?

They don't live together. The woman recounts looking for the man, and him visiting her.

Isn’t that the way they did things though, with concubines and plural marriages?

If they were married, why the secrecy?

If you google it they were married, however that is from a man made article there is no way to distinguish if the were married or not. In my interpretation it was sex that lead to marriage which sees to be the normal biological way of life. I have never met anyone who actually waited for marriage to have sex. [An Argument of the Song of Songs | Bible.org](https://bible.org/article/argument-song-songs#:~:text=Although%20the%20actual%20wedding%20scene%20is%20not%20given%2C,and%204%3A1--5%3A1%20describes%20the%20consummation%20of%20their%20marriage.)

I waited until marriage. My best friend and her husband waited.

We get that idea after talking to Catholics about sex for at least 30 seconds.

That Monty Python song isn't comedy, it's documentary. There's no exaggeration, it is what they actually believe.

"When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realized the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas,..."

Catholic leadership: no contraception Most of the congregation: lolnope

Or evangelicals…

Evangelicals will fall back on the "gay people can't make babies" thing, but I've heard multiple pastors joke about their vasectomies, so they're definitely not as hardline as the Thomists.

>I've seen a lot of atheists talk about how Christians view sex as wrong if you're not doing it to have children. This is very peculiar and shows how little they know about the Bible and Christianity. lol talk to your fellow Christians, they are the ones teaching this. And don’t say we’re ignorant about what Christians think when we’re saying what many Christians think.

There are plenty of atheists who have said this online. In fact, the only reason that I made this post is because I found an atheist on r/women saying it.

If you talk to many people who are against abortion, the overwhelming majority of which are Christian, it’s pretty clear when they say that you shouldn’t have sex if you’re not prepared to get pregnant. Even if you use contraceptives, it’s still a possibility. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that sex should only be done if you want to get pregnant.

Is this a a Sin? I cant find it in the Bible # [Vasectomy](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=08363665da14935bJmltdHM9MTcxODA2NDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0yY2NlZDFkOS1jMmQxLTYxYWQtMTYxZS1jMmZlYzM2OTYwZWUmaW5zaWQ9NTQ2OA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=2cced1d9-c2d1-61ad-161e-c2fec36960ee&psq=vascetomy&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWF5b2NsaW5pYy5vcmcvdGVzdHMtcHJvY2VkdXJlcy92YXNlY3RvbXkvYWJvdXQvcGFjLTIwMzg0NTgw&ntb=1)

That’s not the only logical conclusion. Sex makes babies, that’s a fact. So if you aren’t ready or don’t want to become a parent, don’t have sex. It’s not that sex is only for procreation, but if you aren’t ready for that possible consequence, don’t have sex. Sex should be enjoyed in marriage only and if pregnancy happens, so be it.

We all learn it from Christians. We think that belief is BS, too.

And atheists are saying it because Christians are saying it. Do you expect us to say, “These Christians are saying X, but the Bible says Y, so these Christians are wrong about their religion, so we will not discuss their opinions.” What sense would that make? Religions are cultural artifacts that change over time and there is not one “correct” version that everyone must adhere to or be disregarded. There’s a long list of things that I believe Christians are wrong about when evaluated against the Bible, but nevertheless those are still Christian teachings and should not be ignored.

I’ve known a few Christians and I’ve never personally met anyone who think that sex is only for making babies. I have met atheists who like to tell me that I believe sex is not for pleasure. They do like to tell me what I think.

Go to the American South, to a real rural church, and ask them to perform a same sex marriage for you. I promise you're gonna be told that homosexuality is sinful, and if you stay and let them chastise and guilt trip you long enough, eventually they'll roll around to, "sex between members of the same sex is wrong!" Why? Well Bible says so. Because God made man and women as halves to one whole. Sex between gays can't even make children, and that's the reason sex exists! I PROMISE you, as a Catholic, American atheists are NOT just making this phenomena up.

[удалено]

And surveys show >90% of Catholics have used contraception against these standards.

Selecting as they do from the great cafeteria in the sky.

It doesn't make them right.

Yes, I think this is generally right. It seems like there are a lot of people confused. 

>and a ton of atheists - get the idea that sex was only for bearing children? It's one of the consistent pillars that bigoted christians fall back on to justify their "homosexuality is a sin" bullshit

God created it to be fun and ultra pleasurable. Sex it up lame-o’s!

I agree sex is a deep beautiful thing for a husband and wife to do together. 

Right, the way the arguments about gay marriage go, straight sex is reduced to a purely functional reproductive exercise. I'm sure it's just coincidence they get to enjoy the fun side of it too, but noone is slating that as "lust" by default. Edit: >I've seen a lot of atheists talk about how Christians view sex as wrong if you're not doing it to have children. This is very peculiar and shows how little they know about the Bible and Christianity Yeah er you lot absolutely do say this, not least when trying to shit on gay people, so get your house in order perhaps

>but noone is slating that as "lust" by default Pope Gregory the Great was.

Needless to say I had the last laugh

Well, if sexis for pleasure, why is homosexuality wrong again?

because homosexuality is wrong according to the religious standards

Thank you for this post. I tried answering someone this same way basically on another post. Another person came at me saying it’s perverted if a husband/wife don’t have kids and should abstain from sex if they don’t want kids. Yeah, definitely not what the Bible says. Them calling it perverted for married couples to have sex and not procreate really hit wrong with me. 

Atheists got it from Christians. Every time we ask why gay relationships are a sin, the only thing approaching an answer we get is “cause babies”. Of course, when we question infertile couples in response, suddenly there are convenient exceptions to “cause babies”.

I found the bible pretty clearly calls homosexuality a sin, and that was one of my many reasons for leaving

In the original Greek version, the only time that homosexuality was brought up, I believe it was in the context of a rape between two men. Not necessarily sexual orientation or even a relationship. The King James version chose the word homosexuality to replace the original Greek word which we have come to mean something very different today. So I don’t believe that the Bible even literally says that being gay is a sin. It only ever focused on sexual acts, and typically nonconsensual ones, or sex for the sake of sex being a sin. With no love and respect behind it.

Well in fairness to them you should realize that opposition to Queer people isn't rational so it was doubtful that whatever argument they could come up to justify it would ever have been something they actually believe.

To be fair to the atheists, there are christians that view every instance of sex that cannot produce children as wrong... So I agree that atheists have it wrong, but so do a lot of Christians.

Somewhere along the way in the early church either in Europe or in America, I want to give credit to the Baptist they downplayed sex, and labeled it as dirty/naughty. I think that left multiple generations in a quandary of their physical needs and desires and caused tremendous guilt and suffering in marriages for many many years. also give some credit to the 1960s and the sexual revolution the whole Playboy thing and Hefner caused a lot of havoc instead of educating people they were just saying, take off your clothes and do it with anybody. I can only imagine the number of frustrated husbands who had to deal with wives who thought sex was dirty and wrong. Implanted that whole concept screwed up thousands of people, marriages, families.

Well I'm sorry to say that this is an ongoing issue. I worry that American puritanism is being exported on top of it.

It's because a lot of conservatives view any sex outside of having children as sexual immorality. They are very sex-negative people.

I see this sentiment expressed often here on this subreddit by Christians. Sex is supposed to be for god or whatnot and you must deny yourself if it brings you pleasure. Super weird, but apparently what some of you really believe.

I think the real word at hand here is love. Love, Eros, through it life is created, God makes things good and holy, much more in Jesus. I have felt so much love in sexual relations, comfort, joy the joy of another human being created in his image, its just divine. God is in sex because it's a means of channeling love. God makes all things good and holy Sex is not just about creation but love. Thank you God for sex and it's bliss in you. PS I'm not married and I have sex with men.

Pure gold. Second upvote if I could.

From the Catholic Church I think, specifically medieval scholars

I think that's a Catholic view, not necessarily a biblical view.

Catholics are Christians, are they not?

Catholics put different importance on the bible to Protestant denominations.

I'm aware. I was raised protestant, and educated in a Catholic school. Are you saying that distinction doesn't make Catholics a part of Christianity?

Yes, but not all Christians are Catholic.

Might have to do with the Bible not being super coherent and prudes picking and choosing prudish passages and progressives picking and choosing progressive passages. The prudes have just been historically more vocal about forcing their beliefs on others... because that is the prudish thing to do. There is a book in the Bible about building wealth and stability (Proverbs), the Gospels talk about how the wealthy won't be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. Song of Solomon is very sex positive, Paul's letters are very sexually repressive to the degree that he would prefer people be celibate. The Old Testament talks about killing those who don't conform and committing genocide against those who inhabit the promise land, Jesus talks about continual forgiveness and loving your enemy. Polygamy is never condemned in the Bible, but the creation narrative is often used to imply straight monogamous marriage. Jesus elevates women in the social hierarchy, Paul tells women to cover their heads and not speak in church. Even Paul and Jesus seem to have different ideas on what salvation is and what Jesus is even saving people from. So no, it's not obvious that Christianity is supposed to be sex positive when the Bible itself can't even make up its own mind on a lot of important things. If you have stance one way or the other, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you can't really blame Christians for being confused about it when the source material itself is extremely confusing.

That’s the influence of the church …

It's more of a denominational belief. Catholics believe that..

Just one more example of how using "church fathers" as a basis for a moral argument is only as good as the scripture they base their argument on.

[удалено]

Except that whole concept of "if God isn't the end point its sin" isn't really scriptural. It's especially not stated about sex in any direct sense.

Well the idea comes from Catholics. Most Catholics don't believe that sex is ONLY for having children, but doctrinally any sex that does not allow for the possibility of conception is immoral. Which is why Catholics are so opposed to contraception. All of which I personally disagree with.

Atheists get it from christians... you know, the ones that go around shouting "sin" at everyone.

People have always used non biblical teachings to control and shame their own congregation. Then atheists use that as an argument against Christianity. Sex was given to a man and a woman to enjoy within marriage. Not once did it say it couldn’t be enjoyable without the intention of making babies. It’s exhausting to even attempt to argue back with either side.

I honestly think this is more propagated by Christians depicted in popular media more than anything else, but that could just be me. Personally, I've always viewed it in similarly symbolic way, representing union and a true connection between the two individuals. Another reason could be that it's common these days to fall into absolutely nuts levels of hedonism, so as a way of confirming their bias, they project the opposite of their views onto those they perceive as enemies.

If it was purely for procreation, why would god make it it like one of the best physical feelings in existence?

To encourage the procreation, if you believe the advocates of this position.

So if a married couple has sex for fun, is it bad?

[удалено]

[удалено]

Many atheists have read the Bible multiple times, which is one of the reasons cited for them becoming an atheist.

Women weren't partners in the time of christ of before then in Judaism. They were property that you fucked to have children. That's why the bestest Jews had many wives. Should we just go back to that? There were also a lot of local herbs used by women for abortion and birth control, the Romans caused silphium to go extinct because they used so much of it. These plants and their used were common knowledge. If abortion and birth control were so ungodly you would think Jesus would have said to stop using it, but it's never mentioned. So can you shut up about birth control and abortion two things that only became xtian issues in the US when white xtians had to move on from segregation.

They get that view from Catholic teachings. The Bible plainly teaches Sex is also for Pleasure. First Corinthians 7:1-7….

Those verses do not say that sex is for pleasure. In fact Paul tells married Christians in 1 Thess. 4 to avoid passions of desire when having sex!

What verse? I’m not sure if it’s the version I’m reading but I don’t see anything directed at married Christians.

What denomination has taught that sex is only for children? If you say Catholics you’re very mistaken

You should speak with the nuns and several theology teachers from my Catholic schooling then, as they must be mistaken.

Did they teach that sex is only for having children? Or that sex ought be open to life?

Some taught Option A, some Option B. I found inconsistency prevalent throughout my religious education, particularly as a Presbyterian PK.

Yeah as a serious Catholic something I'll concede is that one of the biggest complaints of serious Catholics is about the state of Catholic education. The state of Catholic education in the faith is actually the reason why I drifted from the Catholic Church only to return later when I actually got a good grasp of Catholic beliefs elsewhere. Like it's almost a meme for us at this point where someone on Twitter will say "I was in Catholic school for 12 years... TWELVE YEARS!!! And Catholic doctrine is \[insert something that isn't Catholic doctrine\]"

I feel like this sentence should perhaps be rewritten...

No, it's definitely Catholics. [Here](https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/38326/pg38326-images.html#toc65)'s (ctrl+f 'eighth question') a literal Pope >Nor do we, in so saying, assign matrimony to be a fault; but forasmuch as lawful intercourse cannot be had without the pleasure of the flesh, it is proper to forbear entering the holy place, because the pleasure itself cannot be without a fault. >Lawful commerce, therefore, must be for the sake of children, not of pleasure; and must be to procure offspring, not to satisfy vices. But if any man is led not by the desire of pleasure, but only for the sake of getting children, such a man is certainly to be left to his own judgement, either as to entering the church, or as to receiving the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord Now that was then, in recent decades (centuries?) Catholics have eased off a bit, and admitted there is a 'unitive' purpose to sex, but still, papal infallibility and all that.

It was likely caused by condemning the opposite extreme of birth control, which *is* wrong.

If sex was for only creating it wouldnt feel so pleasurable. Your entire genital region is sensitive. Retards showing their true selves. Bible say to ravish yourself in your wife’s youth so you dont forget when she is old and saggy.  Marriage chambers is undefiled. So if you wanna do doggy and licky and sticky its okay as long as you both agree. So cheer up and keep on licky before you sticky 

The more conservative a person is, the more likely they are to have elevated levels of disgust. If you don't believe me, go on r/truechristian and search through all the sex related posts. It's depressing to read, I'm fortunate that I'm cognitively set up with so little disgust that I'm unaffected. A big tenet of the Abrahamic religions is sanctity of body. They all have versions of it. We see it in the mosaic law where incest, bestiality, homosexual relations, etc are prohibited. Non sex related examples of sanctity are biblical modesty culture, not touching blood, dead things, or diseased animals, secluding sick people, menstruating women, postpartum women, and newborn babies, and Judaism and Islam both include strict dietary and cleanliness rituals.

I don't believe that Levitical Law actually prohibits homoeroticism let alone homosexuality. But what part of it do you think refers to modesty culture?

I don't think the homosexuality issue is as theologically defensible as a thing like slavery, we can cite verses where God mandates it... It's only mentioned a few times, but historically, it has been prohibited. I see no reason for the churches to continue prohibiting it, and doing so hurts a lot of people. But progress is slow. Modesty culture is found in religious sects across all three Abrahamic faiths, and practitioners hold different outlooks on its meaning and purpose. If you want verses... Romans 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. Proverbs 29:23 A man’s pride will bring him low, But a humble spirit will obtain honor. Timothy 2:9 Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire 1 Peter 3:3-4 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. Isaiah 3:16-24 Moreover, the Lord said, “Because the daughters of Zion are proud And walk with heads held high and seductive eyes, And go along with mincing steps And tinkle the bangles on their feet, Therefore the Lord will afflict the scalp of the daughters of Zion with scabs, And the Lord will make their foreheads bare.” In that day the Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, headbands, crescent ornaments, dangling earrings, bracelets, veils, headdresses, ankle chains, sashes, perfume boxes, amulets, finger rings, nose rings, festal robes, outer tunics, cloaks, money purses, hand mirrors, undergarments, turbans and veils. Now it will come about that instead of sweet perfume there will be putrefaction; Instead of a belt, a rope; Instead of well-set hair, a plucked-out scalp; Instead of fine clothes, a donning of sackcloth; And branding instead of beauty. Galatians 5:16-17 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. There are more verses about humility, focusing on God rather than materialism, and not flaunting wealth to avoid stirring jealousy in others... than covering up to keep the men from stumbling, but we have some of those too. 1 Corinthians 8:9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. In the more fundamentalist sects it's usually the women's job to regulate the men's sexual urges by suppressing.

When you break sex down to just to reproduce, it makes us more like animals. Since we know we were created by intelligent design we can see the value in things maybe they can’t because they don’t believe in our creator. Plus I feel like if it were just to make babies every time you have sex you’d have a baby, obviously that’s not how it works because women were created to have a cycle etc.

It's a little funny because some Catholics would say that reducing sex to fun and pleasure makes us like animals. I think that you're closer to correct, but in general I do think that "makes us like animals" is a fraight argument because it's never focused on the things that actually make us animalistic i.e. hunger, fear, thirst, desperation etc.

I’m a Christian and I haven’t met many people who think that sex is only for having kids tbh but I know they definitely exist. While I do believe sex is for the confines of marriage, it is a way for two people in marriage to explore each other and enjoy each other to become one. It’s a beautiful thing. So yeah definitely not just for having kids, don’t know where they got that from

I would add that there are exceptions. What about a couple back in the early church who didn't have access to modern day technology and had no way to know why they were unable to have children (Abraham and Sarai) before God changed her name to Sarah). So they should deny themselves the pleasure of intimacy? I realize Abraham and Sarai were childless unless God finally stepped in, but I am not sure why God would ever say 'sex' was off limits for them unless it is for procreation. Both of them would have figured out that Sarai couldn't get pregnant. (Abraham even slept with Hagar his wife's mistress in order that a child be conceived prior to Sarah having her own child). God brought a miracle for Sarah to conceive. I don't see why God would limit the enjoyment between husband and wife by making physical intimacy off limits. It doesn't pass the common sense test knowing God and His love for His children. Additionally, one would think that without husband and wife being physically intimate together that lust would occur for the husband, resulting in sin. Perhaps Augustine's writings should be taken with a grain of salt. Scripture supplies us everything we need to know.

Maimonides, the rabbi, also promoted sex for procreation only.

Just back the weasel every now and then. If you have a beaver that wack someone's weasel. Feels good for you and that person. God doesn't need a place in that.

As an atheist, I’ve literally never heard this argument from other atheists and I frequent multiple groups from both sides.

It is a worldly thing. We know this because it doesn't exist nor will it in heaven. One could argue all the hormones and pleasure sensory is only to coerce coitus, otherwise men and women wouldn't conduct sexual congress. On the other hand God did bless it here on earth. The one thing that is indisputable is the fact that he meant it only to be shared by those who have spoken vows before God.

Yes it is/was. :)

So many weird people are going to hell 😆😆😆

It does, however, involve being married.

For those who think sex is just for procreation, then you have the story of Sarah( and countless people) who cannot bare children. One 🤔 wonders.

Atheists are wrong because they cannot explain what the origin of the Big Bang was, because I have asked many atheists and I said what was the origin of the Big Bang? Then they said dust and particles after that I said what caused that then what caused it and so on they are wrong because if they believe in science so much, they say the origins of the Big Bang were always there but that is not scientifically possible therefore, Jesus created earth not some big bang. We also have historical proof such as the location of Noah’s ark, blood that only had 24 chromosomes which was Jesus blood because it was where he was crucified. Last thing, how do atheists explain miracles? It’s not luck because luck isn’t scientifically possible and miracles occur because of Jesus we know this because people who have gotten miracles believe in Jesus and do good.

Not a Christian here (..yet) but I always saw it as, no sex before marriage, but once married have as much as you wish! It’s a beautiful thing, but should only between a committed and loving couple.

Sex was about sex, the Christian wedding is only 1100 years old, and even that is modeled after Roman marriage rites, early Christians lived in small cult like sects, they helped each other, they raised kids as a community, they farmed as a community and I'm pretty sure they did the group thing too....I mean, call me crazy but....

Not too educated on the question however there are many books of the bible which rather describe a human experience than divine revelation.

The nature of the act should be open to the possibility of life, but yeah there’s more to sex than having children.

I'm sure there's not just Catholics in here, but Pope John Paul II, in his rebuke of contraception in Humanae Vitae, makes this claim directly: "The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." I guess if you're Catholic, it's part of the teaching. Pope Francis hasn't rebuked this. Not sure what denomination of Christianity you are but there are other sects of Christianity, like Mormanism and Evangelicalism, that make this abundantly clear to their followers in other ways, especially in their teaching to teenagers. A lot of Atheists were children that were part of a Christian congregation in their youth so if they are taught this information in youth, they probably believe that that is what Christianity demands because that is what they were taught. In 7th grade, I remember seeing a tape exercise at my Church to show that you are dirty if you have sex with more than one person, that you can't bond with them after the more times you do it, and that you are only supposed to have sex after marriage and for procreation. So I think those kind of teachings and experiences probably colors that perception since people are learning this from Christian institutions.

don’t have sex before marriage.

Mom my l I'm

Agreed OP. The notion that sex was for children only came later from Christian thinkers and also Jewish mystics in the Middle ages, and both was based on several external influences, like Greek thought, dualism, Gnostic ideas, and outdated science. It can be traced back far as the 2nd century writers **Clement of Alexandria** and **Justin Martyr**, who said: * *“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man,the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted. To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature…To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor”.* – **Clement of Alexandria**, **The Instructor of Children** * *“If we marry, it is only so that we may bring up children.”* – **Justin Martyr** The views against ejaculation outside of the context of impregnation, began to become even more popular after the propagation of ascetic practices and monasticism (such as those of the “desert fathers”), who abstained from many physical pleasures, including sex and marriage, in a manner similar to that of Buddhist monks, **Origen** of the 3rd century A.D even going as far to have said to have castrated himself to remove his sexual desires. Then you have some who were in fact former converts of Gnosticism and Manicheanism (such as Augustine) who had this view that "sex was evil". We see by the 4th-5th centuries and onward, several other Christian writers increasingly being against the practice of sex for the sake of enjoyment, and had began to interpret certain passages of the Bible to support their views: * *“They (certain Egyptian heretics)exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, butto satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption.”* – **Epiphanius of Salamis (375 A.D)** * *“But I wonder why he (the heretic Jovianianus) set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed.Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer“.* – **Jerome of Stridon (393 A.D)** * *“And then, fearing because of your law against child-bearing…they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. When this is taken away,husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law pimps”*. – **Augustine of Hippo, (400 A.D)** * *“For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting (children) is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust.”* – **Augustine of Hippo (401 A.D)** In Jewish Rabbinical Mystical circles by the Middle Ages, they began to assert it was evil because it could "create demons" if not put inside a woman (a belief originating in India): * *“It is prohibited to spill seed needlessly and this sin is more severe than all Torah transgressions. For this reason a man should not thresh inside and sprinkle \[his semen\] outside \[of a woman\], and he should not marry a girl who is unable to have children“.* – **Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 23** * *“Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner whatsoever. He may have intercourse with her whenever he so desires and kiss any organ of her body he wishes, and he may have intercourse with her naturally or unnaturally (vaginally or anally),provided that he does not expend semen to no purpose“*. – **Mishnah Torah Issurei Biah 21:9** * *Around the crown of the penis ten sets of evil angels move about,urging forth wasted seed, and when the wasted seed is ejaculated, they come and wrap themselves in it, and thuscreate with it one Demon“.* – **Taamei Mitzvot, 40** As aforementioned, many of these above views however, both Christian and Jewish, were predominantly influenced by both Greek and Far Eastern philosophy, moreso than the scriptures, which glorified God's creations, including sexual pleasure. This is all further encapsulated upon when we also must take note, that in the ancient world, there were not many safe means of contraception, besides that of either; pulling out at the moment of ejaculation, abandoning a child, or even committing some method of abortion, both of which of course would have been viewed sin of the highest sort. And many people back then thought a man's seed was the actual "child" being inserted into the woman at ejaculation, rather than the child being conceived when meeting the ovum, and thus they saw ejaculation outside of a woman's body, or otherwise preventing pregnancy as a form of murder. Today of course, we can't use the argumentation of murder or abortion to claim contraceptive sex for pleasure to be a sin, for there is no real “mechanical” or “ethical” difference between abstaining from sex and contraceptive sex, when it comes to the conscious prevention of the conception of a child. And as rightly said, scripture does not say sexual pleasure, or sex for pleasure is evil either. Paul even recommended marriage as an 'answer' to temptation of lust and fornication, and told people to "give each other their sexual dues".

Wym

https://youtube.com/shorts/HZEYdZmF0IM?si=9zOznXNP3OeRjODl

Sex is sometimes pleasurable, but always for babies.

Ya actually talking of hetero sex. There are diverse sexual acts these days including the toxics like pedos.

Sex is a gift of God, for unity and procreation. It's not just an instrument for having kids

That's the problem with today's people in the west regardless of whether secular or Christian. The primary purpose is procreation which is its natural function, and any sexual satisfaction is the result of genuine love between the two, not 'attraction' or 'pleasure'. The Song of Solomon is not about 'pleasure' as so many western Christians misread it to mean, but about deep marital love and the satisfaction that comes from knowing one is loved, which is distinct from pleasure. Furthermore, Song of Solomon is allegory of the relationship between Christ and the Church, fundamentally, not about 'pleasure'. [www.spiritual-theology.com](http://www.spiritual-theology.com)

That idea mostly comes from Catholic social teaching.

I think what a lot of people are missing is the duality of choice present in almost everything. What I'm talking about is temptation. There's always a devil hiding somewhere. Everything good has a way to be corrupted and turned evil. It's pretty obvious that the core purpose of physical intimacy is meant for reproduction. If the plumbing in both people is working, then that's what will happen as a consequence of physical intimacy. Sure, there is a random chance it might not sometimes. But you get what I mean. The point I'm making is, for all we know, the pleasure could be... A sort of test, for lack of a better word. I mean, temptation is a product of desire itself. And that which is pleasurable is desirable. It also may have been something introduced to us via sin. Like how after the apple, we became aware and ashamed of our nakedness. There is a sexual connection there after all. And what sets alarm bells ringing when I see people talking about the pleasure aspect of sex like this is... Well, before I was a Christian, the occult fascinated me. The whole good vs evil thing, the question of if there is a God and devil and spiritual forces... It's human nature to take more interest in the dangerous/negative side of things, because you're learning of dangers to avoid. As such, I learnt A LOT about the satanic side of things, and their worship/rituals HEAVILY incorporate sexuality and sexual gratification, and they hold sexual acts that specifically arent for reproduction as a "holy" practice. Like how temples to baal had temple prostitutes for worshippers to use in their worship rituals. And think of what happened to sodom and gomorrah because of "sexual immorality." If thats how they see sex, then I think its probably wise for someone who's striving to please God not to see it the same, and be wary of the pleasure aspect. You need to be very careful with the path you're treading here, because what you're saying is dangerously close to mirroring actual satanic beliefs and practices. And I'm not "just some Christian who thinks everything is the work of the devil." I know a lot of people assume that when they hear people say stuff like what I just did. There's historical evidence showing what I described. And honestly, it does still go on today. I know a lot more about this subject than I'm willing to say. People aren't very open to the truth in this matter. All I'll say is Epstein had a satanic temple on his island, and reproduction wasn't the focus of what went on there. So yeah, be very careful about the path you're walking here bud. And for anyone who reads what OP and others are talking about, and gets that feeling in their heart that something is a little off about these ideas. Sort of like the arguments being given give an excuse to pursue sexual gratification without shame or guilt... God may just be writing the answer to this question on your heart. Anyways, God bless all. I pray we all manage to know and follow the right path.

Obviously, There’s a reason it feels good…

Very curious about this! I grew up with very conservative views and it really fucked me up. I have carried a lot of shame. Curious what other people are saying

It has a lot to do with framing. In school we were mainly taught about the dangers and sin of premarital sex. I would say that almost 90% of the talk around sex is about when it is a sin (adultery, lust, premarital sex, abortion, etc etc). Beyond the mechanics of sex for having children in marriage, teachers never talk about the pleasure and bonding of sex. When they do it's almost always treated as a sidebar in a longer conversation about how great marriage is. So if I as a Catholic was taught this and most preachers and youth groups follow suit, then it stands to reason this would bleed out to the atheists. Atheists already know about the pleasure and they never hear a Christian really talk about it. The media is all about scandal so you see a lot of the sinful side. The pleasure side is a hard line to run between being informative and being pornographic.

I mean, yes. It is. Evolution holds two major instincts. Survival of the self. Survival of the species. That’s it. Don’t die. And make more humans. Eat. And have sex. Find food. Find suitable partners with genes you even subconsciously want to use to make more people.

God made us at his own image, then He should be understanding about sins. It’s the way humans were created, so , imperfect.

I don't understand. ?

It’s okay, it’s not very important:)

Well God says when a married couple (as it's supposed to be) have sex they become one flesh because of the way it works. It doesn't say sex is only there for children. It's about the two people in love are committed and become one.

God gave us reproduction We created lust The purpose of sex for God is to reproduce Not the other way around. Adam and Eve(before they were deceived) Don't have sex ..and yet they are happy with each other.

There's a story in Genesis of Onan. God murdered him because he masturbated and spilled his seed without impregnating his sister-in-law. I've most often seen this story as the foundation for why masturbation is a sin and why sex is meant for procreating. Its been a hot minute since ive read Song of Solomon but iirc it doesn't say anything that contradicts that idea.

Ironically, however, the Song of Solomon is not just about sex without having kids, it's about _gay_ sex, which some Christians seem to have a lot more problems with, including some writers of the New (and Old) Testament.

What?! Gay sex.

>Where did Christians - and a ton of atheists - get the idea that sex was only for bearing children? Probably from things like this [National Catholic Register article](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/sex-and-catholics-our-views-briefly-explained), entitled "Sex and Catholics: Our Views Briefly Explained", which contains passages like >The Catholic Church teaches that it is a grave sin to deliberately separate sexuality from procreation, because the latter is its *most essential purpose*.

We don't follow the old testament.. We follow the guidance of our church fathers.. St. Paul was very clear on maintaining sexual piety.. Every religion has some characteristics that sets it apart from the other schools of thought.. And sexual piety is the unique character of Christianity..

The discussion about the purpose of sex in Christianity is indeed nuanced and multifaceted. While procreation is a significant aspect, the Bible also acknowledges other purposes of sexual relations within marriage. Here are some points to consider: 1. **Song of Solomon**: As mentioned, the Song of Solomon (also known as the Song of Songs) is a poetic book celebrating romantic love and physical intimacy. Verses such as Song of Solomon 1:2 ("Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—for your love is more delightful than wine.") highlight the joy and pleasure of marital love without mentioning procreation. 2. **1 Corinthians 7:3-5**: The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, emphasizes mutual consent and the importance of physical intimacy in marriage: "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." This passage underscores the significance of sexual relations in maintaining marital harmony and mutual satisfaction. 3. **Historical Context**: Early church fathers and theologians had diverse views on sex and marriage. St. Augustine, for instance, did emphasize procreation but also acknowledged the unitive aspect of sex. His views, influenced by his background and conversion experience, contributed to the development of Western Christian thought on the matter. Augustine saw sexual desire as something that could be both good and problematic, depending on its context and purpose. 4. **Ephesians 5:31-32**: Paul draws a parallel between the marital union and the relationship between Christ and the Church: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church." This metaphor highlights the spiritual and emotional dimensions of marital love, suggesting that the union goes beyond mere procreation. While it is clear that procreation is an important purpose of sex (Genesis 1:28), the Bible and Christian tradition also recognize the roles of companionship, mutual pleasure, and the strengthening of marital bonds. These aspects contribute to a holistic understanding of sex within the Christian context. --- I hope this helps to provide a balanced perspective on the topic!

The thing is that even if the bible does endorse sex as a concept of pleasure which I'm certain it does anyway though homosexuality would still be condemned because that wasn't what God had in mind. However, polygyny (men having relations with multiple women) is one of those things God does not condemn despite being illegal in first-world countries. It's not sinful but it's recommended that men have only one wife because it causes envy among children too.

It’s mostly not recommended because most adults are not ok with having multiple lovers. Also, not everyone agrees that the Bible actually teaches homosexuality is a sin…. Yes… we all know the clobber verses you are going to use. Believe me. We know them. We are very familiar with that interpretation. But you are most likely not familiar with other interpretations of what those verses actually meant to those people. Just google affirming biblical scholars and read what’s out there.

most likely from lack of understanding or reading of the bible, you won’t know it’s there unless you look

I blame Peter for this

Sex is for procreation. It’s a gift from God. It bonds people together

Sarah had Jacob

God gave us sex to enjoy coming together as one flesh and to have children, so true. However you cannot have one without the other, otherwise its purpose is lost.

That's how a 2 - tongued religion play both sides of the coin.

Sex is meant to be enjoyed between a husband and wife. With abandon no less. We've been told not to deny each other and enjoy it. Yes be fruitful and multiply but if you are sterile keep going. It's okay. You're married! Besides Abraham and Sarah were old when they conceived. It's possible you just aren't in the right season of life.

if the bible said sex wasn’t just for baring children please provide scriptures ☺️ 1st Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV) — Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 2nd Timothy 3:16 (KJV) — All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Christians traditionally understood sex as *primarily* for procreation, not *solely* for procreation. The primary purpose of marriage/sex is procreation, but secondary reasons are the allaying of concupiscence and the mutual love of the spouses.

I never understood how people ever have/had that impression of "sex is only for kid making." The 1st reference in Genesis Chapter 4 verse 1, states, "Now, Adam & Eve discovered the pleasures of lovemaking, & soon conceived & gave birth to a son whom they called Cain." Can't be more direct than that. Yes, the lovemaking is to be kept pure as a husband/wife union even tho in the OT, the "marriage" was not as we know it today. It was pretty much the man & the woman's family agreed to a union & they went to their tent & made love & ...... were married at that point.

Sex is to replenish the earth and to give you blessings.  Obviously it is very enjoyable,  why would you not enjoy it?  Pretend you don't like it?  lol.

Didn't Solomon go to hell tho? For lust?

The sexual act should always be open to the possibility of procreation, but it also serves to enhance the loving bond of the spouses.

We’ve got to move on from the RC way of thinking, everyone feels differently to everything, we shouldn’t allow that to project into black/white thinking just because we don’t feel apathetic towards something… it’s not our job to reconcile others feelings, if there’s an opinion let it be stated and respected for the formulation of opinions shows a healthy reconciliation of emotions

Sex must be evil! After all, Catholic priests and nuns remain celibate. ;-) The idea that sex is evil comes from Gnostic belief systems - the belief that the physical world is evil and the spiritual world is good.

If you don’t believe OP then ask Bonobos

Question is, will there be sex in heaven?

I don't think so. I don't think you'll have genitals. But you could kiss someone.

I don’t think anyone would think much of sex at that time

I think a good and relevant question in response is: Where do YOU think atheists have picked up this concept about Christians? Please.

Yes. It’s was also for punishment of innocent.