A discussion ceases to exist when a person does not answer questions. Have a good dayā¦
Point 1.:
Thank you, for clarifying you donāt.
Point 2.:
I already addressed that, in an earlier thread to you.
Point 3.:
I already addressed that, also, in an earlier thread to you.
Point 4.:
Good question, though for purposes of a different discussion, so really not a point, at all.
Lust is a powerful force, to be sure. It is even more powerful in the context of repressed, often religiously motivated monogamous society, based as it is upon paternity certainty for the sake of property inheritance, masculine pride, patriarchal dominance and strangling notions of family āhonourā (for which women are still vilely murdered in theocratic societies). The fact is that if you change your attitude to human sexuality - seeing it as a natural yearning that exists in all people to varying degrees, something to be nurtured and respected rather than scorned as an undesirable vestige of our connection to other animals - you change the effect it has on your life and the lives of those with whom you interact. The fact is - ironically, Iām sure, from your perspective - that if you acknowledge and manage sexuality, its power over you diminishes - it becomes something you wield, not something that wields you.
Lust is not a force but a vice, unless sexual desire is uncontrollable - in which case it is a mental disease, i.e. satyriasis or nymphomania.
What exactly would you tell children about sex? Would you encourage sexual activity from the age of puberty?
Lust is unrelated to paternity certainty. It is a voluntary act of submission to sexual desire for the sake of self-gratification which often leads to promiscuity, adultery, compulsive masturbation, rape and perversions such as sadism and pedophilia.
Human sexuality is far more than a natural yearning. It is intended to be an expression of the whole personality which distinguishes us from animals but when it is regarded as no more than a natural activity it is devalued, debased and distorted into nothing more than self-gratification or mutual gratification. It obviously has no spiritual significance for you because nothing is spiritual in your scheme of things. Nor does it have any personal significance because you donāt distinguish persons from animals. Sex is reduced to simian behaviour which in addition to its procreative function occurs in all possible combinations and positions whenever social tensions need to be resolved or as an escape from boredom or frustration.
From your physicalist perspective **- **If you are consistent - **all our activity **is wielded by physical events. Self-control is an illusion without a self. We are merely factors controlled entirely by other factors. Otherwise we would infringe the law of conservation of energy, wouldnāt we?
LOVE in marriage is to completely give oneself to the other. You canāt completely give yourself to multiple people as a finite being. This should be obvious.
tonyrey,
I should add that āthe evil men doā means the harm they cause and is usually due to ignorance rather than malice - although it can also be the result of selfishness (which is also often due to ignorance!).
in thy brotherās eye, and the beam that is in thine own eye dost not consider? 4 or, how wilt thou say to thy brother, Suffer I may cast out the mote from thine eye, and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 5 Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brotherās eye. For now Iāll just say that working on the board in my eye has become a life time process.
This seems to me like a whole lot of being fruitful.
My study of the Greek, Koine and the Textus Receptus leaves me with the conclusion that Jesus was not saying that being a figurative eunuch is meant for everyone. I think a better way to put it might be: for those to whom it is given let them receive it. The reason Iāve provided Vs 3 ā 11 is strictly to give context to the quote.
Simeon, as this is a Catholic forum itās good to have some Scriptural exegesis related to the topic. There seems little doubt about what Jesus prescribed for those who are married!
Does this mean that parents canāt completely parent more than one child? Or that one cannot be a real friend to more than one person? Youāre operating on the scarcity model of love again - that or turning love into a pathological obsession directed at only one person.LOVE in marriage is to completely give oneself to the other. You canāt completely give yourself to multiple people as a finite being. This should be obvious.
Hence why monogamy is LOVE and polygamy is not LOVE.
God Bless
The trouble is that people very often do have sex without love, not to mention the fact that people have some quite different ideas about what constitutes love. People can be very easily misled about othersā feelings - unless there is genuine affection already established, sex can very well be just sex, and plenty of people have been hurt by expecting it to mean more than it does to the person they couple with. I agree that sex is diminished if it is separated from the appreciation of oneās partner as a person rather than just a body - part of its purpose is to establish and reinforce social bonds, and to my mind, too many people deny this to their detriment. Although I reject supernatural notions of personhood - which some interpret to mean that I see no difference between humans and other animals (which is an ironic accusation, since āother animalsā encompasses everything from bacteria to blue whales) - I think itās far too simplistic to claim that anything that doesnāt aspire to undemonstrated āspiritualā heights is somehow devaluing the sexual act. Pleasure is part and parcel of being alive, and should be appreciated while we have it, both for its own sake and for its capacity to connect us to others.
In your opinion what are the significant differences between gorillas and human beings - apart from their knowledge and intelligence?
Well, gorillas are hairier than most humans, and the males have proportionally smaller testicles than male humans. Male gorillas also tend to have harems of females, which I suspect many male humans would like, but most donāt have the opportunity to acquire. Unlike gorilla clans, most modern human societies are not structured around polygynous arrangements. Furthermore, gorillas are becoming increasingly rare, whilst humans have covered the planet like a plague of locusts covering a grain crop - these two situations are not unrelated.
I asked whether there are any significant differences between gorillas and human beings - apart from our knowledge and intelligence. You reply with a question as if you are reluctant to commit yourself to your previous position that we are not essentially different from the rest of the ape familyā¦