P
PRmerger
Guest
I think that they sought Truth. They recognized Truth in He who Claimed to Be Truth.
And they loved.
- Status
And they loved.
S
Servant19
Guest
I am actually very happily married thank you
Well, it’s the marital embrace that we are talking about. Which is, of course, a euphemism for the marital act. Which is, of course, a euphemism for…
And I don’t know about you, but anyone who has truly experienced a sublime marital embrace, would never deny or dismiss its supreme value.
I would only have to assume that you’ve never experienced what I am talking about? What Pope JPII discussed in his Theology of the Body.
This, is, sadly, an old heresy of gnosticism which you have been duped into believing.
the lovers embrace is not lost in me, but the depth of love for my wife is much deeper than that…“…but do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh, rather serve one another humbly in love”. Gal 5:13
S
Servant19
Guest
…just in that point, it is not the PHYSICAL touching of the lovers embrace which is beautiful, it is the SPIRIT behind that lovers embrace.
Every weekend there are misguided youth who engage in the “lovers embrace” yet they do not partake of the true depth of love that the embrace demands.
The embrace is glorified by the SPIRIT behind it, it has nothing to do with the physical aspect at all. In fact, I could go and carry out the lovers embrace with anyone right now and it would in fact be deemed a sinful act, nay even the work of evil
Every weekend there are misguided youth who engage in the “lovers embrace” yet they do not partake of the true depth of love that the embrace demands.
The embrace is glorified by the SPIRIT behind it, it has nothing to do with the physical aspect at all. In fact, I could go and carry out the lovers embrace with anyone right now and it would in fact be deemed a sinful act, nay even the work of evil
P
PRmerger
Guest
If you can even think that the marital embrace is even remotely referred to in the above verse…I am actually very happily married thank you
“…but do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh, rather serve one another humbly in love”. Gal 5:13
then you haven’t loved the right way.
That’s what’s so wrong about the Baha’ i faith.
It sees marital love as indulging the flesh.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTVR-MKhwBHkT5y-3qNiBco-X4v99Mfh9R0BsonNXXJCY7IaGe-zMmqsAm8
[SIGN1]That’s soooo far removed from the Catholic view.[/SIGN1]
P
PRmerger
Guest
That makes me so sad for Bahais.
It is gnosticism re-warmed to a tepid temperature.
To think that this most sublime union of husband and wife is considered “indulging the flesh” is astonishing to me.
S
Servant19
Guest
PR, please read my post #542 above
That’s my whole point lol
It is NOT indulging the flesh, so why do you need to do it? It’s the spirit behind it that matters. The physical aspect is irrelevant and transient/temporary, the spirit behind it is eternal and everlasting
spirit, spirit, spirit
(Ps. Of course I know that the quote I gave is not about the marital embrace, your protraction that my providing a quote which you misunderstand the context I gave it for, as a reason to say that there is something wrong with a whole religion was impolite. The quotes intended meaning is about the value of spirit and the true freedom it provides when fully embraced)
Your turn for apology?
That’s my whole point lol
It is NOT indulging the flesh, so why do you need to do it? It’s the spirit behind it that matters. The physical aspect is irrelevant and transient/temporary, the spirit behind it is eternal and everlasting
spirit, spirit, spirit
(Ps. Of course I know that the quote I gave is not about the marital embrace, your protraction that my providing a quote which you misunderstand the context I gave it for, as a reason to say that there is something wrong with a whole religion was impolite. The quotes intended meaning is about the value of spirit and the true freedom it provides when fully embraced)
Your turn for apology?
M
mek42
Guest
I get that he thinks that marriage provides some specialness that is absent in mere fornication. The sum of his posts seem to indicate that his faith is that engaging in the physical sex without the spiritual bond of marriage cheapens the act. I thought this was more or less exactly Catholic teaching.
S
Servant19
Guest
EXACTLY Mek
It’s not the physical act of love making, it’s the spiritual feelings it evokes with ones loved one that is special.
The physical act is done by all other animals too, nothing special there…what is it that makes us humans special and unique? It’s the SPIRIT/SOUL!!It can elevate the acts done by other animals into spiritual acts of significance and meaning. It is the human spirit that does this…
It’s not the physical act of love making, it’s the spiritual feelings it evokes with ones loved one that is special.
The physical act is done by all other animals too, nothing special there…what is it that makes us humans special and unique? It’s the SPIRIT/SOUL!!It can elevate the acts done by other animals into spiritual acts of significance and meaning. It is the human spirit that does this…
P
PRmerger
Guest
Catholicism wouldn’t put it that way.
Specialness is like a really nice soft drink.
Holiness is what we are talking about.
Only in the sense of saying that the bread and wine during the Mass are a “special” kind of bread and wine. Kind of like a separate bread and wine we wouldn’t just set out for a picnic.
But that’s not even close to how Catholicism views the bread and wine at Mass.
What I get from Servant’s posts is this:
The marital act is nice. Kind of like having a special bread and wine at your prayer service. Something you wouldn’t necessarily set out for a picnic.
The Catholic view is:
The marital act is sublime, profound and mind-blowing. Kind of like having the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of your Beloved present during the Eucharist.
So different in degree, quality and ontology.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, that saddens me greatly.EXACTLY Mek
It’s not the physical act of love making, it’s the spiritual feelings it evokes with ones loved one that is special.
To think that you believe it’s what’s referred to in Galatians, as a sinful indulgence.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So sad. You have been greatly deceived, Servant.
The PHYSICAL touching of the lovers is indeed quite beautiful, holy and magnificent. The SPIRITUAL union is, of course, sublime and profound as well.
That’s the Catholic way. The Scriptural way. The way God intended us to view the marital embrace.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Such a horrible way to view the sublime marital embrace.
Gnosticism.
I suggest you read the magnificent teachings of Pope JPII on the Theology of the Body.
It will blow your mind, Servant.
Here’s a little summary, but I suggest you study the actual teachings indepth. You will never view the marital embrace as a sinful indulgence again:
godsexandthemeaningoflife.com/theology_of_the_body_summary.pdf
S
Servant19
Guest
So PR, tell me, you are saying that were I to go out to a night club tonight, find a lady and make love with her for one night only and never see her again, that this is a “beautiful, holy and magnificent” act???
It’s the same physical act.
Unless you make love differently to everyone else?
It’s the same physical act.
Unless you make love differently to everyone else?
P
PRmerger
Guest
That’s why I referred to it as the marital embrace. Not a lover’s embrace, Servant.
When you fornicate, it is indeed an indulgence of the flesh.
When you are married, it becomes a sacramental act.
S
Servant19
Guest
But it’s the exact same physical act PR…
What is the difference physically?
What is the difference physically?
P
PRmerger
Guest
The difference is that at the Nuptial Mass there is an ontological change that occurs between the man and the woman.
What existed 10 seconds prior to the confection of the vows exists no more. The universe is changed forever! How magnificent is that!!!
That is why we call marriage a sacrament.
So the marital act between a husband and wife is ontologically, intrinsically, absolutely DIFFERENT than that between 2 fornicators.
Physically, spiritually, ontologically, sacramentally, what existed 10 seconds prior to the nuptial exchange exists no more. And thus, whatever nuptial acts these persons perform is supremely different than any act that appears similar in 2 fornicators.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Incidentally, it is the same concept with the sacrament of Baptism. What existed 10 seconds prior, exists no more, after the sacrament is confected. The universe is changed forever!
And it is the same concept with the sacrament of Holy Orders (priestly ordination). What existed 10 seconds prior, a man, exists no more, after the sacrament is confected. The universe is changed forever!
And it is the same concept with the sacrament of the Eucharist. What existed 10 seconds prior, bread and wine, exists no more, after the consecration by the priest.
S
Servant19
Guest
I agree with you in all levels except on the physical change PR
It is when Christianity believes it can out-talk science on the subject of science where it plunders deeper AWAY from God.
You can ask any scientist to observe a cell from my body before marriage and a cell from the exact same body site, after my marriage and there is no physical change.
Superstitious beliefs is where we differ my friend.
If there was a physical change it becomes empirically observable by science and I can categorically tell you that this concept is frowned on by the scientific community.
I look forward to the essay on how science has failed throughout history from you, but this is not even science, it’s empiricism, it’s observable that there is no PHYSICAL change to the body the day after marriage, and even were there to be an argument presented that there WAS a physical change, I would still say that this is attributed to the spiritual condition exerting itself on the physical being.
The physical act is the same, one is done in the spirit of love, the other in the sin of lust, it’s really that simple. Contradicting science gets humans nowhere, it only ends in conflict, and luckily the superstitious believers are reducing in number alarmingly, and it’s for the best…
God bless you PR, you’re heart is in the right place but you have convinced yourself of truth that is utter falsehood I’m afraid
It is when Christianity believes it can out-talk science on the subject of science where it plunders deeper AWAY from God.
You can ask any scientist to observe a cell from my body before marriage and a cell from the exact same body site, after my marriage and there is no physical change.
Superstitious beliefs is where we differ my friend.
If there was a physical change it becomes empirically observable by science and I can categorically tell you that this concept is frowned on by the scientific community.
I look forward to the essay on how science has failed throughout history from you, but this is not even science, it’s empiricism, it’s observable that there is no PHYSICAL change to the body the day after marriage, and even were there to be an argument presented that there WAS a physical change, I would still say that this is attributed to the spiritual condition exerting itself on the physical being.
The physical act is the same, one is done in the spirit of love, the other in the sin of lust, it’s really that simple. Contradicting science gets humans nowhere, it only ends in conflict, and luckily the superstitious believers are reducing in number alarmingly, and it’s for the best…
God bless you PR, you’re heart is in the right place but you have convinced yourself of truth that is utter falsehood I’m afraid
S
Servant19
Guest
I also urge you to read the works of Thomas Aquinas who argued the extreme limitations of anything to be true “ontologically”
To say something has changed ontologically is manifest falsehood, even according to St. Thomas…go figure
To say something has changed ontologically is manifest falsehood, even according to St. Thomas…go figure
D
daler
Guest
And it is the same concept with the sacrament of the Eucharist. What existed 10 seconds prior, bread and wine, exists no more, after the consecration by the priest.
- Status