Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Friday, August 5, 2011

Sexual Freedom

I remember many years ago, a prostitute rights group in Nevada “COYOTE” (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics) railed against Christianity for saying that having sex with anyone and everyone was wrong.

Aldous Huxley, who wrote “Brave New World” said that he and his atheist friends wanted a world without Creator God and without meaning because that would give them “Liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Yes, sexual freedom. Aren’t we ever free now that Christian morals and values are being driven out of our culture? So free that we can’t stop ourselves from screwing strangers even if it might kill us.

Our Creator knew what secular freedom would bring, so He gave injunctions against sexual immorality i.e. Any sex that takes place outside of marriage between one man and one woman: Acts 15:29, 6:18; Corinthians 10:8, Ephesians 5:3; 1st Thessalonians 4:3

Creator God demands purity in our lives because He is pure. We are to reflect His purity.

Those who fight against their Creator say:
Who needs freedom from unplanned pregnancy?
Who needs freedom from STD’s?
Who needs freedom from abortions?
Who needs freedom from guilt?
Who needs freedom from an emotional roller-coaster?
Who needs freedom from sexual insecurity?

We don’t need peace of mind.
We don’t need the right setting for raising children
We don’t need to know what it’s like to trust our partners
We don’t need true intimacy

We reject this stuff precisely because Jesus says it’s what’s best for us.
And if we do what He says, well, then we won’t be free.


  1. Most atheists get married... and I hate to add it, because it sounds like adding, "In you face," but they also have lower divorce rates (I have a feeling atheism does not cause less divorces, but rather, that atheism is more common among the affluent, who as a group are also less likely to get divorced). I say this just to emphasize that I find it fallacious, both statistically and intellectually, to conflate atheism and sexual deviancy.

    Maybe if the abstinence-only advocates like the the Palin family didn't have two-shotgun weddings to their credit, I would see the value in Christian sexual morality. But the truth is, Christian sexuality failed, being largely irrelevant and outdated.

  2. "the affluent, who as a group are also less likely to get divorced"

    Any ideas as to why that is? I thought that I'd read that affluent people are marrying less often than poor but I might be wrong. Do you have a source?

    Also do you have any ideas as to why the divorce rate among those who identify as Christians is higher than their secular neighbours? I'm writing a book on this so I don't want to give too much away but I'd be interested in at least hearing your opinion if not actually using your opinion in the book. I could give you credit for the thought if you want :-)

    Are you suggesting that sexual intimacy outside of marriage is a form of deviancy?

    I'm not following the flow of thought. It sounds like you're saying that what Jesus taught about the proper use of our sexuality is wrong because two members of the Palin family did not follow it? Or by extention, What Jesus taught about the use of our seuxality is wrong because millions of people who call themselves Christians don't obey what He said. Am I hearing that correctly?

  3. Sexuality is a very good subject for illustrating what I mentioned a few days ago: Christianity, at least your version Rod, spawns a simplistic view of the world.

    Sexual morality = married man + married woman?

    But we all know that it is not true... if it is not consensual it is not ok; if one person contracted a deadly disease and does not inform his/her partner, I would think it's not ok, if the marriage was between an adult and a child, I would not say it's ok. The other way around, what about non-Christian who have been living together for 20 years, had a kid, were always faithful, is it really immoral for them to have sexual intercourse?

    In other words, I agree with most, if not all, of what you wrote in this post, honestly. I am not in favor of sexual promiscuity and I could support almost all of the points you made, but I don't use Jesus' teachings to arrive to that conclusion.

    The other difference is that I consider my personal opinion on the subject to be just that, an opinion. If people want to sleep left and right they should be allowed to. It's barely moral in my opinion and I would never date someone with such background. If I were your wife when you met each other (and you said you were not a Christian yet) I would not have forgiven your past... but I would have been wrong obviously :) Good for her!

    p.s. what's up with asking me a direct question and then not following up on it?

  4. oh and...

    But the truth is, Christian sexuality failed, being largely irrelevant and outdated.

    That was a good summary Ginx!

  5. I don't recall asking you any question. And if you answered it was probably the nature of your answer that led me to not respond.

  6. Hum... I am concerned for you seriously. I hope it does not happen often. I am talking about the post you wrote on... Thursday. You mentioned my name twice in it; directly asking me a question. I replied and was just wondering what the intent of the question was. Nothing very special about it.

    It's interesting to read that the nature of my response can make you ignore what I say though. Tells a lot about the fact that you constantly misrepresent my positions...