anal sex between married couples

[Walking_Home]

I know you didn’t make it up. I understand that this great saint DID say sodomy was wrong, even between wife and husband.

And he is right, of course.

The book, Moral Theology doesn’t say that sodomy is licit. It says that anal penetration performed with the intent of being just foreplay, is all together NOT sodomy. Therefore it is licit.

One does not contradict the other.

---

Even Fr. Jone called it sodomy-- he just added the “imperfect” part to it. Sodomy is sodomy.

 

[Debora123]

---

Even Fr. Jone called it sodomy-- he just added the “imperfect” part to it. Sodomy is sodomy.

Ah yes, but then he went on to say that imperfect sodomy is actually not sodomy at all.

Kinda like how mutual masturbation, as foreplay, is really not masturbation at all.

 

[Walking_Home]

Ah yes, but then he went on to say that imperfect sodomy is actually not sodomy at all.

Kinda like how mutual masturbation, as foreplay, is really not masturbation at all.

---

We are not speaking of mutual masturbation—but of sodomy–which is taught as being adultery --when it is between spouses. To what point it is performed–does not change --that it is what it is—sodomy.

 

[underacloud]

This is going round in circles on definitions of sodomy (of which there are many). I foresee no end to this.

 

[minkymurph]

long story short I think priest sex abuse, and most sex abuse in general is much more akin to a misdirected desire for control, power, and domination. more akin to the systematic rape of women in war. it comes from a different place than sexual desire.

Exactly. Rape has little to do with sexual attraction. It has much more to do with the desire for control, power and domination. It is also carried out for the purpose of humiliating the victim and in some cases, the victims spouse.

Child sex abuse also comes from a different place than a natural sexual desire between man and woman, and a natural expression of physical love between a man and his wife. I don’t think either rape or child abuse can be discussed in the same context as what a married couple do in the bedroom. Such association degrades sexual union between man and wife.

Sexual activity between a man and his wife is a very private and intimate matter, and I’m a great believer in respecting other people’s privacy, minding my own business, and there are things that go on between a man and his wife that even the priest doesn’t need to know. Married couples need to make their own decisions based on moral principles, not rules. Those who have a genuine love of God and each other can work it out for themselves. ‘Bedroom rules’ governing how sexual activity should be carried out at least borders on invasion of privacy. How can sexual intercourse be viewed as natural, spontaneous and healthy if the couple concerned are constantly trying to adhere to ‘rules’ and make sure they don’t do anything ‘wrong’ in the bedroom?

The Church has a role to play in guiding people in matters of faith and morals. However, it is not there to micro-manage people’s lives. Sexuality is not a text book operation. Neither is it purely a theological matter. Certainly I’m in favor of promoting a healthy view of sexuality, but it needs to be discussed in relation to the human experience of sexuality and not as a text book operation, and it should not be personalized. However, I’m a bit biased as I don’t really want to know what other people get up to in the private. There’s such a thing as too much information

 

[Syllogisms]

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

1 Corinthians 10:23

 

[secondeve]

Since you’re taking the position that the Church is not infalliable on moral matters, no.

I’m not taking that postion at all. I am ASKING if there are any infallible statements on moral matters, and if so what they are.

 

[secondeve]

---

I never claimed to be infallible. As to your claim to "infallibility/speaking ex-cathedra–should this than mean that we dump every Church teaching that is not an “ex-cathedra” pronouncement. You kinda remind me of the protestants–who argue that the Catholic Church is false because they claim Her teachings as being man made.

I can make nothing of your “Protestant” jibe. As for the rest, your implication is a non sequitur. I would have thought most Catholics would have been aware that eg before the Assumption of Our Lady was defined, every Catholic was entitled not to believe it. As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is no point in having infallible statements if everything is infallible. If something is not infallible, it may be doubted without sin. As far as I can see there is nothing in the current sexual morality which is to be regarded as certain…

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

So I was talking on a thread when the subject of sodomy came up. Someone said that anal sex is always a mortal sin… intrinsically evil.

But I distinctly remember discussing the issue back in collage when I was in the Catholic Student Association, and one of my peers (a knowledgeable and devout Catholic) mentioned that anal sex is ok as long as it is used as marital foreplay and as long as the husband finishes inside his wife… same concept as oral sex.

Don’t get me wrong, I think anal sex is totally gross and uncalled for (no offense to anyone), but I just got confused when I heard 2 opposing views, both coming from practicing Catholics. And so I got curious.

I don’t want anyone’s opinion. I want to know the Church’s position on this, and an official source that proves it.

Is or is not the Church against anal sex in a scenario where a couple is married and using it as foreplay only?

… my dear friend ,

… it is wrong of course , the behind is for waste to come out and not things to go in , this should be pretty obvious but some seem confused , you can rupture anothers colon with this practise and it can happen quite easily , if it does you require immediate emergency surgery to fix it or you may well get waste seep out of the colon into the blood stream and body and it can then even kill you almost instantly , very dangerous , whether condoms are used ( which is unnatural and immoral ) or not you can spread hiv aids or any of the many sexually transmitted diseases this way too as it is very easy to tear the extremely soft tissue around this area when practising this and you can easily get infected then , many of these std’s ruin one for life as you’ll infect any you have sex with – when you get many of them – no cure for many , it is unnatural and as such unsafe and yes immoral too ,hope this helps ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[Newbie2]

… my dear friend ,

… it is wrong of course , the behind is for waste to come out and not things to go in , this should be pretty obvious but some seem confused , you can rupture anothers colon with this practise and it can happen quite easily , if it does you require immediate emergency surgery to fix it or you may well get waste seep out of the colon into the blood stream and body and it can then even kill you almost instantly , very dangerous , whether condoms are used ( which is unnatural and immoral ) or not you can spread hiv aids or any of the many sexually transmitted diseases this way too as it is very easy to tear the extremely soft tissue around this area when practising this and you can easily get infected then , many of these std’s ruin one for life as you’ll infect any you have sex with – when you get many of them – no cure for many , it is unnatural and as such unsafe and yes immoral too ,hope this helps ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

Have you been reading the thread?

1. HIV is a non-isue here. We’re discussing foreplay between a husband an wife, which means that they are presumably about to engage in genital sex, from which HIV is rather easily transmitted from partner to partner. Same goes with the other STD. Ridiculous argument.
2. Colon easily ruptured? Not accurate. Small tears possible? Of course. Likely? Perhaps, based on a few factors. Very easy to do? No. Otherwise people would tear their rectums every time they strained to pass a firm stool.
3. Septicemia kills you “almost instantly”? No, again. Sounds like a plot for a bad sci-fi movie. IF septicemia happens “quite easily”, how come the gay population is still around? You’d think they’d have killed each other off if it was so easy to happen. Fact is septicemia from anal sex is uncommon. More common are rectal fissures (chronic tears in the tissue overlying the sphinctor muscle) which are usually irritating and uncomfortable, but not in the least deadly.
4. Condoms immoral for this sort of use? Read your Catholic Theology. Then explain to us how anal sex is procreative and how condom use in anal foreplay is contraceptive.
5. Stay with us here. This is about husband-wife anal foreplay. Infecting “anyone you have sex with” is only one person.

We get that it’s an unsanitary practice. We get that it’s “gross”. But let’s stick to the question here: anal foreplay between married couples.

There have been good posts arguing against this practice being moral. However, as has been said, the term “sodomy” has been thrown around and not really defined in terms of this discussion.

For those who say that anal foreplay mimics homosexual sex and is therefor immoral, what about oral foreplay? Homosexuals do that too.

My point is that if you condemn anal foreplay between married couples as immoral, you have to do the same for oral foreplay, as the same criteria apply. It is “unnatural”. It is potentially risky. STDs can be transmitted, etc, all the arguments against anal foreplay apply to oral foreplay, if you are consistant in the criteria you use.

If the Church allows oral foreplay, unless a double standard applies, anal foreplay is acceptable as well. I’d like to hear an explanation of how they are different enough, morally speaking, for one to be condemned and the other accepted. I think it would be easier to argue against both than to attempt to differentiate the two.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Have you been reading the thread?

1. HIV is a non-isue here. We’re discussing foreplay between a husband an wife, which means that they are presumably about to engage in genital sex, from which HIV is rather easily transmitted from partner to partner. Same goes with the other STD. Ridiculous argument.
2. Colon easily ruptured? Not accurate. Small tears possible? Of course. Likely? Perhaps, based on a few factors. Very easy to do? No. Otherwise people would tear their rectums every time they strained to pass a firm stool.
3. Septicemia kills you “almost instantly”? No, again. Sounds like a plot for a bad sci-fi movie. IF septicemia happens “quite easily”, how come the gay population is still around? You’d think they’d have killed each other off if it was so easy to happen. Fact is septicemia from anal sex is uncommon. More common are rectal fissures (chronic tears in the tissue overlying the sphinctor muscle) which are usually irritating and uncomfortable, but not in the least deadly.
4. Condoms immoral for this sort of use? Read your Catholic Theology. Then explain to us how anal sex is procreative and how condom use in anal foreplay is contraceptive.
5. Stay with us here. This is about husband-wife anal foreplay. Infecting “anyone you have sex with” is only one person.

We get that it’s an unsanitary practice. We get that it’s “gross”. But let’s stick to the question here: anal foreplay between married couples.

There have been good posts arguing against this practice being moral. However, as has been said, the term “sodomy” has been thrown around and not really defined in terms of this discussion.

For those who say that anal foreplay mimics homosexual sex and is therefor immoral, what about oral foreplay? Homosexuals do that too.

My point is that if you condemn anal foreplay between married couples as immoral, you have to do the same for oral foreplay, as the same criteria apply. It is “unnatural”. It is potentially risky. STDs can be transmitted, etc, all the arguments against anal foreplay apply to oral foreplay, if you are consistant in the criteria you use.

If the Church allows oral foreplay, unless a double standard applies, anal foreplay is acceptable as well. I’d like to hear an explanation of how they are different enough, morally speaking, for one to be condemned and the other accepted. I think it would be easier to argue against both than to attempt to differentiate the two.

… my dear friend ,

… i disagree with you , whilst i may mention extremes in some instances they are still valid and true , i am entitled to give my view as a general view on sodomy , oral sex is unnatural too , but a bigger q is : what is sin really ??? , sin is only sinful if you intend to and are evil in the process , this is true and is the reason why sin is sometimes a sin and sometimes the same sin is not a sin at all , do you need me to explain this more as i will ??? , otherwise if no evil is attached making the sin sinful , then the sin is a mistake you need to try and iron out , and iron out is the key , the only reason we have thes concepts that revolve atround good and evil is that as soon as adam and eve got the forbidden knowledge of good and evil everything became good and evil , and god generally made man and his whole world the opposite of reality , the garden of eden was reality for man and his entire universe and cosmos , man in eden would have made the odd small mistake known here as sin but would learn quickly from it but with no knowledge of good and evil he could not do any evil , you can only do evil if you know what it is and intend to and are evil in your thoughts in your mind or desire in your heart , so sodomy with a husband and wife ( or oral sex ) is just another mistake man must make as man must make mistakes as he learns from trial and error , but with the intent to be evil it becomes a sin because it is unnatural and the evil is attached , but if no evil is genuinely attached then it is no sin and just a mistake to learn from , mistakes are the only way man can learn , i should point out man in eden or reality is extremely intelligent and made good and naturally prone to love and only has free will to love , so the mistakes are certainly not on a par as this cess pool , i am not writing a book here but if you have specific q’s then feel free to ask dear friend , my medical opines are based on reading a doctors answer on the q at hand , i was researching to answer this q before ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[minkymurph]

If the Church allows oral foreplay, unless a double standard applies, anal foreplay is acceptable as well. I’d like to hear an explanation of how they are different enough, morally speaking, for one to be condemned and the other accepted. I think it would be easier to argue against both than to attempt to differentiate the two.

To my knowledge the Church has never stated infallibly what sexual activities married couples can engage in during foreplay, and what sexual activities they may not engage in during foreplay. Perhaps the real question is should they? Even the phrase, ‘does the Church allow it’ would give me cause for a sharp intake of breath. How far do people want the Church to go? Should they define what constitutes kissing, and outline in detail how it should be carried out?

The Church has taught us the nature and purpose of sexuality. That should be enough for man and wife to make their own judgement calls in physically expressing their love for each other. Physical love is a very intimate act and the Church shouldn’t have to map out in minute detail what people should, and should not do.

 

[centurionguard]

ADULTRY is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again, adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse. Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of, guilt, are of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp. XLVI, n. 17). It must be added, however, that St. Alphonsus Liguori, with most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446).

I’m totally surprised Christopher West who works for Archbishop Chaput of Denver has the Archbishop’s imprimatur in his book, with the introduction written by His Excellency, where he states Sodomical acts (which are both oral and anal) are endorsed in a Catholic sanctified marriage between Man and wife.

An imprimatur (“let it be printed”) merely states that a certain work is found without doctrinal error (faith and morals), but it is not an infallible teaching to be held by either the universal/ordinary or extraordinary; but solely given exclusively by the Pope and supported by the Magisterium.

Christopher West; and his outspoken supporters claim that a handful of non-magisterial workers speak for orthodox Catholic doctrine, that doesn’t mean that they or the commentators represent orthodox Catholic doctrine on this point. No one within the Church has personal infallibility over faith and morals except for the Holy Father when he’s solemnly speaking to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals. This is true even before Vatican II, that is, during the wake of the Modernist Crisis and the ongoing Sexual Revolution destroying many in the Church. I’m not saying that any of the commentators he cites are modernists. What I’m saying is that Catholics have to read things with a big grain of salt.

Saint Paul says that you will be held to that conscience, for it is the Law of God written on our hearts. Make no distinction between Gay and Straight people, Married or Single, we are all indefinitely held morally accountableto the same letter of the Law by God., even too as Romans Chapter 1 is written.

A growing number of new Catholics may conceive in there conscious that there was never an ex-Cathedra statement on the evils of Sodomy (aka Anal Sex) beyond that of Homosexual acts. There is no need to define such things, etc. Not everything needs to be or should be defined. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t important or that Catholic married couples can express themselves sexually in whatever manner they choose and desire.

The Catholic Church would be a joke if she started to describe in minute detail all the horrific evil sins people can do and then proceed to condemn a list of aberrant sexual behaviours one by one. That would be horrific. Usually, if people were concerned about illicit types of sexual behaviour in marriage, they would just ask their priest. Of course, now we live in very difficult times where the failing discipline of Catholic morality affects not only the laity but clergy as well. (Not just illicit sexual Homosexual acts but illicit Heterosexual sexual behaviours).

The Church expects us to use our reason. Sodomy (aka Anal Sex), is intrinsically evil and dishonest because of what one does, regardless of the intention one has, regardless of how it finishes. Just because those moral theologians leading up to the situation ethics era of Fuchs, et al., didn’t see this, doesn’t mean that their ignorance is to be canonized as traditional and orthodox Catholic doctrine. Far from it. It is just rubbish.

Sodomy (aka Anal Sex), is unequivocally condemned, if one is reasonable. The problem is that some people have dropped moral reason when they rejected how we, as human beings (with bodies!)Perceive with the senses, but only after they understood and gave in to the disillusioned popular rational of others in our humanistic society. They deliberately chose to ignore this moral way of knowing (which is the only way we have), in favour of a way of knowing, an epistemology, that is merely sense “knowledge”, a make-believe “knowledge” of phenomenology, upon which Theology of the Body rests, but which is nothing more than not-able-to-be-understood by perceptions of phenomena, perceptions which are, therefore, relativistic, and which, ultimately, cannot be subject to any of those… you know… strict moralistic rules, the reason being that commandments for everyone is not possible when everyone is perceiving things in their own individualistic, relativistic ways. This result is not what Pope John Paul II had in mind when he wrote The Theology of the Body. Not at all. But it is without a clear doubt where some commentators have led such radical thinking with their own interpretations of JP-II’s T.O.B.

The job now is not so much to get the Church to describe horrific evil things in detail and then condemn them (for we KNOW those things already), if we believe in Faith that the Holy Spirit writes such Morals on the walls of our heart. The important recognizance now is to undo the damage of a phenomenological epistemology given over to such relativism. The ends of marriage have to be demonstrated to be, and in this order: (1) procreation; (2) unity. Nevertheless; it is with great sadness that some disillusioned Catholics who would selfishly have everyone believe that sexual pleasures of the flesh, though blessed in marriage, comes before procreation and unity.

 

[LemonAndLime]

… my dear friend ,

… it is wrong of course , the behind is for waste to come out and not things to go in , this should be pretty obvious but some seem confused , you can rupture anothers colon with this practise and it can happen quite easily , if it does you require immediate emergency surgery to fix it or you may well get waste seep out of the colon into the blood stream and body and it can then even kill you almost instantly , very dangerous , whether condoms are used ( which is unnatural and immoral ) or not you can spread hiv aids or any of the many sexually transmitted diseases this way too as it is very easy to tear the extremely soft tissue around this area when practising this and you can easily get infected then , many of these std’s ruin one for life as you’ll infect any you have sex with – when you get many of them – no cure for many , it is unnatural and as such unsafe and yes immoral too ,hope this helps ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

I have to say, a lot of what you just said was medical nonsense.

Faeces cannot enter the blood stream and then poison you if the colon is ruptured. You already have a very good blood supply there. We should already be dead by your logic. Why do you think poo is brown? It’s because dead blood cells are disposed of that way. Blood already enters. If you are constipated, then whether you have trauma there or not doesn’t matter - chemicals will enter your bloodstream and you’ll feel sluggish, depressed, confused, irriated.

Also, your argument that “you can get AIDS and STDs from it…” well, you can get them from having vaginal sex too. If you’ve got them, then whether you put it in one orifice or another doesn’t matter. You’ll still contract it. You’re not at greater risk just because it goes in one as opposed to another.

You can get tears… if you are rough or don’t use any artificial lubrication. Fact is, anal sex can be safe.

If you’re trying to argue it’s immoral, don’t use false facts and scare tactics. Just use the moral side of the argument. Trying to get all medical is just loosing sight of why you’re arguing against it.

 

[centurionguard]

One doesn’t even have to stay within the confines of the Catholic Church to find out that Sodomy (aka Anal Sex) is morally wrong.

How History Mattered: Sodomy Law and Marriage Reform in the United States
publicculture.org/articles/view/20/1/how-history-mattered-sodomy-law-and-marriage-refo

The Marriage Bed: License For Sodomy?
libertytothecaptives.net/christian_marriage_sodomy.html

libertytothecaptives.net/christian_marriage_sodomy_definitions.html

If True Catholics are supposed to be the best role models when it comes to Sexual Morality. Obviously something is seriously wrong.

Catholics celebrating and engaging in acts of Sodomy (aka Anal Sex) in the Marriage Bed?

Homosexuals must be laughing in stitches and seeing Catholics for what they truly are…namely…Hypocites: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.

 

[Debora123]

This is going round in circles on definitions of sodomy (of which there are many). I foresee no end to this.

Agreed. I am done posting on this thread. I got my answer already.

 

[Rahn]

Exactly. Rape has little to do with sexual attraction. It has much more to do with the desire for control, power and domination. It is also carried out for the purpose of humiliating the victim and in some cases, the victims spouse.

Child sex abuse also comes from a different place than a natural sexual desire between man and woman, and a natural expression of physical love between a man and his wife. I don’t think either rape or child abuse can be discussed in the same context as what a married couple do in the bedroom. Such association degrades sexual union between man and wife.

Sexual activity between a man and his wife is a very private and intimate matter, and I’m a great believer in respecting other people’s privacy, minding my own business, and there are things that go on between a man and his wife that even the priest doesn’t need to know. Married couples need to make their own decisions based on moral principles, not rules. Those who have a genuine love of God and each other can work it out for themselves. ‘Bedroom rules’ governing how sexual activity should be carried out at least borders on invasion of privacy. How can sexual intercourse be viewed as natural, spontaneous and healthy if the couple concerned are constantly trying to adhere to ‘rules’ and make sure they don’t do anything ‘wrong’ in the bedroom?

The Church has a role to play in guiding people in matters of faith and morals. However, it is not there to micro-manage people’s lives. Sexuality is not a text book operation. Neither is it purely a theological matter. Certainly I’m in favor of promoting a healthy view of sexuality, but it needs to be discussed in relation to the human experience of sexuality and not as a text book operation, and it should not be personalized. However, I’m a bit biased as I don’t really want to know what other people get up to in the private. There’s such a thing as too much information

Amen to that!

 

[Debora123]

Have you been reading the thread?

1. HIV is a non-isue here. We’re discussing foreplay between a husband an wife, which means that they are presumably about to engage in genital sex, from which HIV is rather easily transmitted from partner to partner. Same goes with the other STD. Ridiculous argument.
2. Colon easily ruptured? Not accurate. Small tears possible? Of course. Likely? Perhaps, based on a few factors. Very easy to do? No. Otherwise people would tear their rectums every time they strained to pass a firm stool.
3. Septicemia kills you “almost instantly”? No, again. Sounds like a plot for a bad sci-fi movie. IF septicemia happens “quite easily”, how come the gay population is still around? You’d think they’d have killed each other off if it was so easy to happen. Fact is septicemia from anal sex is uncommon. More common are rectal fissures (chronic tears in the tissue overlying the sphinctor muscle) which are usually irritating and uncomfortable, but not in the least deadly.
4. Condoms immoral for this sort of use? Read your Catholic Theology. Then explain to us how anal sex is procreative and how condom use in anal foreplay is contraceptive.
5. Stay with us here. This is about husband-wife anal foreplay. Infecting “anyone you have sex with” is only one person.

We get that it’s an unsanitary practice. We get that it’s “gross”. But let’s stick to the question here: anal foreplay between married couples.

There have been good posts arguing against this practice being moral. However, as has been said, the term “sodomy” has been thrown around and not really defined in terms of this discussion.

For those who say that anal foreplay mimics homosexual sex and is therefor immoral, what about oral foreplay? Homosexuals do that too.

My point is that if you condemn anal foreplay between married couples as immoral, you have to do the same for oral foreplay, as the same criteria apply. It is “unnatural”. It is potentially risky. STDs can be transmitted, etc, all the arguments against anal foreplay apply to oral foreplay, if you are consistant in the criteria you use.

If the Church allows oral foreplay, unless a double standard applies, anal foreplay is acceptable as well. I’d like to hear an explanation of how they are different enough, morally speaking, for one to be condemned and the other accepted. I think it would be easier to argue against both than to attempt to differentiate the two.

Great post.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

I have to say, a lot of what you just said was medical nonsense.

Faeces cannot enter the blood stream and then poison you if the colon is ruptured. You already have a very good blood supply there. We should already be dead by your logic. Why do you think poo is brown? It’s because dead blood cells are disposed of that way. Blood already enters. If you are constipated, then whether you have trauma there or not doesn’t matter - chemicals will enter your bloodstream and you’ll feel sluggish, depressed, confused, irriated.

Also, your argument that “you can get AIDS and STDs from it…” well, you can get them from having vaginal sex too. If you’ve got them, then whether you put it in one orifice or another doesn’t matter. You’ll still contract it. You’re not at greater risk just because it goes in one as opposed to another.

You can get tears… if you are rough or don’t use any artificial lubrication. Fact is, anal sex can be safe.

If you’re trying to argue it’s immoral, don’t use false facts and scare tactics. Just use the moral side of the argument. Trying to get all medical is just loosing sight of why you’re arguing against it.

… my dear friend ,

… rubbish quite frankly , what i’ve said i’ve said , and you don’t get all the horrible std’s or hiv aids overwhelmingly if you just behave naturally which is to remain a virgin until married and then you only have sex with your spouse , the medical aspets are obvious and they should include your soul too as the damage to your soul also severely damages your body – they are one and the same though they can be separated much the same as blood and flesh are one in the body but can be separated , something is only immoral if is unnatural , and that which is unnatural is bad for you and your health , sin is only being unnatural , but would not exist if you never got the forbidden knowledge of good and evil – but you have it for now and so can be evil ,though all are not free to be and do evil at all – contrary to popular belief , i take offence at being told to leave the medical stuff out of it because sin causes endless medical problems and that is because when you go against nature being unnatural it makes you sick and sicker , spiritual diseases not only destroy your soul but cause chemical imbalance in the brain and destroy ones mind and chemical imbalances in the body and the breakdown and decay / rotting of the body and death ultimately – at least prematurely , unnaturalness is the real probllem , but further it is evil that makes the unnaturalness so damaging ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[Debora123]

spiritual diseases not only destroy your soul but cause chemical imbalance in the brain and destroy ones mind and chemical imbalances in the body and the breakdown and decay / rotting of the body and death ultimately – at least prematurely , unnaturalness is the real problem , but further it is evil that makes the unnaturalness so damaging ,

Haha…