Lets face it...Jesus befriended ladies like us...supposedly turned water into wine...and he smoked grass. His mother had an affair with the barn boy, so.....
Christians and Sex
- Thread starter Ripper77
- Start date
Thank you.Chivas Regal said:Perry Mason!
From the shadows, we both have resurected
Your postscript is dead on- pardon the puns...
Of course, I don't "believe" in a resurrection, but we both have, let us say, reappeared... as that damned Cardinal will be doing any time now!
Perry
Like I said earlier...It's all Good!simone said:
Barn boys are people too
, only with animal insticts.Chivas
Sinners one and all...
JHG... you're a heathen and since you obviously are not living in the Grace of God you're already in hell. I hope you're happy, though I doubt it. Of course, there are many material ways to pretend you're happy -- sooner or later though you'll recognize hell for what it is. I've read that pile that you think is a philosophical system. What can I say? Good luck and avoid zebras. Carried to its miserable conclusion, Randians are fascists... and not very good ones at that!
There is a fascinating dicotomy expressed in this thread. The non-believers seem to be determined to impose their pathetic alternatives (whatever name... humanism, spirtualism, higher power, blah, blah, blah) on a well reasoned theology that can blow your silly truisms out of the water with nothing more than a simple priest. (Granted, I'm Catholic and I have professionals working for me on the moral front, unlike those Protestants out there.) Most of you have probably not given any time to some of the theologians who deal with the tougher issues... just as well since you'd have trouble dealing with them.
The believers seem determined show their tolerance. That shows you how weak their faith is. Reading this thread brought to mind the observation that it is really tough to be accepted into the Catholic Church for somebody in the West. Oddly enough, it isn't too hard if you're from the rest-of-the-world. I guess the Church has already written the rest of you off in the battle for souls.
Now, about the Bible. It is a collection of sacred texts. It is not the be-all-end-all of Christian beliefs or texts. It is a good start though. Literal reading of the text is basically retarded. The original texts are in dead languages so the first problem is that of translation. There is no end to the difficulties to this problem and revision is constant. The best English version is the Oxford because it has notes to point you to the correct reading. If you want to read the text sensibly... consult a priest for guidance.
Living life in Grace does not mean doing no wrong. It does, however, require recognizing the wrongs you do and being sorry for doing those wrongs. Forgiveness requires a sincere desire to be forgiven. If you're not sincere, you won't be forgiven by God. You might fool the priest, but that won't really help you.
And so, in answer to the original question, I'd have to say sex outside marriage is considered wrong. Prostitution is also considered a wrong. Fetishes... hmmm, I'm not sure -- some probably are definitely wrongs. Gay sex... wrong (ya, that includes lesbian sex). Now, if you're going to cast stones about any of this... be sure about being free of sin first (not likely). The feeling I get is that the moral guidelines are exactly that. They are fairly solid rules to live by but the Church understands that people are weak. If the Church can understand, God certainly will. Living in Grace does not mean living free of sin. However, that said, don't expect the Church's moral absolutes to be bent because you have trouble living within the boundaries. That type of BS is for protestants.
JHG... you're a heathen and since you obviously are not living in the Grace of God you're already in hell. I hope you're happy, though I doubt it. Of course, there are many material ways to pretend you're happy -- sooner or later though you'll recognize hell for what it is. I've read that pile that you think is a philosophical system. What can I say? Good luck and avoid zebras. Carried to its miserable conclusion, Randians are fascists... and not very good ones at that!
There is a fascinating dicotomy expressed in this thread. The non-believers seem to be determined to impose their pathetic alternatives (whatever name... humanism, spirtualism, higher power, blah, blah, blah) on a well reasoned theology that can blow your silly truisms out of the water with nothing more than a simple priest. (Granted, I'm Catholic and I have professionals working for me on the moral front, unlike those Protestants out there.) Most of you have probably not given any time to some of the theologians who deal with the tougher issues... just as well since you'd have trouble dealing with them.
The believers seem determined show their tolerance. That shows you how weak their faith is. Reading this thread brought to mind the observation that it is really tough to be accepted into the Catholic Church for somebody in the West. Oddly enough, it isn't too hard if you're from the rest-of-the-world. I guess the Church has already written the rest of you off in the battle for souls.
Now, about the Bible. It is a collection of sacred texts. It is not the be-all-end-all of Christian beliefs or texts. It is a good start though. Literal reading of the text is basically retarded. The original texts are in dead languages so the first problem is that of translation. There is no end to the difficulties to this problem and revision is constant. The best English version is the Oxford because it has notes to point you to the correct reading. If you want to read the text sensibly... consult a priest for guidance.
Living life in Grace does not mean doing no wrong. It does, however, require recognizing the wrongs you do and being sorry for doing those wrongs. Forgiveness requires a sincere desire to be forgiven. If you're not sincere, you won't be forgiven by God. You might fool the priest, but that won't really help you.
And so, in answer to the original question, I'd have to say sex outside marriage is considered wrong. Prostitution is also considered a wrong. Fetishes... hmmm, I'm not sure -- some probably are definitely wrongs. Gay sex... wrong (ya, that includes lesbian sex). Now, if you're going to cast stones about any of this... be sure about being free of sin first (not likely). The feeling I get is that the moral guidelines are exactly that. They are fairly solid rules to live by but the Church understands that people are weak. If the Church can understand, God certainly will. Living in Grace does not mean living free of sin. However, that said, don't expect the Church's moral absolutes to be bent because you have trouble living within the boundaries. That type of BS is for protestants.
Marvin,
How ironic that you refer to Objectivists as fascists, when the fascist governments of Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet and others had the backing of the Roman Church.
Again it is ironic that you accuse realists (i.e. those who deal with reality as it really is) of seeking to impose their views. No realist has threatened any theist with death by hellfire. This particularly obnoxious and despicable technique is strictly the province of the small minority of theists whose beliefs have led them to lose their moral compass.
I truly feel sorry for you. At least the protestants and most Roman Catholics do their thinking for themselves. I see you've abdicated your mind and soul to the ill-considered views of the so-called "theologians". Have you actually read Aquinas? Have you actually read Augustine? Anyone with a grade 12 education can blow their theories out of the water. Did you ever wonder why the only growth in the Roman Church occurs among populations where illiteracy is common?
It is not perfect, but it compares favourably to the drivel put forth by Augustine and Aquinas.
How ironic that you refer to Objectivists as fascists, when the fascist governments of Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet and others had the backing of the Roman Church.
Again it is ironic that you accuse realists (i.e. those who deal with reality as it really is) of seeking to impose their views. No realist has threatened any theist with death by hellfire. This particularly obnoxious and despicable technique is strictly the province of the small minority of theists whose beliefs have led them to lose their moral compass.
I truly feel sorry for you. At least the protestants and most Roman Catholics do their thinking for themselves. I see you've abdicated your mind and soul to the ill-considered views of the so-called "theologians". Have you actually read Aquinas? Have you actually read Augustine? Anyone with a grade 12 education can blow their theories out of the water. Did you ever wonder why the only growth in the Roman Church occurs among populations where illiteracy is common?
Since you're gonna be nice about it...
Rand did what? She was a Russian escapee from Communism who blindly accepted unbridled Capitalism as a philosophical ideal. The basic tenets of her belief system were discredited before she wrote them.
You're kidding right? Do your really believe that Rand's followers wouldn't try to impose their beliefs if they had the means? They don't have the means and, frankly, never will.
However, in terms of this thread, I'd have to say that the non-believers were taking great pains to express their heart-felt beliefs in a manner that plainly suggested that failure to agree them implied some deficiency of the other. That's as close to imposing as one can be in a discussion thread.
Augustine adapted Plato to the Church. Saint Thomas reconciled the Church to Aristotle and deserves credit for the modern form of the Church.johnhenrygalt said:
Rand did what? She was a Russian escapee from Communism who blindly accepted unbridled Capitalism as a philosophical ideal. The basic tenets of her belief system were discredited before she wrote them.
The Church did not "back" these dictators, it was being politically realistic.johnhenrygalt said:
Ok... let's quibble about the term "realists" for a moment. The Church is a two thousand year old institution that continues to have relevance to this day. I don't see many states that have survived that long. How realistic would you describe an institution that has managed to survive that long? I would say it is a very realistic institution that is very adept at politics as well as philosophy and theology. The Church has survived wars, revolts, corruption, you name it. Let's be clear about that before suggesting that these guys are unrealistic. Maybe you resent/envy the success of the Church?johnhenrygalt said:
Since I've made a case for the Church being realistic, I will take your use of the term to mean objectivists...johnhenrygalt said:
You're kidding right? Do your really believe that Rand's followers wouldn't try to impose their beliefs if they had the means? They don't have the means and, frankly, never will.
However, in terms of this thread, I'd have to say that the non-believers were taking great pains to express their heart-felt beliefs in a manner that plainly suggested that failure to agree them implied some deficiency of the other. That's as close to imposing as one can be in a discussion thread.
No. They don't. Most people don't think much at all. The amount of time given to moral questions is probably limited to minutes in a day (or week). Most people take on faith their moral norms which have been passed down through their socialization. Catholics have the advantage of having a fairly well thought out and consistent set of moral guidelines to live by. They do not question those guidelines very much.johnhenrygalt said:
No really, theologians is the correct term. I haven't "abdicated" anything. I have accepted that someone who spends a lifetime seriously pondering moral questions may have a bit more insight into those questions than a novice who has little time available for those questions. Honestly, I find it surprising for an objectivist to question merit as a basis for decision-making. Surely theologians have more merit on commenting on morality than me -- or you.johnhenrygalt said:
You're kidding again, right? Have you even seen the collected works of Saint Thomas? There's a lot of stuff you know. It is a lifetime of writing that deserves many lifetimes of pondering (as it has been given by those professionals I've mentioned earlier).johnhenrygalt said:
and now the rest...
Let me guess... you have read a paper critiquing both or better still, you've taken a class where the professor lectured on them for an hour. That, you think, qualifies you to comment intelligently? NOT. <rant>F**king undergrads!</rant> I'll assume you've got some undergraduate education. How much of that was devoted to theology? Let me guess again... not a lot.
Really. I'd like to meet some of those Grade 12 graduates ready to take on Aquinas and Augustine. Most of the kids I meet don't impress me with their theological and philosophical acumen. I assume you feel ready to "blow their theories out of the water." Good luck.johnhenrygalt said:
Let me guess... you have read a paper critiquing both or better still, you've taken a class where the professor lectured on them for an hour. That, you think, qualifies you to comment intelligently? NOT. <rant>F**king undergrads!</rant> I'll assume you've got some undergraduate education. How much of that was devoted to theology? Let me guess again... not a lot.
Because the Church chooses to seek the souls of the rest-of-the-world and the Church makes it very difficult to join the flock for anyone in the west.johnhenrygalt said:
christian have sex for creation of life only, if they are devout christians..only in marriage.
and no they're not allowed to enjoy it.. sucks to be them!! sorry but true..
and no they're not allowed to enjoy it.. sucks to be them!! sorry but true..
I beleive your first part is right,but they are allowed to enjoy it. Nothing wrong with that.God does not want people to be miserable ,but to enjoy and celebrate life. Thanks,Richrdhaired_vixen said:
Just because...
Yes but if you've seen "The Meaning of Life" you'll realize that Catholics take their duty to create life very seriously.rdhaired_vixen said:
Where and when and who says? You can enjoy it all you want... as a matter of fact, the more the better. This whole "sex...bad" thing is protestant as far as I know.rdhaired_vixen said:
Re: Just because...
There is no more fascist organization on the face of the earth than the catholic church when it comes to sex .
Really ? Lol .....Seems to me the Catholic Church is in favour of sex , if.....................................you don't use birth control..........................if you don't do it outside of marriage.......................if you do it solely for procreation.......................if it does not involve sodomy ( except between alterboy and priest of course ) .marvin said:
There is no more fascist organization on the face of the earth than the catholic church when it comes to sex .
Re: Just because...
Have you read St. Augustine? Or are you just talking from what someone told you?
Try the Confessions on for size before you "blame" the Protestants... or any one else!
Perry
Excuse me!marvin said:
Have you read St. Augustine? Or are you just talking from what someone told you?
Try the Confessions on for size before you "blame" the Protestants... or any one else!
Perry
Bump!
Chivas Regal suggested (in another thread) that this is/was a good discussion, and I agree.
So why did it suddenly come to a halt? Does no one have any thing further to add? Are you going to let me (and others) get away with some things said without even a challenge?
Geez! This debate has been going on for ages... elsewhere!
Perry
Chivas Regal suggested (in another thread) that this is/was a good discussion, and I agree.
So why did it suddenly come to a halt? Does no one have any thing further to add? Are you going to let me (and others) get away with some things said without even a challenge?
Geez! This debate has been going on for ages... elsewhere!
Perry
It's funny how people sling arrows over what they believe to be true. It is also an excellent way to see different sides to a story. After I read the Bible, King James version, I found that for ME, it didn't have the answers I was looking for.
And so I took a different route for my spiritual enlightment. To each their own.
I do howver from time to time refer back to the Bible when I learn something new as a reference point, why? I guess because it is a commonality between people. I am not sure really.
I concur with Perry in the sense that I am enjoying sitting back and reading this thread, you learn the darnest thing on an Escort Reveiw website
PS - Some of this shit is over the top...I have to brush up on St. Augustine!
Chivas
And so I took a different route for my spiritual enlightment. To each their own.
I do howver from time to time refer back to the Bible when I learn something new as a reference point, why? I guess because it is a commonality between people. I am not sure really.
I concur with Perry in the sense that I am enjoying sitting back and reading this thread, you learn the darnest thing on an Escort Reveiw website
PS - Some of this shit is over the top...I have to brush up on St. Augustine!
Chivas
