This is an automatic reminder that is posted on every submission.
If you see a post that is not following the subreddit rules, or you think is not following the subreddit rules, please, use the report function so that we are aware of this. If you don't report, we will not know! Do not sit in the comment section and moan that 'this doesn't fit' or 'wow, the mods should remove this!' because we don’t know (unless we so happen to be scrolling through the subreddit) if you do not report it.
Please note: if this is too hard do not directly message us, we will assume posts are fine otherwise as comments are not useful in reporting. We can see if something has been reported and telling us you did, while you clearly did not, is not going to be conducive.
Please report any and all behavior violating the Rules (reports go to us mods); don't report things just because you don't like them.
Comment removals and bans are at the judgment of the mods, so please take the time to read and understand our Rules. You can also read about this change here.
Amazing. I actually heard genuine comments along these lines when I was an evangelical Christian, because after teaching us sex and lust were sinful, they then had to persuade us to still breed.
I've never heard of any denomination or sect that claims "a penis sliding in and out of a vagina... could just be a polite greeting or totally innocent gesture?"
Would make the Sunday morning greeting team and passing of the peace a lot more interesting, though!
I was deadass taught that sex within Christian marriage was actually (and this is quote) “playful and childlike, not lustful”. I don’t even want to get into the implications of such teachings in light of the constant sexual abuse scandals that plague the church.
My wife was a witness, when she was 9 a 19 or 21 year old was msging her on AIM asking her inappropriate things etc. Her dad was obviously disgusted, but the church simple reprimanded the young man saying "he should have asked her father" or courted her or some amazingly wild shit.
These kinda things are why pedophilia is so often found in evangelical families
Don’t attribute an act by a small subsection of people to the entire religion or you could make that claim against any religion. Or any group of people of all for that matter.
Oh I’m not. I’m a Catholic—I fw the teachings of Christ heavy. What I don’t fw are Christian Nationalists, Fundamentalists, people who read the KJV, megachurches, prosperity gospel, etc etc etc.
I know that seems hypocritical to the average redditor considering our church’s history from the Borgia papacy to more recent times with the child molestation. But I knew Reddit would eat my original comment up moreso than some judge penitent spiel like this one.
In short, I understand it was a broad generalization.
(I’m probably about to get flamed and downvoted into the shadow realm, but screw it, we ball)
And then they still have the audacity to mock "that" abrahamic religion for child marriage. The irony is unreal.
EDIT: I’m not arguing that one side is better than the other. My point is that both parties have troubling histories involving allegations of sexual misconduct with minors, and despite this, they criticize each other for the very same behavior.
"Playful and childlike, not lustful" sounds like something someone who's very sexually dysfunctional would say. I think a lot of these religious folks must think that everyone else shares their own sexual pathologies.
"Think of yourself like the drinking bird. You know, the one you put water in and it makes it peck? No feelings, no good or bad, just clockwork motion back and forth. Be like that. Be like the pecker."
Actually, lust is a natural feeling that occurs in humans and is not a conscious decision on our parts. So if God didn’t want us feeling it, he shouldn’t have given us things like hormones and sex drives when he was creating us.
A benevolent god would have just made us without genitals and either gave us access to the golem spell he used to create Adam or when a couple was ready just pray for God to magic up a healthy baby
Not a Christian but the obvious rebuttal would be that the fact that you're tempted to sin doesn't mean that it's good to commit sin. There is also a difference between sexual arousal and the Christian idea of lust, especially sinful lust. It's the reason why Christians are cool with a husband and wife having sex with each other.
Is there a reason God would be all good, all powerful, all knowing, and then give humans a powerful drive that's nearly impossible to ignore? If anything, I'd be thinking "Ah, those are the tools God gave me to ensure I can complete my goal".
What about it? Looking at a woman with lustful intent is an active action, think ogling a woman's tits or ass or fantasizing about having sex with her. It's different from just glancing at a woman and finding her attractive.
So if you had a gun and a particularly bad day at school, would you think god wants you to commit a shooting since he’s given you the ability to feel emotions?
No, but that doesn't mean the emotion is bad. The anger from your bad day of school is real, and its something you should consider talking to someone about. You shouldn't suppress the emotion for fear that its sinful, but you ALSO shouldn't act on your emotions just because you feel them.
There was an evangelical Christian (who, in fair play to him, came across as a thoroughly decent individual) who went through the 'Left Behind' series and demolished them from a theological perspective, and one of his comments was just how weird the more extreme Christians make sex. Because they take one of the most powerful human drives and attempt to suppress it, it almost invariably surfaces in weird, twisted ways or utterly insane euphemisms that wouldn't be necessary if they just accepted their sex drives as a part of who and what they are.
you know what else is wonderful? how God sent down his one and only son to die for our sins so that we don't have to go to hell! all we have to do is believe in God and Jesus.
I didn’t “turn away” from god; I studied the Bible and the concept of hell until I realized it didn’t make sense. It wasn’t really a choice so much as a realization.
im not a strong christian, so i cant help you much here, but pray to god for him to be revealed to you, i truly believe you can get through this. we as feeble humans are not meant to comprehend god.
First and foremost - God says he loves all his children equally, but look around, is there ANY evidence of a loving parent at play? "It's all part of God's plan" is the biggest cop out answer to anything and everything. God loves me just as much as Suzy but for some reason his plan involves her getting raped, beaten, and murdered? What the fuck kind of parent would allow that, let alone plan for it? God is not only ok with all the wars and genocide, it's part of his plan? That's not a good plan, I don't care if "only God could understand" that's some narcissistic "ahh" shit right there.
Secondly, God is not a "good guy". Imagine if after World War Two the allied powers rallied up every German boy and killed them. That would be an indescribably horrible war crime, no? That's basically what God did in Egypt during moses' escape. The Pharaoh enslaved them. The Pharoah kept them from leaving. God's issue was 100% with the Pharaoh. What did the omnipotent being do? Killed innocent kids. That's a fucking war crime but somehow he's the good guy in that story? The one being with infinite possibilities chose instead to murder innocent children. Why would I worship him? He's a hypocrite and a narcissist.
He straight up ruined Jobs life as a joke to win a bet with Satan. Nevermind the fact that gambling is bad. God can do anything he wants like murder, gamble, and lie, even though he would torture you for eternity if you did it.
If God was your friend's boyfriend you'd be trying to get them into domestic services. "You can't question anything I do." "Everything I do has a plan, just trust me. But I can't tell you anything." "I'm sorry I'm hurting you, I love you, I promise" "you better love me back or else" "you better do what I say or I'll hurt you later" is the type of shit narcissistic abusive boyfriends say. God is a straight up asshole, why would I worship him?
I don't care if he's real or imaginary tbh. Either way he doesn't deserve my worship, belief, or love
yes because describing out-of-context old-testament god as sinful despite the fact people back then do much worse and the fact that god literally can't sin.
we deserve infinite torture, but we have an easy way out thanks to gods sacrifice. would you rather go to infinity hell, or change 0.1% of your personality?
A person who believes in the god talked about in the bible, who believes in the concept of spirit and of an afterlife, and who believes Jesus Christ is the son of god who died for our sins and tried to teach us the just way to live and to, by result, be allowed into the house of god after death. All of what I said can be interpreted and absorbed into you in different ways. Not everyone believes in the concept of heaven and hell the same way, nor in the genesis of the world and many other things associated with christianity, but to be a christian you fundamentally need to keep the way Jesus lived in your head and tie it to your spirit. It is not about trying to live a life with certain values just to go to heaven and avoid hell, neither is it about believing by the letter in everything the bible, like creation and the role of mankind on earth. Many of the passages in the bible are written by humans interpreting god's word, and conveying that in stories that, just like literature nowadays, are meant to be read not at face value but in context to find their meaning. When I went to bible study when I was young, every session was a story in the bible, and we talked about the spiritual and above all the human lessons that could be taught with each one of them. In all my years of study I don't remember one thing was taught to me in a dogmatic way, and that I would consider a morally bad thing to do in a human sense. That's why I continued being Christian, and that's why I see value in religion, never as a set of rules written millennia ago that separate you from eternal damnation or glory, but as a human and spiritual institution that constantly reflects and is open to change.
Not sure If anyone has ever told you. The point of being a Christian it to become "Christ like". Jesus never wanted a religion. He was a man that wanted more love and companion in the world. He wanted people to find the kingdom of heaven within because this world is hell.
Actually study what Jesus said. Not just the churches interpretation
Man people on reddit really equate being religious to being an idiot. Like for them you are automatically stupid and worthy to be talked down to JUST for believing in god, no matter the way you insert religion into your life or the good or bad you give to the world because of it. Actual idiots who make the world a worse place...
Because in many cases the label is warranted (idiot as an individual who lacks intellect) although not justifying the being talking down just by the fact of being religious
The op of the comment who expressed willful ignorance: "critical thinking WILL make me athiest, which is why i don't" showing clear lack of intellectual ability which would label them as an idiot by definition
For someone to be an idiot the good or bad you think they do doesn’t matter, someone could bring what you consider to be goodness into the would but they could still classify as an idiot or have a considerably reduced intellect, same thing would happen if they brought what you consider as evil into the would, hence why being an idiot is not related to "good" or "bad"
But the comment I was reacting to painted the act of being religious in itself as stupid and paints everyone religious as having a lack of critical thinking. That for me is ignorant, as it fails to acknowledge the different ties people have to religion and many times generalizes their beliefs. It's like saying every cave diver is stupid, just because they do what seems to be a very non-rewarding really dangerous thing. In reality many cave divers may be just adrenaline junkies who fail to understand the consequences and risks they face doing what they love, but there are probably people with healthy relationships with the hobby that know to measure risk and have derive positive results to their lives because of it. Generalization is the death of valid human to human discourse. Even pattern recognition should only be considered a tool when discussing broader societal problems and that is if it's used with good intentions. But i think we think the same thing anyways
I don’t agree with the claim that being religious on itself is stupid or that all religious people deserve the label of stupid, I do believe that everyone who hold a religious belief lacks critical thinking in some way at holding the belief but that doesn’t classify them as stupid
Your statement was correct but the caver diver analogy is not accurate, cave divers don’t make extraordinary claims or expect to find magic in caves, they are clearly aware of what wold happen, know the consequences and are justified in their belief about cave diving, you seem to be confused about the definition of "idiot"
I could jump off a cliff into concrete, if I knew what I was doing and my belief in what would happen to me is logically warranted then I wouldn’t classify as an idiot, I wouldn’t be showing a lack of intellectual capacity in doing the action, if I in the other hand jumped expecting to fly away at mid hair then I would classify as an idiot, this is analogous to what happens with many religious people, they hold a belief in something that is logically unwarranted, just like I did in the scenario if me flying mid hair
not to say they can't improve, but they are honestly quite annoying if i do say so myself (not talking about anyone in particular nor generalizing the entirety of athiest redditors)
Not talking about you sorry. It's the other guy, whose answer and overall demeanor I've heard way more than "I don't believe god is real, please be critical of your religious beliefs and don't insert dogma into your life without consideration", which is clearly what you went through and are politely trying to convey, and I respect that. Again I'm sorry for indirectly "attacking" you
Well, I supposed that depends on whether or not you interpret my saying that it isn’t true as “insulting the religion” or a factual statement of my own personal
Beliefs.
Like a foot isn’t sexual AT ALL it isn’t even a secondary sexual feature on the body; but participating in foot jobs or participating in fetish-based proclivities is sexual. A penis going into a vagina/mouth/rectal cavity is sexual, a hand depends on what motion is occurring. This isn’t cultural. At all.
Or maybe its like if you're a dude and your lady friend wants to skinny dip with you, it doesnt automatically mean you've been given consent to try to sleep with her, she could just love to do risky things? Idk this is weird
That is because you are being conditioned into thinking certain acts are sexual. The term "sexual" itself is based on cultural values. On the other hand, sex, is a natural biological concept.
I mean, two beetles fucking is "🤓☝️ sexual" technically, even if it's just their butts stuck together, salmon depositing eggs and casting sperm is the same thing, I think that kinds not interfacing with their point though.
I wonder if they meant "sex isnt inherently taboo", which would make their entire argument make wayyyy more sense. The taboo is a social construct, and society and the media has been what pushes that idea.
Tbh water isn't wet itself. It makes things wet. The definition, dictionary definition, of wet s "covered in or saturated with water or another liquid."
So, at least in terms of Christianity, ‘lust’ refers to sexual ideation about a person you are not married to. You cannot technically commit the sin of lust towards your spouse.
Lust is being sexually attracted to another person. It is bad, because it turns that person into an object of one's desire. Love is selfless, and lust is selfish.
I mean, I kind of get it? I spend a lot of time in sex-positive progressive circles and an idea we bring up a lot is that sex is just a normal activity that humans are naturally inclined to partake in as opposed to something that is inherently dirty or immoral.
That’s my generous reading of the post though, it’s entirely possible this person is spouting nonsense, I can’t really tell.
Basically. Could you imagine just walking into a party and fucking someone as a greeting? Tipping your fucking hat and then just going at it in seconds.
Err? I can see the intent, as I'm from Europe, and have an education in such things, and the guy does use a lot of correct terminology and phenomenology, and the full post is somehow still complete word salad.
Reminds me of ai. Don't think it is. But its that sounding logical and very well articulated while also being utter nonsense I typically only experience with AI.
Logic is only the observable and measurable about something. No one can decide anything on logic alone. For example, fire is hot. What can you argue on that?
To form an argument, you need an emotional component and then combine the two inputs.
For example, touching the fire would hurt, because it's hot, and pain is bad.
Then you can form the rational argument, never touch the fire with your bare hands.
Unlike with logic, people can make decisions on emotions alone, which will result in an illogical argument or decision. For example, never touch the fire.
I doubt AI was used for that as AI can only emulate emotions, and that post is way too genuinely emotional. It's word salad because of the conclusions based on the arguments, rather than how the arguments are constructed. Everything up to the conclusion itself makes perfect sense. For example, in European culture, breast feeding is seen as something normal, and in the USA it's seen as something sexual because, naked breast = sexual.
Look, as someone who frequently talks about the over sexualization of things, I gotta say this is definitely too much lol there’s definitely something to be said about how we construct what is and is not considered sexual within context and what is and is not considered sex, but “sex isn’t inherently sexual” is wild.
No I agree. If the OP of the post in the screenshot had said “breasts aren’t sexual” I would’ve agreed 100% but this is just wild. Sex is inherently- say it with me Sexual. Almost like it’s right there in the name.
Definition of sexual: relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.
This person is talking complete nonsense
My girlfriend in high school would say stuff like this. Not about sex necessarily, but that kind of 'if you think about it' nonsense. She was actually really smart we just smoked too much weed.
Like wtf do you mean sex is not sexual, you can literally create and share an entire human from the experience!! If that's not the most intimate form of human interaction gen z is cooked with the perception of real intimatcy💀
You might have a point. If the onion had a philosophy section, this would fit there brilliantly.
But, hear me out in this:
There are much more stupid people than there a brilliant satiricists.
I feel like they're using a heavily misguided definition of sexual under which this point actually makes sense. Now to actually find the word they wanted to use instead
Plenty of religious people believe this. Some of them consider sex for anything other than procreation to be sinful, that we should have sex only to bring forth the next generation. Some believe that if you happen to enjoy it, that’s ok, just as long as you get the job done. Unless you’re a woman, then you’re never supposed to enjoy it haha.
but lol how sex being sexual bad? sexual behaviour and lust isnt automatically wrong, its natural human behaviour and desire to crave sex and feel attraction. i dont like posts like these because it implies somehow lust is bad and dirty, and lustless sex is innocent. maybe im overthinking
I started reading this thinking “ok, fair enough, they’re talking about how the social taboos, cultural perceptions and eroticism etc as a whole aren’t inherent to sex and are variable between societies and people, but haven’t found the best words for it” but the “polite greeting” fucking took me out. Now there’s a concept for r/worldjerking
Sure and us eating food is just jaws chomping away… there is nothing deeper than that. Would give anyone the right to shove anything down anybody’s throat right?! After all eating is just jaws chomping away.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're onto something, despite expressing it poorly
Plenty of acts aren't inherently sexual, but can be if the people partaking in it decide that it is. Is choking sexual? No, except for when it is. And the only difference between sexual and non-sexual choking is "do the people involved think of it as sexual?"
I mean I guess two asexual people could have purely biomechanical sex with no feeling of lust or desire (if they wanted to reproduce or whatever). Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not asexual.
But to say media caused the idea of sex being something sexual is wild.
They literally said that a penis going in a vagina isn’t sexual. That line alone makes me very weary that the OP has any idea what they are talking about.
I think assuming they do know what they’re talking about requires a VERY generous reading imo. If you want to believe they meant “taboo” then fine, you could be right. Just reads like something i would’ve said at 14 thinking I was smarter than everyone else and wanted everyone else think so too.
My read is that they by sexual they mean sexually taboo. After all, we prevent children from viewing pornography on the grounds that it's "sexual", implying that sexuality is an inherently shameful act that should be hidden. That facet of sexuality, it being shameful, is what I think the post is talking about. Except instead of spelling that out, they use "sexuality" point blank, which just sounds really dumb because it's clearly false.
If that wasn't their intent, this post just doesn't make sense in the slightest, even for an edgy 14-year-old. Like making a whole post about how how 1 + 1 doesn't ACTUALLY equal 2. I guess I could be wrong though.
1- breast are sensitive, many women get turned on when they are touched
2- biologically, one of the breast functions is to indicate feritility AKA atract men, just like wide hips, wich are an indication that a woman can probably survive childbirth, big breasts are an indication that a woman can feed a child, wich in the antiquity would be a pretty important factor when choosing couple
3- Most cultures seem to agree that breasts are sexual, from christian cultures to arabs and chinese, there are not really a lot of exeptions on cultures where women arent expected to cover their breasts (especially if we ignore cultures that accept full nudism because then breast being or not sexual is a non factor)
4- I fucking get turned on with breasts? like, sorry, but i think every straight man and lesbian woman will agree with me in that one.
I can kind of understand this though, like imagine a lavender marriage couple where neither is attracted to the other but forces themselves to have sex to make a kid, is it really sexual at that point? Like sexual to me means lustful, the racing heartbeat, the attraction, which wouldn't be present with just the physical motions of sex.
That’s a bad definition of sexual and a problematic one. By this logic, someone could SA someone but claim they weren’t attracted to the victim etc and by your definition wouldn’t be SA.
I understand your viewpoint to an extent but I do disagree. In your example, it would still be sexual just without emotional aspects. You don’t need both for it to be sexual. It usually does, but isn’t a requirement in much the same way NBA players aren’t always super tall. Most are, and it certainly helps a lot but you don’t have to be 2m+ tall. It’s not the best example, but it was the first analogy, but it is the first one that came to mind.
Uhhh yeah not to such a severe extent as STD’s do lol let’s all just have an orgy since coughing and breathing in someone’s direction also spreads diseases and not just intercourse🤣🤣🤣 /s
You can literally transmit every STD nonsexually. Like getting someones blood into your eyes. Nothing to do with sex per se, just that having sex is the most common way to come in contact with somebodies bodily fluids.
Even without the STD argument if this was used as a casual friendly gesture all types of gross shit that already happens would happen even more almost regularly like inc3st and p3d0phikia and their arguments would be “well I’m just giving a nice gesture” there’s a million ways this could get abused
This is an automatic reminder that is posted on every submission.
If you see a post that is not following the subreddit rules, or you think is not following the subreddit rules, please, use the report function so that we are aware of this. If you don't report, we will not know! Do not sit in the comment section and moan that 'this doesn't fit' or 'wow, the mods should remove this!' because we don’t know (unless we so happen to be scrolling through the subreddit) if you do not report it.
Please note: if this is too hard do not directly message us, we will assume posts are fine otherwise as comments are not useful in reporting. We can see if something has been reported and telling us you did, while you clearly did not, is not going to be conducive.
Please report any and all behavior violating the Rules (reports go to us mods); don't report things just because you don't like them.
Comment removals and bans are at the judgment of the mods, so please take the time to read and understand our Rules. You can also read about this change here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
They have a point. Men trip and fall and accidentally slide their penis into vaginas all the time.
It's true, happened to my ex!! He suffered a concussion, not from the fall itself but from the aftermath. Strangest thing 🤷♀️
Dre: "Wait, what if there’s an explanation for this shit?"
Em: "What, she tripped, fell, landed on his dick?"
https://youtu.be/VYdzBKEiZl4?si=w2hipkWzTSUUg0Y7
Can you cut off the ?si and everything after it that's a tracker
https://youtu.be/VYdzBKEiZl4 I wasn’t aware of that! Thanks for letting me know.
There’s a point there it’s just a really obvious and basic point conveyed in the most confusing way possible
Amazing. I actually heard genuine comments along these lines when I was an evangelical Christian, because after teaching us sex and lust were sinful, they then had to persuade us to still breed.
I've never heard of any denomination or sect that claims "a penis sliding in and out of a vagina... could just be a polite greeting or totally innocent gesture?"
Would make the Sunday morning greeting team and passing of the peace a lot more interesting, though!
I was deadass taught that sex within Christian marriage was actually (and this is quote) “playful and childlike, not lustful”. I don’t even want to get into the implications of such teachings in light of the constant sexual abuse scandals that plague the church.
My wife was a witness, when she was 9 a 19 or 21 year old was msging her on AIM asking her inappropriate things etc. Her dad was obviously disgusted, but the church simple reprimanded the young man saying "he should have asked her father" or courted her or some amazingly wild shit. These kinda things are why pedophilia is so often found in evangelical families
Evangelicals disgust me
Don’t attribute an act by a small subsection of people to the entire religion or you could make that claim against any religion. Or any group of people of all for that matter.
Oh I’m not. I’m a Catholic—I fw the teachings of Christ heavy. What I don’t fw are Christian Nationalists, Fundamentalists, people who read the KJV, megachurches, prosperity gospel, etc etc etc. I know that seems hypocritical to the average redditor considering our church’s history from the Borgia papacy to more recent times with the child molestation. But I knew Reddit would eat my original comment up moreso than some judge penitent spiel like this one.
In short, I understand it was a broad generalization.
Agreed, it’s just the principle of hating a whole batch of apples if just 1 or 2 or bad.
(I’m probably about to get flamed and downvoted into the shadow realm, but screw it, we ball)
And then they still have the audacity to mock "that" abrahamic religion for child marriage. The irony is unreal.
EDIT: I’m not arguing that one side is better than the other. My point is that both parties have troubling histories involving allegations of sexual misconduct with minors, and despite this, they criticize each other for the very same behavior.
Goomba fallacy
r/goombafallacy
"Playful and childlike, not lustful" sounds like something someone who's very sexually dysfunctional would say. I think a lot of these religious folks must think that everyone else shares their own sexual pathologies.
Bonobos use sex in this way. Litterally used as a getting and innocent gesture
Bonobos also use sex to resolve conflict instead of violence. Its a very interesting thing to read about. Imagine if human society operated this way.
You and your buddy get into an argument? Prepare the bedroom for some conflict resolution
Do you not kiss the homies?
We aren’t bonobos bud
Your are!
"Think of yourself like the drinking bird. You know, the one you put water in and it makes it peck? No feelings, no good or bad, just clockwork motion back and forth. Be like that. Be like the pecker."
Remember the loop hole is to create a baby every time! Cause then it’s not fornication. But nvm the times you were trying and couldn’t convince?
listen very carefully to what they say. sex is not sinful. porn, adultery, prostitution, etc. is.
Actually, lust is a natural feeling that occurs in humans and is not a conscious decision on our parts. So if God didn’t want us feeling it, he shouldn’t have given us things like hormones and sex drives when he was creating us.
A benevolent god would have just made us without genitals and either gave us access to the golem spell he used to create Adam or when a couple was ready just pray for God to magic up a healthy baby
Not a Christian but the obvious rebuttal would be that the fact that you're tempted to sin doesn't mean that it's good to commit sin. There is also a difference between sexual arousal and the Christian idea of lust, especially sinful lust. It's the reason why Christians are cool with a husband and wife having sex with each other.
My argument is always "if god made everything, and he's aware of everything, then he wants me to feel whatever I'm feeling now".
Feeling is different from acting on those feelings though.
Is there a reason God would be all good, all powerful, all knowing, and then give humans a powerful drive that's nearly impossible to ignore? If anything, I'd be thinking "Ah, those are the tools God gave me to ensure I can complete my goal".
Pretty sure this gets answered by the very basis of free will and the garden of Eden.
Matthew 5:28??
What about it? Looking at a woman with lustful intent is an active action, think ogling a woman's tits or ass or fantasizing about having sex with her. It's different from just glancing at a woman and finding her attractive.
So if you had a gun and a particularly bad day at school, would you think god wants you to commit a shooting since he’s given you the ability to feel emotions?
I never feel like commiting a mass killing, regardless of how mad I am.
Is that something the average person genuinely struggles with? Because I feel like that's a fringe kind of situation.
No, but that doesn't mean the emotion is bad. The anger from your bad day of school is real, and its something you should consider talking to someone about. You shouldn't suppress the emotion for fear that its sinful, but you ALSO shouldn't act on your emotions just because you feel them.
Lust lmao. You do not need to shame yourself or others for literally just *being horny.* I'm so glad I got out
There was an evangelical Christian (who, in fair play to him, came across as a thoroughly decent individual) who went through the 'Left Behind' series and demolished them from a theological perspective, and one of his comments was just how weird the more extreme Christians make sex. Because they take one of the most powerful human drives and attempt to suppress it, it almost invariably surfaces in weird, twisted ways or utterly insane euphemisms that wouldn't be necessary if they just accepted their sex drives as a part of who and what they are.
Nothing is sinful; god doesn’t exist. You’re free and so am I, isn’t that wonderful?
Careful. People who rely on religion for their own morality probably should stay religious.
If the threat of being sent to Hell is the only thing stopping people from being violent animals, I'd rather they felt threatened
you know what else is wonderful? how God sent down his one and only son to die for our sins so that we don't have to go to hell! all we have to do is believe in God and Jesus.
Ahhh yes…the all powerful god who could save us all is generously saving anyone who believes in the teachings of a man from the ancient middle-east.
I was a Christian for a long time, my deconstruction was well-informed. This stuff isn’t real.
here's the scoop: i refuse to deconstruct because i don't want to turn away from god and become athiest
I didn't read up on the obvious flaws in a flat earth model from fear of turning away from it and becoming a globehead!
you do you! :D
Ohh your an internet troll
i ragebait those who ragebait me. i dispute those who dispute me. i compliment those who compliment me and ignore those who ignore me.
I didn’t “turn away” from god; I studied the Bible and the concept of hell until I realized it didn’t make sense. It wasn’t really a choice so much as a realization.
im not a strong christian, so i cant help you much here, but pray to god for him to be revealed to you, i truly believe you can get through this. we as feeble humans are not meant to comprehend god.
You preaching in a reddit thread kinda means you're a strong Christian, buddy. Also the total lack of critical thinking.
critical thinking WILL make me athiest, which is why i don't
also i was not the initiator
Well, I appreciate the intent and send you my best wishes as well.
thank you
If God is all-powerful, why do children get cancer?
The answer is either because He wants them to, or he isn't all-powerful.
theodicy fallacy.
That's not an actual logical fallacy.
It is wonderful that I can believe in an imaginary being to avoid imaginary punishment in an imaginary torture chamber! Praise be or whatever lol
1 christian vs 100 athiests -ahh arguement
Ok lol I'll give you some real arguments
First and foremost - God says he loves all his children equally, but look around, is there ANY evidence of a loving parent at play? "It's all part of God's plan" is the biggest cop out answer to anything and everything. God loves me just as much as Suzy but for some reason his plan involves her getting raped, beaten, and murdered? What the fuck kind of parent would allow that, let alone plan for it? God is not only ok with all the wars and genocide, it's part of his plan? That's not a good plan, I don't care if "only God could understand" that's some narcissistic "ahh" shit right there.
Secondly, God is not a "good guy". Imagine if after World War Two the allied powers rallied up every German boy and killed them. That would be an indescribably horrible war crime, no? That's basically what God did in Egypt during moses' escape. The Pharaoh enslaved them. The Pharoah kept them from leaving. God's issue was 100% with the Pharaoh. What did the omnipotent being do? Killed innocent kids. That's a fucking war crime but somehow he's the good guy in that story? The one being with infinite possibilities chose instead to murder innocent children. Why would I worship him? He's a hypocrite and a narcissist.
He straight up ruined Jobs life as a joke to win a bet with Satan. Nevermind the fact that gambling is bad. God can do anything he wants like murder, gamble, and lie, even though he would torture you for eternity if you did it.
If God was your friend's boyfriend you'd be trying to get them into domestic services. "You can't question anything I do." "Everything I do has a plan, just trust me. But I can't tell you anything." "I'm sorry I'm hurting you, I love you, I promise" "you better love me back or else" "you better do what I say or I'll hurt you later" is the type of shit narcissistic abusive boyfriends say. God is a straight up asshole, why would I worship him?
I don't care if he's real or imaginary tbh. Either way he doesn't deserve my worship, belief, or love
yes because describing out-of-context old-testament god as sinful despite the fact people back then do much worse and the fact that god literally can't sin.
we deserve infinite torture, but we have an easy way out thanks to gods sacrifice. would you rather go to infinity hell, or change 0.1% of your personality?
How was anything out of context? I literally gave the context rofl.
Take care mate.
Okay, so as a gnostic(myself). What do you think a Christian is supposed to be?
A person who believes in the god talked about in the bible, who believes in the concept of spirit and of an afterlife, and who believes Jesus Christ is the son of god who died for our sins and tried to teach us the just way to live and to, by result, be allowed into the house of god after death. All of what I said can be interpreted and absorbed into you in different ways. Not everyone believes in the concept of heaven and hell the same way, nor in the genesis of the world and many other things associated with christianity, but to be a christian you fundamentally need to keep the way Jesus lived in your head and tie it to your spirit. It is not about trying to live a life with certain values just to go to heaven and avoid hell, neither is it about believing by the letter in everything the bible, like creation and the role of mankind on earth. Many of the passages in the bible are written by humans interpreting god's word, and conveying that in stories that, just like literature nowadays, are meant to be read not at face value but in context to find their meaning. When I went to bible study when I was young, every session was a story in the bible, and we talked about the spiritual and above all the human lessons that could be taught with each one of them. In all my years of study I don't remember one thing was taught to me in a dogmatic way, and that I would consider a morally bad thing to do in a human sense. That's why I continued being Christian, and that's why I see value in religion, never as a set of rules written millennia ago that separate you from eternal damnation or glory, but as a human and spiritual institution that constantly reflects and is open to change.
a christian believes in god, the true God, and how He resurrected Jesus from the dead, Jesus being how we don't go to hell for our sins
Not sure If anyone has ever told you. The point of being a Christian it to become "Christ like". Jesus never wanted a religion. He was a man that wanted more love and companion in the world. He wanted people to find the kingdom of heaven within because this world is hell. Actually study what Jesus said. Not just the churches interpretation
You know what else is wonderful? Santa delivers us gifts and the tooth fairy leaves money under our pillows!
yes!! you get it now!!!
Oh you're actually just rqgebaiting
i am a mirror; i ragebait you when you ragebait me
Oh you're actually just rqgebaiting
im christian though so im ragebaiting to show you christians have a sense of humor too
Man people on reddit really equate being religious to being an idiot. Like for them you are automatically stupid and worthy to be talked down to JUST for believing in god, no matter the way you insert religion into your life or the good or bad you give to the world because of it. Actual idiots who make the world a worse place...
Because in many cases the label is warranted (idiot as an individual who lacks intellect) although not justifying the being talking down just by the fact of being religious
The op of the comment who expressed willful ignorance: "critical thinking WILL make me athiest, which is why i don't" showing clear lack of intellectual ability which would label them as an idiot by definition
For someone to be an idiot the good or bad you think they do doesn’t matter, someone could bring what you consider to be goodness into the would but they could still classify as an idiot or have a considerably reduced intellect, same thing would happen if they brought what you consider as evil into the would, hence why being an idiot is not related to "good" or "bad"
But the comment I was reacting to painted the act of being religious in itself as stupid and paints everyone religious as having a lack of critical thinking. That for me is ignorant, as it fails to acknowledge the different ties people have to religion and many times generalizes their beliefs. It's like saying every cave diver is stupid, just because they do what seems to be a very non-rewarding really dangerous thing. In reality many cave divers may be just adrenaline junkies who fail to understand the consequences and risks they face doing what they love, but there are probably people with healthy relationships with the hobby that know to measure risk and have derive positive results to their lives because of it. Generalization is the death of valid human to human discourse. Even pattern recognition should only be considered a tool when discussing broader societal problems and that is if it's used with good intentions. But i think we think the same thing anyways
I don’t agree with the claim that being religious on itself is stupid or that all religious people deserve the label of stupid, I do believe that everyone who hold a religious belief lacks critical thinking in some way at holding the belief but that doesn’t classify them as stupid
Your statement was correct but the caver diver analogy is not accurate, cave divers don’t make extraordinary claims or expect to find magic in caves, they are clearly aware of what wold happen, know the consequences and are justified in their belief about cave diving, you seem to be confused about the definition of "idiot"
I could jump off a cliff into concrete, if I knew what I was doing and my belief in what would happen to me is logically warranted then I wouldn’t classify as an idiot, I wouldn’t be showing a lack of intellectual capacity in doing the action, if I in the other hand jumped expecting to fly away at mid hair then I would classify as an idiot, this is analogous to what happens with many religious people, they hold a belief in something that is logically unwarranted, just like I did in the scenario if me flying mid hair
not to say they can't improve, but they are honestly quite annoying if i do say so myself (not talking about anyone in particular nor generalizing the entirety of athiest redditors)
I’m not doing that at all.
Not talking about you sorry. It's the other guy, whose answer and overall demeanor I've heard way more than "I don't believe god is real, please be critical of your religious beliefs and don't insert dogma into your life without consideration", which is clearly what you went through and are politely trying to convey, and I respect that. Again I'm sorry for indirectly "attacking" you
It's fine to not be Christian or believe in God, but to actively insult the religion is just unnesecairy
I’m not insulting the religion, I am voicing my disagreement with its teachings as a former evangelical Christian.
You kinda phrased it like you were
Well, I supposed that depends on whether or not you interpret my saying that it isn’t true as “insulting the religion” or a factual statement of my own personal Beliefs.
This gives the same energy as "fellas is it gay to love women?"
Sex is sexual, but being naked isn’t sexual. Doing specific acts while naked is sexual. This isn’t even a gray area. Psuedo-intellectualism.
Like a foot isn’t sexual AT ALL it isn’t even a secondary sexual feature on the body; but participating in foot jobs or participating in fetish-based proclivities is sexual. A penis going into a vagina/mouth/rectal cavity is sexual, a hand depends on what motion is occurring. This isn’t cultural. At all.
and eyes aren’t sexual, but I get turned on by them sometimes
Or maybe its like if you're a dude and your lady friend wants to skinny dip with you, it doesnt automatically mean you've been given consent to try to sleep with her, she could just love to do risky things? Idk this is weird
That is because you are being conditioned into thinking certain acts are sexual. The term "sexual" itself is based on cultural values. On the other hand, sex, is a natural biological concept.
Pseudo intellectualism pisses me off to no end.
I mean, two beetles fucking is "🤓☝️ sexual" technically, even if it's just their butts stuck together, salmon depositing eggs and casting sperm is the same thing, I think that kinds not interfacing with their point though.
If they'd said "erotic" instead of "sexual" I would actually agree. But as stated it's nonsense.
I wonder if they meant "sex isnt inherently taboo", which would make their entire argument make wayyyy more sense. The taboo is a social construct, and society and the media has been what pushes that idea.
But yes, sex is inherently sexual.
Next Thing you tell me water is wet.
Tbh water isn't wet itself. It makes things wet. The definition, dictionary definition, of wet s "covered in or saturated with water or another liquid."
Not arguing but I find this cool!
My water is always covered in lots of other water tho
Impeccable logic tbf
Yes I think this is what they meant. Like sex should not be seen as taboo or scandalous and that there should be healthy conversation on these topics.
I'm pretty sure it's a satire of the take that nudity isn't sexual
oh i havent seen that around. That might be it.
Having trouble with this one
We all are, u/Bradford117. We all are.
Maybe the idea is that its not lustful? Like, having sex without being attracted to the other person? I don't know; I'm grabbing at straws here.
That’s the vibe I got too. Still funny phrasing
Yeah, like sex itself has to be sexual by definition. They could've said this much better if they meant this.
So, at least in terms of Christianity, ‘lust’ refers to sexual ideation about a person you are not married to. You cannot technically commit the sin of lust towards your spouse.
I mean by that definition, yeah. I just meant lust as in a sexual attraction or yearning. Not sure if there is a better word for that I could use.
desire
Well yeah, but desire doesn't have to be sexual. I just meant a single world without putting sexual in front of it.
Lust is being sexually attracted to another person. It is bad, because it turns that person into an object of one's desire. Love is selfless, and lust is selfish.
But they're also saying it could be a polite greeting 💀
At least people would be more social-
That’s how I read it, technically you could procreate without feeling lust
But still kinda silly
I can even jerk off to my canon printer if I want to. Why should I be horny for a woman like society has forced me to? I want my printer.
And the printer wants you, rest assured
Lol nudity isn't inherently sexual and sex is super over stigmatized, but it's definitely sexual.
I mean, I kind of get it? I spend a lot of time in sex-positive progressive circles and an idea we bring up a lot is that sex is just a normal activity that humans are naturally inclined to partake in as opposed to something that is inherently dirty or immoral.
That’s my generous reading of the post though, it’s entirely possible this person is spouting nonsense, I can’t really tell.
I mean. It's kind of a toxic mindset in itself to paint lust as inherently dirty or immoral. It's normal AND lustful/sexual.
Exactly. This paragraph paints being sexual as inherently bad. It is not.
it feels like theyre kind of onto this but just horrible at articulating it😭
Basically. Could you imagine just walking into a party and fucking someone as a greeting? Tipping your fucking hat and then just going at it in seconds.
"Oh, hi Fred"
Bang
Err? I can see the intent, as I'm from Europe, and have an education in such things, and the guy does use a lot of correct terminology and phenomenology, and the full post is somehow still complete word salad.
Reminds me of ai. Don't think it is. But its that sounding logical and very well articulated while also being utter nonsense I typically only experience with AI.
Logic is only the observable and measurable about something. No one can decide anything on logic alone. For example, fire is hot. What can you argue on that?
To form an argument, you need an emotional component and then combine the two inputs. For example, touching the fire would hurt, because it's hot, and pain is bad.
Then you can form the rational argument, never touch the fire with your bare hands.
Unlike with logic, people can make decisions on emotions alone, which will result in an illogical argument or decision. For example, never touch the fire.
I doubt AI was used for that as AI can only emulate emotions, and that post is way too genuinely emotional. It's word salad because of the conclusions based on the arguments, rather than how the arguments are constructed. Everything up to the conclusion itself makes perfect sense. For example, in European culture, breast feeding is seen as something normal, and in the USA it's seen as something sexual because, naked breast = sexual.
Look, as someone who frequently talks about the over sexualization of things, I gotta say this is definitely too much lol there’s definitely something to be said about how we construct what is and is not considered sexual within context and what is and is not considered sex, but “sex isn’t inherently sexual” is wild.
No I agree. If the OP of the post in the screenshot had said “breasts aren’t sexual” I would’ve agreed 100% but this is just wild. Sex is inherently- say it with me Sexual. Almost like it’s right there in the name.
Sounds like someone got caught in someone they shouldn't have been in.
Bush is too old for us to make him pay for NCLB!!!!
Definition of sexual: relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals. This person is talking complete nonsense
'Sex isn't sex if you think about it'
This is the worst reddit post of all time
We've been conditioned to sexualise sex just like we've been conditioned to want to eat when we're hungry lol
My girlfriend in high school would say stuff like this. Not about sex necessarily, but that kind of 'if you think about it' nonsense. She was actually really smart we just smoked too much weed.
SEXual
of course sex is sexual, that's literally where the word came from??
This is what happens when hookup culture participants starts regretting their body count😭
Like wtf do you mean sex is not sexual, you can literally create and share an entire human from the experience!! If that's not the most intimate form of human interaction gen z is cooked with the perception of real intimatcy💀
Satire is lost on so many
You might have a point. If the onion had a philosophy section, this would fit there brilliantly. But, hear me out in this: There are much more stupid people than there a brilliant satiricists.
What
This is the logical conclusion of the whole "desexualizing" craze.
I think I see what they're clumsily trying to say, but it's still fucking dumb.
I mean, yes, if you are a Bonobo chimpanzee.
Water isnt wet type shit
This person needs to try to tell that to victims of sexual abuse and see how far it gets them.
math isn't mathematical. economics isn't economical.
"It's like breastfeeding in public, it's accomplishing a task, it's not sexual thing."
"But sex is a sexual thing!"
Found the Banobo
This dosent go here. Like yeah is a bit corny but he has a point
"per se"
I feel like they're using a heavily misguided definition of sexual under which this point actually makes sense. Now to actually find the word they wanted to use instead
Plenty of religious people believe this. Some of them consider sex for anything other than procreation to be sinful, that we should have sex only to bring forth the next generation. Some believe that if you happen to enjoy it, that’s ok, just as long as you get the job done. Unless you’re a woman, then you’re never supposed to enjoy it haha.
I didn't realize you could oversexualize sex.
polite greeting of sex 😭
but lol how sex being sexual bad? sexual behaviour and lust isnt automatically wrong, its natural human behaviour and desire to crave sex and feel attraction. i dont like posts like these because it implies somehow lust is bad and dirty, and lustless sex is innocent. maybe im overthinking
What a hilariously bad way to look at life.
I started reading this thinking “ok, fair enough, they’re talking about how the social taboos, cultural perceptions and eroticism etc as a whole aren’t inherent to sex and are variable between societies and people, but haven’t found the best words for it” but the “polite greeting” fucking took me out. Now there’s a concept for r/worldjerking
isn't this some pretty obvious satire
We can only hope.
Checkmate Atheists.
This is like when Ray in TPB was trying to justify his drinking problem by saying “What is drunk?”
Sure and us eating food is just jaws chomping away… there is nothing deeper than that. Would give anyone the right to shove anything down anybody’s throat right?! After all eating is just jaws chomping away.
Tbh this actually makes a lot more sense than it has any right to lol.it really depends on what you mean by sex and sexual.
Basically the definition of midwit thinking
I bet whoever wrote this is ace
sex IS inherently sexual, as sexual means related to sex, anything BUT sex isn't inherently sexual
(X) is a social construct, upvotes please!”
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're onto something, despite expressing it poorly
Plenty of acts aren't inherently sexual, but can be if the people partaking in it decide that it is. Is choking sexual? No, except for when it is. And the only difference between sexual and non-sexual choking is "do the people involved think of it as sexual?"
I mean I guess two asexual people could have purely biomechanical sex with no feeling of lust or desire (if they wanted to reproduce or whatever). Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not asexual.
But to say media caused the idea of sex being something sexual is wild.
Sex is obviously sexual. What they mean (and are very bad at conveying) is that sexual shame and taboos associated with sex are cultural.
I think that’s a bit of a stretch.
In what way? It seems like the obvious point to me.
They literally said that a penis going in a vagina isn’t sexual. That line alone makes me very weary that the OP has any idea what they are talking about.
I think assuming they do know what they’re talking about requires a VERY generous reading imo. If you want to believe they meant “taboo” then fine, you could be right. Just reads like something i would’ve said at 14 thinking I was smarter than everyone else and wanted everyone else think so too.
My read is that they by sexual they mean sexually taboo. After all, we prevent children from viewing pornography on the grounds that it's "sexual", implying that sexuality is an inherently shameful act that should be hidden. That facet of sexuality, it being shameful, is what I think the post is talking about. Except instead of spelling that out, they use "sexuality" point blank, which just sounds really dumb because it's clearly false.
If that wasn't their intent, this post just doesn't make sense in the slightest, even for an edgy 14-year-old. Like making a whole post about how how 1 + 1 doesn't ACTUALLY equal 2. I guess I could be wrong though.
HUMANITY IS DOOMED.
In what culture is a penis sliding into a vagina not considered sexual?
r/lostredditors
This redditor is lost in a different way
Way to speak of yourself in third person.
this is what i see when someone say breast are not sexual.
Breasts aren’t sexual though…
Similarly to how butts aren’t sexual either. Or hips, or feet.
Really the only sexual body parts are dicks and clits.
1- breast are sensitive, many women get turned on when they are touched
2- biologically, one of the breast functions is to indicate feritility AKA atract men, just like wide hips, wich are an indication that a woman can probably survive childbirth, big breasts are an indication that a woman can feed a child, wich in the antiquity would be a pretty important factor when choosing couple
3- Most cultures seem to agree that breasts are sexual, from christian cultures to arabs and chinese, there are not really a lot of exeptions on cultures where women arent expected to cover their breasts (especially if we ignore cultures that accept full nudism because then breast being or not sexual is a non factor)
4- I fucking get turned on with breasts? like, sorry, but i think every straight man and lesbian woman will agree with me in that one.
I can kind of understand this though, like imagine a lavender marriage couple where neither is attracted to the other but forces themselves to have sex to make a kid, is it really sexual at that point? Like sexual to me means lustful, the racing heartbeat, the attraction, which wouldn't be present with just the physical motions of sex.
That’s a bad definition of sexual and a problematic one. By this logic, someone could SA someone but claim they weren’t attracted to the victim etc and by your definition wouldn’t be SA.
I understand your viewpoint to an extent but I do disagree. In your example, it would still be sexual just without emotional aspects. You don’t need both for it to be sexual. It usually does, but isn’t a requirement in much the same way NBA players aren’t always super tall. Most are, and it certainly helps a lot but you don’t have to be 2m+ tall. It’s not the best example, but it was the first analogy, but it is the first one that came to mind.
Yeah because something that literally creates human life and spreads diseases can just be used as an innocent gesture mkay sure🙄🤣
Coughing on someone or breathing in their general direction can also “spread diseases.” Just saying.
Uhhh yeah not to such a severe extent as STD’s do lol let’s all just have an orgy since coughing and breathing in someone’s direction also spreads diseases and not just intercourse🤣🤣🤣 /s
Some STDs are relatively harmless and can be completely asymptomatic. Conversely, airborne/droplet transmitted infections can be deadly.
Some STD’s can be deadly too that’s why you have to take caution with both things
You can literally transmit every STD nonsexually. Like getting someones blood into your eyes. Nothing to do with sex per se, just that having sex is the most common way to come in contact with somebodies bodily fluids.
Even without the STD argument if this was used as a casual friendly gesture all types of gross shit that already happens would happen even more almost regularly like inc3st and p3d0phikia and their arguments would be “well I’m just giving a nice gesture” there’s a million ways this could get abused