Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

The precepts that are in the Bible are given by the Creator to allow sexual activity to be a liberating and satisfying activity between a husband and wife. They are also in place to act as a protection of the human population from the destructiveness of unrestrained sexual activity. From what I have witnessed in society, the stranglehold on people isn't religious constriction as much as the hold that free lance sex can grip them. That said, I have also witnessed where man has over stepped the boundries set by God and made up very constraining rules on what a husband and wife can do in the realm of sex. That is a good example of religion.Science does a very good job of of explaining the why of sexual behavior. It effectivly illuminates what the Bible calls the "Sin Nature" of man as it explains the basic sex drive mechanics as the sole determiner to behavior.

I agree with you. But I draw a distinction between Biblical teaching and religion. I think that the Commandment on Adultery and the exposition of it in Mathew are ment as instruction and as a protection mechanism. They reveal the condiction of man's motives.Religions try to usurp the power and provocation of the Biblical teaching on the ordained use of sex with a legalistic formula that becomes a stranglehold and meaningless. It's like if someone tells you not to play in the street unless it has been sanctioned and properly blocked off for the purpose of a play area, vs trying to keep someone on the sidewalk by screaming at them with your hands around their throat. You would obviously try to break free of the stranglehold reguarldess of the message being verbally conveyed. It is natural for man to go against God's way. That is what became alive in man at the fall. Before the fall, the Bible says that man was innocent but not perfect. If he was perfect, he would not have the ability to cultivate a sin nature. But without the ability to cultivate the sin nature, the concept of choice in the garden would have been absurd. Science describes all this as the natural tendencies. Same phenomenon but with a different discription of origin. Interesting note, long before science described it as a natural result of evolution, the Bible recognized it, tagged it, described it and gave it's origin.

What do you mean by a good person or a bad person. Would you draw a contrast between the two in your perception. I know how I want to answer the question but first I want to know how you catagorize a person in to which column.I believe that people are mostly law abiding but who deffinitly need the laws. I love my friends and family despite their badness. God says that he loves man despite man's badness. How hard would it be for you to love a child who is 90% good? Not hard at all. But take an average child who is 90% bad and try to love them. You still do because love transends the behavioral tendencies.So loneliness is not a condiction contingent on other people's behavior or even your own perception of other people's behavioral tendency. It doesn't mean that bad people cannot do good. It means that the sin nature of man is dominant and guides the behavior to be bad.If people were mostly good, things like prisons, criminal law, court rooms and lawyers would be rare. Locks, car alarms, home security systems, armies, personal firearms, servalience cameras and the like would have a very limited market share instead of being common place items in our society.

No, it's true period. If you are involved in an activity that is outside of the boundries of the Bible's precepts, then you might find it satisfying for a time and even experience the illusion of liberation.But if Sin wasn't fun and satisfying, at least at the onset, who would do it?