Skip to main content

The Difference Between Sex & Prayer

 Christianity condemns casual sex and masturbation as perhaps the greatest sin. It's one of the famed seven deadly sins, in fact, the sin of lust. Hell, Jesus said even just the thought of lust is a deadly sin.

On the other hand, it also champions the act of praying as one of the greatest virtues. 

But consider the curious contrast between prayer and masturbation.

 While Christianity sees casual sex as purely physical and devoid of emotion, the act of praying is purely emotional devoid of anything physical. One connects a person to their entire body and all of their sensations, while the other disconnects a person from their body and imprisons them in the tower of ideals within the locked room of their own mind.

Praying is a way of asking someone else (God or a saint or an angel or jinni) to do something on your behalf, while telling yourself there's either nothing else you can do anyway, or that praying is the best thing you can do regardless of whatever else you could do.

Christianity therefore condemns physical masturbation as a sin while championing emotional masturbation as  a virtue, for if the former is mindless action the latter is mindful inaction. 

No wonder Mary was "ever virgin" while Jesus had a thing for prostitutes. 

It is also important to understand how sex and prayer reflect a difference prized in Ancient Rome, especially by the first Christians. Sex belonged to the physical body, which received pleasure during the act, while prayer emanated from the mind, which received pleasure during the act as well. Interestingly enough, both stimulate the release of dopamine in our brain, albeit using different triggers to do so.

But because Christians see human flesh as fallen and imperfect, as illustrated by the fact we eventually die, while their "God" is seen as wholly immaterial intelligence,  deriving pleasure from the former is to delight in what is sinful while doing so from the latter is considered "holy."

To save oneself from dying the way the physical body is condemned to do so over the course of life, prayer is offered as a tithing to an omnipotent infinite immaterial consciousness that it may save our own ignorant finite immaterial consciousness from perishing like our flesh, and unify it with its own. 

The sign that such a "God" intends to save the "souls" of such people is illustrated in God becoming "man" in the form of Jesus, and all so such a God could show such "believers" that he could, and would, save their immaterial minds the same way he resurrected Jesus's material body and brain. 

How then can sinful flesh be made in the image and likeness of an immaterial intelligence, and what urge or need led the latter to create the former? And most of all, how can such an "act" of creation of imperfection be interpreted as the result of a perfect creators' "love"? 

 

 

 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Christianity is More Unnatural Than Homosexuality

I grew up in a family that is about as homophobic as Phil Robertson and the Westboro Baptists, only they're not quite as boisterous about it; at least not in public anyway. They have also conveniently convinced themselves  that their homophobia is really just their unique Christian ability to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" (even though these very same Christians adamantly refuse to accept that people can "hate Christianity, but love the Christian").  The sexual superiority complex necessarily relied on by such Christians is, of course, blanketed beneath the lambs wool of the Christian humility of serving "God." They interpret their fear of those who are different, in other words, as simply proof of their intimate knowledge and love of God. And the only thing such Christians are more sure about than that their own personal version of "God" exists, is that such a "God" would never want people to be homosexual - no matter how ma

Christianity: An Addiction of Violence Masquerading as Love: Part II

"But God by nature must love Himself supremely, above all else." Fr. Emmet Carter   This is part  two of a look at an article written about the "restorative and medicinal" properties of punishment, as espoused by Fr. Emmett Carter (https://catholicexchange.com/gods-punishment-is-just-restorative-and-medicinal/).  Ideas of this sort in Christianity go back to St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas - two saints who saw the suffering of Christ as sure fire evidence that God needed humans to suffer to balance the cosmic scales of his love for us. Sure, he could've come up with a better game, or made better humans, but its apparently the suffering he really enjoys seeing. Carter's essay raises countless questions, especially about the true nature of God's blood lust, but lets stick to just four simpler ones. The first question deals with the idea of "free will." According to Christians, God designed us with the ability to freely choose to obey or offend h

Christianity: An Addiction of Violence Masquerading as Love: Part I

If the Holy Bible proves anything at all, it proves that the Christian God has a blood-lust like no other God in history. From Abraham to Jesus to the end times to eternal hell, the Christian God loves suffering even more than, or at least as much as, said God loves Himself. And if everything from the genocides in the Old Testament and God killing everyone on the planet with a flood, to Jesus being tortured and murdered (rather than the devil, who is the guilty one) and the fiery end of the world followed by the never ending fires of hell, are not enough to convince you that Christianity is really an addiction to violence masquerading as "love," just consider the psychotic rantings of a Catholic priest trying to convince his faithful flock that murder and mutilation - which he calls "punishment" -  are proof of just how much his "God" is pure love.  In an article published on https://catholicexchange.com/gods-punishment-is-just-restorative-and-medicinal/,