"Consenting adults"

[Bradski]

In response to the original OP:
Every thought, every act each of us does influences ourselves in small or big ways. We carry that influence (conviction) out from behind our bedroom doors, out of our homes and consistently influence others in small or big ways by what we say, what we do, what we believe, what we champion.

So, Debbie, is it any of your business what I do with my partner when I’m at home? And if so, what form does that take?

 

[clem456]

Geez it is. If you do not see that I was NOT talking about filial love, or storge, or agape, or the love of a good ice cream, then you have a cognition problem. Maybe you just wanted to twist the words to create an argument, who knows? If so, it was not conducive to a meaningful conversation.

To clarify: I was ONLY talking about eros between two people. These two people love and like each other, they are friends with each other, and also prefer to express their love in sexual fashion. That is the ONLY kind of love I was talking about among the myriads other meanings of “love”.

You misrepresent what Christians believe.
Why do you do that?
What is is about your point of view that needs to misrepresent others to make it’s point? It’s a sign that you’ve built your beliefs on quicksand.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You’re going to have to explain that one. How is using something for the purpose it was ordered for the same as using something for a purpose it was NOT ordered for?

Food and drink are to provide nutrition. Using your vocabulary they are “ordered” toward providing nutrition. To consume a zero calorie Coke is a “perversion” because the nutrition part is “thwarted”, but the pleasurable side effect is preserved. Here is another example. The legs are “ordered” toward bringing us from one place to another. “Dancing” separates the “primary usage” of the legs for the sake of creating a visually pleasing “ballet”. In your parlance it would be a “perversion”. Our organs have multiple uses. To take one aspect while disregarding the others is NOT a perversion.

 

[clem456]

Love is supposed to be the central theme of Christianity.

True, sort of. God is love. Love is not a theme, it is a person.

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

Patently false. Perhaps you could tell us why you continue with misinformation.

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

Straw man built on a falsehood. Sure indicator of a vacuous argument. (can’t help but note the irony in your use of the word “credibility”)

 

[Rohzek]

True, sort of. God is love. Love is not a theme, it is a person.

Patently false. Perhaps you could tell us why you continue with misinformation.

Straw man built on a falsehood. Sure indicator of a vacuous argument. (can’t help but note the irony in your use of the word “credibility”)

Let’s nip this in the bud. Do you regard eros feelings that involves sexual activity between two men or two women to be in anyway associated with Love (God)?

 

[clem456]

Let’s nip this in the bud. Do you regard eros feelings that involves sexual activity between two men or two women to be in anyway associated with Love (God)?

eros feelings that involves sexual activity

Can you make some sort of coherent sense out of that, in a Christian context?
Suggested reading:
CS Lewis “The Four Loves”
St John Paul the Great “Theology of the Body”:

 

[Rohzek]

Can you make some sort of coherent sense out of that, in a Christian context?
Suggested reading:
CS Lewis “The Four Loves”
St John Paul the Great “Theology of the Body”:

If you’re not going to answer the question, then I will merely supply the debate all on my own.

Said person denies the idea that such a love is truly Love, because it is clearly against the will of God. If it is not God’s will then it clearly cannot be Love/God, because what sort of God would deny itself? Therefore, when Pallas claims that Christians believe non-procreative sex/love is evil, she/he does not understand the logical and blasphemous contradiction that they have just laid at our doorstep. Christians do not claim that non-procreative sex is an evil love, because it was never love to begin with.

If this is the case, then again, you are missing the fact that Pallas denies the very existence of God or at least the authority of scriptures to begin with. The answer supplied, that such a love is not truly love, just simply isn’t a satisfactory answer for them.

 

[clem456]

If you’re not going to answer the question, then I will merely supply the debate all on my own.

That’s not a debate, it’s what? Posturing? Incorrectly assuming you know what everyone else believes. Intolerance? Bigotry? You are welcome to have a debate with yourself but:

1. It’s not the responsibility of any poster here to supply answers to spurious statements. The poster who makes false claims about what Christians believe needs to deal in good faith.

Said person denies the idea that such a love is truly Love, because it is clearly against the will of God.

Love is never against the will of God, since God is love.

If it is not God’s will then it clearly cannot be Love/God, because what sort of God would deny itself? Therefore, when Pallas claims that Christians believe non-procreative sex/love is evil, she/he does not understand the logical and blasphemous contradiction that they have just laid at our doorstep. Christians do not claim that non-procreative sex is an evil love, because it was never love to begin with.

C’mon. You know that Christians do not believe that non-procreative live was never love to begin with. That is not what Christians believe. So the discussion is pointless if you cannot even bring yourself to understand what Christians believe. It truly is pointless.

If this is the case, then again, you are missing the fact that Pallas denies the very existence of God or at least the authority of scriptures to begin with. The answer supplied, that such a love is not truly love, just simply isn’t a satisfactory answer for them.

So it is. He/she does not believe in God. Ok? Who here denies one’s right to believe?

 

[Rohzek]

That’s not a debate, it’s what? Posturing? Incorrectly assuming you know what everyone else believes. Intolerance? Bigotry? You are welcome to have a debate with yourself but:

1. It’s not the responsibility of any poster here to supply answers to spurious statements. The poster who makes false claims about what Christians believe needs to deal in good faith.
   Love is never against the will of God, since God is love.

C’mon. You know that Christians do not believe that non-procreative live was never love to begin with. That is not what Christians believe. So the discussion is pointless if you cannot even bring yourself to understand what Christians believe. It truly is pointless.

So it is. He/she does not believe in God. Ok? Who here denies one’s right to believe?

You’ve sat here for nearly 3 pages accusing Pallas of slander, and refusing to clarify what Christians truly believe. So yes, I did supply the debate on my own. And no, it was not out of malice. I did it solely because you won’t advance the discussion at all. Everything that you’ve accused Pallas of you’ve NEVER ONCE substantiated. Like Jacque Derrida, all you’ve done is consistently made assertions against Pallas without ever substantiating them. Saying, “oh, well, here is a line from the Church that explains what we mean. Don’t you see the difference” and then NOT SUPPLYING an explanation of that excerpt and how it is different is NOT an argument. If anything, it is pretentious.

What are the differences between what Pallas claims to be Christian beliefs and what you claim to be Christian beliefs? What are the theories and principles behind your claims? Do what everyone else in physics, math, and even history are happy to do when they are asked such questions. If you cannot do this, then I suggest recourse to Hume’s advice in similar circumstances: cast your ideas to the flames. IF you don’t want to do that either, then stop pretending to have a rational discussion. You’re only wasting serious people’s time with charlatan antics.

 

[tonyrey]

In response to the original OP:
Every thought, every act each of us does influences ourselves in small or big ways. We carry that influence (conviction) out from behind our bedroom doors, out of our homes and consistently influence others in small or big ways by what we say, what we do, what we believe, what we champion.
So, even if you (or I) sin all by yourself (myself) we still affect others through our beliefs. Our sins and our good deeds or thoughts have rippling effects. They touch untold lives, really. We are either part of the problem, or part of the solution in every thought, act, big or small.
No man is an Island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the Main. If clod be washed away by the Sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a Promontorie were as well as if a Manor of thy friends, or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind. And therefore, never send to know for Whom the bell tolls,; It tolls for the. - John Donne

:thumbsup:Western individualism with its “Do your own thing!” philosophy when carried to excess leads to a hell on earth. “I’m all right, Jack. You can do what you like - provided you don’t interfere with me.” It doesn’t matter if others lead perverted lives; they can suffer the consequences. If they eventually become pedophiles, rapists, sadists or serial killers it’s none of our business - until of course it affects **us **or someone we know. Minor vices have a habit of becoming major ones because they become boring but we shouldn’t worry about that. We’re not our brother’s keeper. Liberty at all costs! And if we can’t do what we like there’s always an easy way out, isn’t there?

 

[tonyrey]

Pallas Athene

None provided! The case for the prosecution is dismissed - as usual. Next plaintiff please…

 

[tonyrey]

Deep love is supernatural but sodomy is unnatural and often leads to ill health.

No response. Silence implies assent. Case dismissed…

 

[clem456]

You’ve sat here for nearly 3 pages accusing Pallas of slander, and refusing to clarify what Christians truly believe. So yes, I did supply the debate on my own. And no, it was not out of malice. I did it solely because you won’t advance the discussion at all. Everything that you’ve accused Pallas of you’ve NEVER ONCE substantiated. Like Jacque Derrida, all you’ve done is consistently made assertions against Pallas without ever substantiating them. Saying, “oh, well, here is a line from the Church that explains what we mean. Don’t you see the difference” and then NOT SUPPLYING an explanation of that excerpt and how it is different is NOT an argument. If anything, it is pretentious.

What are the differences between what Pallas claims to be Christian beliefs and what you claim to be Christian beliefs? What are the theories and principles behind your claims? Do what everyone else in physics, math, and even history are happy to do when they are asked such questions. If you cannot do this, then I suggest recourse to Hume’s advice in similar circumstances: cast your ideas to the flames. IF you don’t want to do that either, then stop pretending to have a rational discussion. You’re only wasting serious people’s time with charlatan antics.

The poster claims that Christianity believes non-procreative love to be evil. That is not true. It’s a simple thing really. It’s a lie now, not a misunderstanding, since we are going on for pages about it.

Honestly, Christians are tired of being misrepresented by people who are -not- Christians. Christian teaching is so frequently and maliciously distorted in almost every venue, and then, when someone has the gall to point it out, it’s somehow the Christian’s responsibility to explain the inconsistencies!!

It’s on you to defend your misrepresentations, not the people you misrepresent.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Food and drink are to provide nutrition. Using your vocabulary they are “ordered” toward providing nutrition. To consume a zero calorie Coke is a “perversion” because the nutrition part is “thwarted”, but the pleasurable side effect is preserved. Here is another example. The legs are “ordered” toward bringing us from one place to another. “Dancing” separates the “primary usage” of the legs for the sake of creating a visually pleasing “ballet”. In your parlance it would be a “perversion”. Our organs have multiple uses. To take one aspect while disregarding the others is NOT a perversion.

Consuming a zero calorie beverage still provides nutrition. Or do you think drinking water which has no calories, no sugars, literally no nutrition at all would be disordered?

The fact that zero calorie Coke may not have what you would consider “nutrition” from looking at the label does not mean drinking it is disordered. Every liquid we consume contains some amount of water, which is a nutritional need for our bodies.

Dancing does not separate the primary purpose of legs. It uses them in a manner they were designed for, though it may take extensive training of the entire body to achieve the grace needed to perform ballet. You are still moving, just not in the same way.

Compare that to the human reproductive system, which has only one real purpose: reproduction. There is only one intended purpose for the anus, and that is to expel waste. It wasn’t designed to receive things. I don’t see why this is so hard for you to understand.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Every liquid we consume contains some amount of water, which is a nutritional need for our bodies.

But you drink the zero calorie Coke for the pleasurable aspect of it, not for the miniscule nutrition it provides.

Compare that to the human reproductive system, which has only one real purpose: reproduction. There is only one intended purpose for the anus, and that is to expel waste. It wasn’t designed to receive things. I don’t see why this is so hard for you to understand.

Medical suppositories are inserted there… and thermometers for small children. But the point is that you are all obsessed with ONE form of non-procreating type of sex. Why this incredible obsession? Freud would probably find a good explanation for it. Secret envy? Repressed desire to try it?

 

[clem456]

But you drink the zero calorie Coke for the pleasurable aspect of it, not for the miniscule nutrition it provides.

Medical suppositories are inserted there… and thermometers for small children. But the point is that you are all obsessed with ONE form of non-procreating type of sex. Why this incredible obsession? Freud would probably find a good explanation for it. Secret envy? Repressed desire to try it?

One who eyes to see, and reason to comprehend, can see that human beings are made with a body. A human being cannot be human without a human body. This is self evident from observation. The Church, first of all, observes what is real and true. That is not an obsession, or even a belief, it is an observation that anyone with common reason can observe. No scripture is necessary, no statement of faith is necessary. To deny this reality is insanity. A human being has a physical presence. A human being exists.

Does anyone here deny that human beings exist physically? (we can leave aside the infused rational soul, because atheists reject this. Ok)

How do human beings come to exist? Leaving aside the role of God for sake of discussion: human beings exist due to the sexual union of a man and a woman. In other words, we are not here to even have this discussion without the union of a man and a woman.

Does anyone deny that the sexual union of a man and a woman is necessary for human existence?

The physical makeup of human beings in the sexual realm is ordered to human existence. The bodies of a man and woman fit together in a unique way that no other union can, by revealed nature. The physical union of a man and woman is unique in the order of human existence. The biology and reflexes have a designed purpose. A man/man and woman/woman can do lot’s of things using the human sexual equipment, but they are not ordered to human existence.

Does anyone deny the uniqueness of the union of a man and woman?
How about the role of ejaculation? Is this reflex ordered to anything else than the existence of human beings.
How about the production of an egg?

In these discussions of private sexual practices, we are left with an important question about the value of human life. Is it important that human beings exist, or is human existence accidental to pleasure?
If it is at all special that human beings exist, what sort of respect should be had for the ordered way that happens?
Is the physical activity of a man/man woman/woman the same as the union of a man and woman? How about masturbation? Are these the same as the union of a man and woman?
If we do not respect and give a unique value to the obvious way we are made, and the uniquely ordered purpose of our bodies, how can we have respect for human beings in general?

The best you can say is, yes I see this ordered physicality, but I deny it’s unique importance for human existence and flourishing, I will use it whatever way I will. Notice the word use. Human existence and flourishing are not a matter of utility.

History and common sense tell us that blindness to human nature has disastrous consequences for human beings across the board (Jews and blacks are not full human beings, etc…). What happens seemingly innocuously in the privacy of one’s own room between two consenting adults (or in the privacy of every human heart for that matter) has a ripple effect. The subject matter is much deeper than the pleasure of two people.

 

[Bradski]

Good Lord. I honestly have to keep checking the OP to remind myself what this discussion is ACTUALLY MEANT TO BE ABOUT!

Please, enough with anal sex for the love of anyone’s God. Take it elsewhere. Get a room. It is really becoming farcical…

 

[clem456]

Good Lord. I honestly have to keep checking the OP to remind myself what this discussion is ACTUALLY MEANT TO BE ABOUT!

Please, enough with anal sex for the love of anyone’s God. Take it elsewhere. Get a room. It is really becoming farcical…

there you go, changing the topic to anal sex again…:tsktsk:

 

[tonyrey]

Medical suppositories are inserted there… and thermometers for small children. But the point is that you are all obsessed with ONE form of non-procreating type of sex. Why this incredible obsession? Freud would probably find a good explanation for it. Secret envy? Repressed desire to try it?

You are evading the issue:

“There is only one intended purpose for the anus, and that is to expel waste.”

Yes or no?

 

[tonyrey]

You are evading the issue:

“There is only one intended purpose for the anus, and that is to expel waste.”

Yes or no?

Your other statements are - very appropriately - examples of the genetic fallacy. Only in this case it has nothing to do with human genes