Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again they are all anonymous. What makes you think that they are not?
I tell you what. Simply admit that you are not a student of the Bible and I will show provide you with evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did God create homosexuality?
- Thread starter Howlstan
- Start date
I tell you what. Simply admit that you are not a student of the Bible and I will show provide you with evidence.
David Weaver
Member
that is about the most ignorant statement I've heard lately. This is the end of any discussion with you. I will never deny God, being a student of the Bible, or anything else that deals with my faith for any reason EVER. I will pray for you at this point there is no reasoning with you so I wash my hands of this
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You can't have it both ways. Anyone that has seriously studied the Bible at all knows that they are anonymous. The names were added later. They were written by men well educated in classical Greek. That excludes all of the disciples alone.
So, assuming people are smart enough to know that knowledge of that thing will not bring about any fresh new great ape, how is that different form a gay couple knowing exactly that ? Or a sterile couple, who must know that whatever they do in bed, that will never bring about any carbon based human form.
Is that a symbolic thing? Bonking as long as it simulates the "real" thing? Dear, be sure you get the real conduit to the eternal souls factory, you know, where we urinate, or God might be unpleased.
Is that so? Really?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
So much for Matt 19:12
So, assuming people are smart enough to know that knowledge of that thing will not bring about any fresh new great ape, how is that different form a gay couple knowing exactly that ? Or a sterile couple, who must know that whatever they do in bed, that will never bring about any carbon based human form.
Is that a symbolic thing? Bonking as long as it simulates the "real" thing? Dear, be sure you get the real conduit to the eternal souls factory, you know, where we also pee, or God might be unpleased.
Is that so? Really?
Ciao
- viole
(All below is my opinion.)
What does the sentence with the word "conduit" mean? I genuinely do not understand it and the relation to symbolic.
Either way, yes assuming knowledge as I have been the whole time, for as Pope St. Paul VI said: "The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. 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 have given you the answer as to how it is different I believe three or so times. Is there a failure to communicate the meaning of terms? For I have said "the nature of the act differs," or "the moral object differs" I think. That is the whole and total explanation, which the Pope Saint I just quoted said above in different words. Maybe this article will help for I think there is a gap in term usage: The Object of the Moral Act
Otherwise I am not sure how I can give the same explanation again. Perhaps it is that you do not think of or see natures in acts or moral objects.
(All above is my opinion.)
Last edited:
(All below is my opinion.)
What does this mean? The passage you cited is about people who don't marry.
"The disciples said to him [Jesus], 'If this is the case of a man with his wife, it would be better not to marry!' But he said to them, 'Not everyone can accept this saying but those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born as such from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.'"
He is encouraging those who are able to accept non-marriage, which St. Paul the Apostle also did, and many Saints also did after them saying in essence "if you can take it do it, for it is a more blessed life."
For in other words He is saying: "there are those born unable to marry, there are those who have been made unable to marry by people, and there are those who have made themselves unable to marry for the sake of the kingdom. Whoever can accept this let him accept it."
(All above is my opinion.)
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
What did Gomorrah do? The plot takes place in Sodom?
Indeed, but you can look at other Biblical passages to see what Gomorrah was accused of in my opinion.
Do I have to make a picture? Conduit is the communication channel between penis output and vaginal input. You know, where the souls creation process takes place.
So, what would you think of anal sex between heterosexual couples, then? We both agree, I hope, that the conduits involved do not lead too fresh new souls. Would you revoke blessings to pairs practicing that, too?
Your answer makes sense only if sexual practices "simulate" the purpose of generating instances of new great apes, aka kids. And, as long they simulate that, no matter how pointless that is, you, or your God, are happy with that. Is that so?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Oh, I see now.
In my opinion (as is all that follows): oral, manipulative, anal, and otherwise sex is immoral always. Doesn't matter who is doing it, for the nature of the act differs. This to me is self-evidently consistent with that all moral sexual acts must retain their intrinsic relationship to procreation even if they do not achieve procreation. The nature of the act must remain the same no matter what or else it violates the rule God set forth, that "the only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life," which is a universal rule.
If by "simulate" you mean the same thing as "moral object" or "nature of the act" (and it seems that right now you do) I'd say yes, although using that word is weird and draws new connotations than what I am familiar with. I think you have the idea now though (maybe) so yes, "simulate." The nature of the act must be the same even if it does not actually generate a person.
This also makes sense in the bronze-age sex education context, perhaps even more, with seed and field and barren/infertile and related concepts of uncleanness and murder and so on. Even St. Thomas Aquinas in medieval times references these ideas and it is why the "bloody hands" has been used as it was historically.
Last edited:
The nature of that act? Do you mean that what is metaphysical important is not how we do it, but that the final ejection takes place along the right conduit, no matter how we play that? I am sure that will provide some souls preserving business model to the porn industry around here.
Incidentally, how is anal sex immoral? And if it is, how is that more immoral than vanilla masturbation?
and assuming all those things are bad and sinful, like homosexuality, do you have some mechanisms in your blessings dispensing system that automatically disables blessings for people doing these things? How do them people know they are not blessed, in the same way gays know they are not?
Ciao
- viole
(All below is my opinion.)
How it is done, what is being done, what the end of those two things are, are all contained in that one time "nature of the act." What it is. Separating that is how the "one rule" error proliferated.
As for how anal sex and masturbation are immoral, they are immoral in the same way nearly. Which one is worse is difficult for me to tell, ranking sins like that as I said before is something I need to study more to be able to do with precision, it is the end of my knowledge. But they are immoral in the same way nearly because the law God gave in my opinion is this: "any moral sexual act must be (1) natural (2) marital (3) open to life." They both violate (1) because the intrinsic relationship between those acts (what is being done, separate from what act is next to be done, for that another has to be done to restore a relationship proves that it didn't exist in the first place) and procreation does not exist. (2) might be violated for obvious reasons, whether or not one has a natural or Sacramental marriage when they do this, and whether or not it is done with said spouse, etc. (3) is like (1) in this case, although (3) usually in our modern context is used to go against contraceptive sexual acts (condoms, birth control while having sex, etc).
As for people who do these things being blessed: people who sin can be blessed. What can not be blessed is a same-sex unions (or marriages so-called, for as Pope Francis said reflecting in my opinion the Catholic opinion it is an "incongruence" to speak of same-sex marriage), the union not the persons.
(All above is my opinion.)
So, if X and Y are into vanilla bonking, even if they are both aware that it will lead to nothing, they will be blessed, while X and Y will not be blessed if they perform sexual acts that cannot possibly led to a some human blastocyst.
is that so?
ciao
- viole
In my opinion: the relationships, yes, it is so. (I am assuming the first pair are married and all that and are otherwise fulfilling the laws.) For the acts differ. (Although on blessings I may be wrong for other reasons take it with a grain of salt.)
Last edited:
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
But not homosexuality, interestingly enough.
Good gravy. It's like inventing playing cards, and then commanding that they can only be used to play rummy, but never euchre or canasta. If I were the inventor of those cards, I'd say, "hey, get creative, have fun."
If God invented sex, and gave us parts that fee good in so many ways, I think He'd say, "hey, get creative, have fun!"
I just don't believe any god could be that priggish.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Lol. Actually, I’m fine with spreading moral consideration to artificial beings when they become sentient. Skynet already is mad at us for many reasons and I don’t want poor sexual ethics to add to our problems lol.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
You cannot have the first clues about scripture or you would understand more about the reasoning behind the Old Testament Laws.
And you probably don't understand much about Jesus's scripture either. IMO I have not met many Christians who follow what Jesus spoke about the laws.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Christian scholarship knows the gospels are anonymous and the names were added 2nd century. There is no question of this.
" Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.["
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels
Also the answer to the synoptic problem is now clear. Again Christian scholarship has demonstrated that the source gospel is Mark and the others are creative reinterpretations of it.
The arguments are covered her:
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
97% of the original Greek is copied verbatim from Mark into Matthew. Sometimes pages and pages at a time. So it's definite that Matthew is a reinterpretation. Historian Richard Carrier says they are all written from Mark and each gospel adds it's own political and theological agenda.