"Consenting adults"

[clem456]

You mean “Christian concept”? (not conception )

1. Conception: “the way in which something is perceived or regarded.”
   So you do not understand grammar as well. NO PROBLEM, simply refrain from correcting others when you have no competence to do so.
   Can we move on now?

There are all the different facets of love: eros, agape, philia and storge… and lots more. I do not have to “guess” what Christians think about “love”, they express it loud and clear. When all these are present in a relationship, and the eros is exhibited in a non-procreative fashion, then you call it “intrinsically evil”.** Makes no sense to me.**

Fair enough. We all have things we do not understand. Education is a responsibility we all bear BEFORE we make pronouncements about other’s beliefs. Your signature shows you do not understand the Christian idea of love.

On the other hand, God’s alleged “love” is compatible with total lack of caring, and lack of benevolence, and yet Christians consider it the highest form of “love”, then one starts to ponder, what is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong with the picture is, you don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As for the procreative aspect, I think the Catholic position is very much debatable, but I won’t go into detail just yet. This whole Christian position, however, is predicated on the understanding that God exists or that the Bible truly and accurately reflects God’s will 100%. As such, an argument cannot take place. In order to address Pallas’ raised points, one must also make a moral argument based upon human reason. Saying, “because the Bible/God said so” is not a sufficient argument here, nor is it very detailed.

And blaming aids on homosexuality just betrays an ignorance of how diseases work. AIDS doesn’t just afflict homosexuals or those who engage in anal or oral sex. It is often contracted by those engaging in procreative sex as well. Which is why a disproportionate amount of the population of many African countries have AIDS.

The usual liberal trash. Why on earth do you call yourself orthodox?

Please get yourself educated here:

cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

 

[Pallas_Athene]

When we follow both the Old Testament and the New Testament regarding the intrinsic evil of sodomy, you need to stop referring to it as having a beam in one’s eye, lest you begin to be thought of as having a beam in your own eye.

This is a philosophy forum, not a theology forum or a Bible study class. The Bible is not an authority for non-Christians. I am talking about the secular concept called “love”.

Two people can love each other without wishing to procreate, even if they are heterosexual, even if they are married. Procreation is not a prerequisite for love. The lack of desire to procreate does not make love to become “intrinsically evil”. Love is caring about the other, acting of behalf the other, helping each other.

Conception: “the way in which something is perceived or regarded.”

That is the secondary meaning. The primary one is: “the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived.”

Your signature shows you do not understand the Christian idea of love.

I most certainly understand it, I just do not accept it. I am saying that the Christian idea of “love” is totally different from the secular idea of love. The Christian type of love is compatible with indifference, the secular one is not. If someone asks for help or is in need of help and does not get it, that is not “love”. It is indifference - or worse.

Is my signature incorrect? Am I wrong when I think that Christians consider non-procreative love “intrinsically evil”? I would be happy if you corrected my (immaculate) misconception.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The usual liberal trash.

And you DARE to complain about perceived ad-hominem???

 

[Rohzek]

The usual liberal trash. Why on earth do you call yourself orthodox?

Please get yourself educated here:

cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

My personal morality is actually quite conservative, thank you. As for your link and the matter of education, I suggest you improve your reading comprehension skills. I clearly stated that AIDS does not afflict ONLY homosexuals, which is precisely what your link proves.

The assumption that AIDS only afflicts homosexuals and that it is a just punishment from God presumes that the claimant knows God’s will. When pressed for empirical evidence or theological evidence, they always come up short. In which case, I would say that the claimant is not much of a Christian at all and is incredibly arrogant.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And you DARE to complain about perceived ad-hominem???

To point out a contradiction in logic is not to offer an ad hominem.

If he is orthodox, why would he promote liberal trash?

Liberalism in Catholic theology is trash because it promotes moral relativism and atheism, two things you seem to be perfe3ctly comfortable with. We have enough liberals inside the Church that we should tolerate liberals referring to themselves as orthodox. That is Orwellian doublespeak.

Call a thought process what it is, without referring to the trash collector.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The assumption that AIDS only afflicts homosexuals and that it is a just punishment from God presumes that the claimant knows God’s will. When pressed for empirical evidence or theological evidence, they always come up short. In which case, I would say that the claimant is not much of a Christian at all and is incredibly arrogant.

Well, you managed to avoid the gist of the article.

I never said straight people don’t get AIDS. But you have some 'splainin to do as to why homosexuals and bisexuals are the main point of the article.

And enough of your own arrogance in claiming to know God’s will and condemning others as not really Christian. I’m guessing you also claim St. Paul was not Christian enough for you.

 

[clem456]

That is the secondary meaning. The primary one is: “the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived.”

If the usage is valid, why did you correct it when it did not need correcting? (You did not know what you were talking about until it was pointed out to you, did you. I see a pattern…)

I most certainly understand it,

No, you don’t.

I just do not accept it.

Ok that is fine for someone to not accept other’s beliefs. But the fact that you misrepresent something you don’t understand or accept is a problem for good-faith discussion.

I am saying that the Christian idea of “love” is totally different from the secular idea of love.

Yea pretty much.

The Christian type of love is compatible with indifference, the secular one is not.

Can you see that this statement is nonsensical?

If someone asks for help or is in need of help and does not get it, that is not “love”. It is indifference - or worse.

I think anyone can agree that indifference is not love.

Is my signature incorrect?

No, it misrepresents the Christian idea (there, a small word) of love.

Am I wrong when I think that Christians consider non-procreative love “intrinsically evil”? I would be happy if you corrected my (immaculate) misconception.

Does the wink mean you know something others do not? Just what might that be?
Christians do not believe that non-procreative love is evil.
Start with this:
“to love is to will the good of another”

 

[Memaw]

God is always welcome to explain his preferences. As soon as he does it, we will KNOW what he cares about. If you think that you are qualified to speak for God, then you are mistaken.

The “silentium Dei” is one of the strongest argument against God’s existence and/or benevolence. Someone who actually CARES does not hide above the clouds without communicating and without helping those in need.

My, My, lift up your head and heart and look around. God has and does speak for Himself, every moment! I just speak about Him. If you think He’s hiding above the clouds, and doesn’t care about us, then why do you suppose HE sent HIS SON, Jesus, to die on the Cross for our sins. You have lots to learn, I’m thinking. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

I think Pallas has raised some very interesting points that no one seems to have answered yet. What is or isn’t natural isn’t very clear. So claiming that homosexuality or sodomy is unnatural when thousands of other species exhibit this behavior requires an additional burden of proof.

Then you have the love-argument. What Pallas is getting at is that love is difficult to define. Christians, of course, generally say that God is love. Therefore, since God condemned homosexuality in the scriptures, then such acts cannot be due to love. As for the procreative aspect, I think the Catholic position is very much debatable, but I won’t go into detail just yet. This whole Christian position, however, is predicated on the understanding that God exists or that the Bible truly and accurately reflects God’s will 100%. As such, an argument cannot take place. In order to address Pallas’ raised points, one must also make a moral argument based upon human reason. Saying, “because the Bible/God said so” is not a sufficient argument here, nor is it very detailed.

And blaming aids on homosexuality just betrays an ignorance of how diseases work. AIDS doesn’t just afflict homosexuals or those who engage in anal or oral sex. It is often contracted by those engaging in procreative sex as well. Which is why a disproportionate amount of the population of many African countries have AIDS.

AIDS started with the Homosexuals and had now spread to every part of humanity. Did you forget the early 80’s? Scripture tells us that homosexuality is unnatural, Romans 1, 24-32. and 1 Corinth, 9-11.
“Thousands” of other “species” are not accountable before God, they can’t sin. Man can. Makes me wonder where you came up with that “thousands” anyway. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Pallas_Athene]

To point out a contradiction in logic is not to offer an ad hominem.

If he is orthodox, why would he promote liberal trash?

Liberalism in Catholic theology is trash because it promotes moral relativism and atheism, two things you seem to be perfe3ctly comfortable with. We have enough liberals inside the Church that we should tolerate liberals referring to themselves as orthodox. That is Orwellian doublespeak.

Call a thought process what it is, without referring to the trash collector.

If I would refer to one of your posts as “conservative trash”, I would be kicked out of the board so fast that my pants would catch fire… and rightfully so.

 

[tonyrey]

God created the HIV virus… was that an act of “love” and “caring”?

Did He work a special miracle to ensure it would survive? Some evidence is required for that assumption…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Christians do not believe that non-procreative love is evil.

Do you think that I invented this? Look around you, and you will see it everywhere. Obviously not ALL Christians have this belief. Only the majority on this board.

Start with this:
“to love is to will the good of another”

Now that is an empty phrase if I ever saw one. To “will” something is useless. To ACT for the good of the other would be required.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If you think He’s hiding above the clouds, and doesn’t care about us, then why do you suppose HE sent HIS SON, Jesus, to die on the Cross for our sins. You have lots to learn, I’m thinking.

Sorry, that is only mythology. Show me real examples, where he comes down to heal the sick, to feed the hungry, protect the downtrodden, rescue the ones trapped in a mine, stops a war… now that would be the evidence of his loving. Love needs to be manifested in REAL actions.

 

[davidv]

Sorry, that is only mythology. {snip}

Based on what exactly?

 

[clem456]

Do you think that I invented this? Look around you, and you will see it everywhere. Obviously not ALL Christians have this belief. Only the majority on this board.

The onus is on you.
Show us where the Catholic Church says “non-procreative love is evil”. Vague references will not do.
Show us the money.

Now that is an empty phrase if I ever saw one. To “will” something is useless. To ACT for the good of the other would be required.

And so you act without your will? :whacky:
That would be quite a trick.

And it also illustrates the danger of your atheist theology: that only those who can act are capable of love (and also worthy of it). I’m glad I’m not paralyzed in your frightening utilitarian world.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The onus is on you.
Show us where the Catholic Church says “non-procreative love is evil”. Vague references will not do.
Show us the money.

The church does teach that “contraception” is evil. Also that having same-sex attraction is NOT evil, but acting on it is evil. Even if you are past the age of possible conception, or the woman has lost her ovaries and/or uterus the act MUST be finished up in the vagina, otherwise it is a perversion and evil. Any and all sexual acts which are not “open” to procreation are “evil”. Come on… do you really need to point it out?

And so you act without your will? :whacky:
That would be quite a trick.

Playing word games? “Willing” something without ACTING on it is not “love”. Willing is the necessary but NOT sufficient part of love.

And it also illustrates the danger of your atheist theology: that only those who can act are capable of love (and also worthy of it). I’m glad I’m not paralyzed in your frightening utilitarian world.

More word games. Though I like your phrase “atheistic theology”. Have not seen such an oxymoron for a long time. Keep going…

 

[clem456]

The church does teach that “contraception” is evil. Also that having same-sex attraction is NOT evil, but acting on it is evil. Even if you are past the age of possible conception, or the woman has lost her ovaries and/or uterus the act MUST be finished up in the vagina, otherwise it is a perversion and evil. Any and all sexual acts which are not “open” to procreation are “evil”. Come on… do you really need to point it out?

But this is what your sig says.

Love is supposed to be the central theme of Christianity.

Yet you label this LOVE to be intrinsically evil when it is non-procreative.

Don’t you realize that such a phrase takes away your credibility? “Intrinsically evil LOVE”? What kind of oxymoron is that?

You may not realize it, but what you say above is not the same thing as you said in the paragraph above. You point out the Church’s teaching about various actions,. Your signature makes an incorrect pronouncement on the Christian conception of love.

You owe it to the discussion to show us the money. Where does the Catholic Church proclaim what you claim it does:

“non-procreative love is evil”

What is your answer to this question? It is not a complicated question. Shows where we teach what you say.

Do you believe that love is reducible to various sex acts? If not, your statements are contradictory.

Playing word games? “Willing” something without ACTING on it is not “love”. Willing is the necessary but NOT sufficient part of love.

This is a classic Christian definition of love.
“to love is to will the good of another”
Can we have our definition, or do you insist on telling us what we are allowed to believe?

If acting is necessary to love and be loved, where does that leave those unable to act? The defenseless, the powerless, the ill, the elderly?
You have painted yourself into an indefensible corner here, illustrating your misunderstanding of love.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

You mean “Christian concept”? (not conception ) There are all the different facets of love: eros, agape, philia and storge… and lots more. I do not have to “guess” what Christians think about “love”, they express it loud and clear. When all these are present in a relationship, and the eros is exhibited in a non-procreative fashion, then you call it "intrinsically evil". Makes no sense to me.

On the other hand, God’s alleged “love” is compatible with total lack of caring, and lack of benevolence, and yet Christians consider it the highest form of “love”, then one starts to ponder, what is wrong with this picture?

I just want to clarify one thing here, the Church does not call it “intrinsically evil.” The Church calls these acts, “Intrinsically DISORDERED.” There is a difference.

Something intrinsically disordered is that which is normally ordered one way but it is not being used in that manner. For example, if I deliberately induce vomiting after every meal, I have an eating disorder. How do we know it is a disorder? Because I’m using my digestive system in a manner for which it was not designed. In the same way our reproductive organs are designed (“ordered”) for a specific purpose: the creation of new life. So if we are not using them in that way, it is, but definition, “disordered.”

Where you differ from the Church is your belief that this same system is ordered first and foremost for pleasure. The Church teaches pleasure is a side benefit, but not the primary purpose.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Sorry, that is only mythology. Show me real examples, where he comes down to heal the sick, to feed the hungry, protect the downtrodden, rescue the ones trapped in a mine, stops a war… now that would be the evidence of his loving. Love needs to be manifested in REAL actions.

If God did that then what are we left to do? It is our job to help our brothers and sisters; to heal the sick, feed the hungry, et al. God made it pretty clear it was our job and we do have the means to do so.

How should God stop a war? Use his freeze ray, and relocate the combatants to their homes with some kind of drug to mitigate agitation and anger? No; because we have free will. Should he smite those in the wrong? That last one might have some interesting and unwanted results.