Jesus = an asexual/non-sexual?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus was “a man like us in all ways but sin.” Naturally He was attracted to women.

But He was already the Bridegroom, engaged to His Bride, the Church – so naturally He didn’t let attraction to individual women cloud His relationship with His true love and Bride.

Anybody can look. Just don’t look so much that they think you came to buy. 🙂
I have always found descriptions of the Catholic Church as *Mother Church *a bit creepy to be honest.

Maybe it wouldn’s seem so creepy if the hierarchy wasn’t composed solely of men:shrug:
 
This is in answer to Silicasandra. There is one pericope in the New Testament that does show Jesus in a sexually charged situation. In Luke 7:38-40, a woman who is looking on at a banquet lets down her hair and wipes her tears off Jesus’ feet. Just the act of letting her hair down was enough for a charge of adultery. The Pharisee’s rhetorical question about did Jesus know who was touching his feet is a sexual double entrendre in Greek. The touching of feet is euphemistic in Hebrew for touching genitals. Though the speaker is a Pharisee and is supposed to be purer than other Jews, he is still thinking like a man. Jesus does none of this and comes out the winner in this encounter. He not only bests the Pharisees as a group in rabbinical argument, but he also puts them in a situation where they have to accept the woman back into the community.

Thus we see that Jesus is well aware of what is in men’s and women’s hearts. He can see the Pharisee is thinking sexually, but the woman is doing an act of devotion. Their backgrounds, exalted or debased, are not the source of His recognition of their states.
I think that passage says more about how the ancient Jews despised women (and were obsessed with female sexuality in a negative way) than anything else.
 
Jesus never sinned and He was heterosexual which is what God wants all men and women to be.

His perfect heterosexuality should be emulated by those who claim to follow Him!
How can you emulate something that is never displayed or even apparently used?:rolleyes:
 
I do not believe Jesus Christ was “asexual” in our *modern * sense, with overtones of emotional coldness and schizoid aloofness, at all.

I believe Jesus was a heterosexual male celibate virgin, whose deific pattern is desirable and **worthy of imitation **for those inclined to such a high vocation.

I believe Jesus was supra-sexual – if we have to use a word.

Jesus showed us the most perfect sublimation of sexuality, a way carrying no psychological damage if integrally pursued as an individual path of transcendence self-given, as an “oblation” to God, and productive of good fruits.

Jesus showed forth in His own life non-romantic spiritual friendships with both genders, unmarried and married, characterized by platonic intimacy and empathetic nearness. Such distinctively Christian relationality is possible and worthwhile in His “New Creation”, without fear of scandal.

Jesus sublimated His sexuality into Agapic transcendent Love, and proved the power of Agape-based friendships to exist and spiritually uplift as sacred and passionate relationships without involving the crudely physical element.

Celibacy represents not Gnostic, nihilistic obliteration of sexuality but the *transfiguration * and reintegration of sexuality within oneself.

The very first thing Jesus Christ did at the beginning of the “new creation” was greet an unmarried, female friend alone in a garden–Mary Magdalene. The notion of “occasion of sin” is simply idiotic here.

The distinctively Christian spirituality of “supra-sexual” yet intimate friendship, and/or “cross-sex” agapic, empathic friendship of sacred passion embedded in chastity, is here unfolded with Jesus and Mary Magdalene in the garden.

It is no coincidence within Catholicism there is a tradition of beautiful spiritual friendships, whether “homosocial” or “cross-sex”. One only has to think of the soulful and holy spiritual deep friendship between St. Francis de Sales and St. Jane Frances de Chantal, among innumerable other examples…

Protestantism has no such venerable, noble tradition, bogged down in its distorting view of sexuality…
As I said before, how can you emulate or imitate something that is never displayed (that you have never seen)?

Moreover, its worth noting that you are making a lot of assumptions regarding Christ’s sexuality on little to no evidence (even Biblical evidence).
 
Sexuality is not exclusively expressed in brute acts of generative intercourse, but is also a matter of the personal soul, temperament and degree of interior maturity. That is why celibacy is not “asexual”–only the upward transmutation of sexuality. Only Gnostic heretics can really be designated as “asexual.”

Agape means unconditional love, distinctively Christian love of the highest grade. Jesus embodied it for us, as an example.

Jesus rebelled against the legalistic Judaic norms of social interaction relating to the genders, socializing with both sexes of whatever marital status communally and privately, and treating “fallen women” not with customary dehumanizing contempt, but with (then) unheard-of love and compassion. The story of the reformed prostitute crying at the feet of Jesus in a way the Pharisaical mind perceived as inevitably scandalous and “sensual” indicates the type of sexual personality Jesus incarnated–Agapic. Physical, social and legalitarian boundaries meant nothing to Jesus, because he saw the inward significance of the outer act–“her great love” and how authentic (penitential) love exists as a redemptive power.

Jesus further opened up the way for women to ascend in social dignity beyond the constrictive role-expectations of the Greco-Roman world, as the only axis of value in Christianity is “nobility of virtue”, an axial morality transcendent to gender and sexual stereotypes. Through Jesus and Christianity, “Eve” was restored in dignity and woman could assume positions of leadership and influence within the ecclesiastical structure, as mystic, prophetess, abbess, etc.

I believe Jesus set before us the example of an ennobled and healthy sexuality capable of creating holy and good friendships beyond simplistic gender and social rule-sets, rooted in Agapic chastity of the spirit–the greatest species of human intimacy whose grossest manifestation is animal coupling–and the direct opposite of the sexual paranoia and neurotic scrupulosity commonly practiced, accepted and taught today by mainstream Catholics and Protestants.
As near as I can tell, what you describe has always been a part of Catholicism, at least if you don’t count the lay community.
 
I’m a foreigner, loving the American character and language (well the UK-English-language rather, as I’m unable to pronounce it the American way).
But such question as in this topic, I wouldn’t even allow myself to briefly imagine or swipe. I simply would fear to assault God - which would be deadly.

Sexuality is an additive present God gave us. Such as taste - giving us the enjoyment of certain some kinds of food.

Now still; hardly any one of us would dare to put a question like; “what’s the favorite dish God prefers?” Most would simply deny such question as plain daft.

But how on earth could anyone connect God to sex in what so ever form???

I recently saw stickers on atheist cars, taking fun of our talk “GOOD GOD”
So they got stickers saying “good goddess”. That’s a first step towards associations “God and Sex” in which so ever assonant form.

There are side-thoughts we really should naturally forbid our brains to go or take or even swipe.

Yours
Bruno
I think your reaction is very understandable Bruno.

From what I can tell, to most Westerners thinking of sexuality in relation to Jesus Christ in any sort of positive way is counterintuitive. The idea that the more holy you are the less sexual you are (and visa versa) is very common.

But the Catholic Church has realized that this is a losing argument.

If people think that Catholicism regards sexual desire and sex itself (even marital sex) as a necessary evil, then the secularized people of the Western world will not take the Church seriously when it tries to influence habits and policy regarding sex and marriage.

Now the Catholic Church is trying to convince everyone that it likes sex (which isn’t easy considering how long its been holding up celibacy as the ideal). It just as a few:rolleyes: conditions regarding how sex should be practiced, thought about, etc.
 
I think your reaction is very understandable Bruno.
Thanks! But I don’t think any believer would ever and not even in the back of his mind, connect God with sexual thoughts in any form or means. Though Jesus was fully human, He also was and is; fully God. Why would God want ALL to have what He gave and presented us, especially things we only an do with. A father neither desires the toy that he gave his beloved; the toy that’s so extremely important to his child.
From what I can tell, to most Westerners thinking of sexuality in relation to Jesus Christ in any sort of positive way is counterintuitive. The idea that the more holy you are the less sexual you are (and visa versa) is very common.
Sorry, but that’s not right. See many old people in the Gospel, who received the grace to become pregnant…
But the Catholic Church has realized that this is a losing argument.
Sorry, but that’s not right. The Church never argued such.
If people think that Catholicism regards sexual desire and sex itself (even marital sex) as a necessary evil,
Sorry, but that’s not right. Christians nor the Church do not think so. Quite on the contrary…
then the secularized people of the Western world will not take the Church seriously when it tries to influence habits and policy regarding sex and marriage.
Sorry, but that’s not right. The Church never tries to “influence sexual habits”, but the Church tries to bring people’s minds back to the right meaning of sexuality.
Now the Catholic Church is trying to convince everyone that it likes sex (which isn’t easy considering how long its been holding up celibacy as the ideal).
Sorry, but that’s not right. Celibacy is not an invention of the Catholic Church (though it’s been tradition ever since Jesus’ disciples), but all holy people; real Saints as well as monks and nuns, choose celibacy for being able to concentrate on higher things; God, Charity etc. Or take leaders of other religions, such as Dalai Lama who is honored by the western world even more than the Pope. They all live in celebacy. It’s simply wrong to think celibacy is an invention of our Church.
It just as a few:rolleyes: conditions regarding how sex should be practiced, thought about, etc.
Sex if practiced the way as this divine option has been presented to us, is nothing in any way bad. God never gave nor gives us anything bad. But the way sex went off it’s normal track as well in our time as in the late ancient Greece or Rome, is simply wrong and widely sinful. Sin such as homosexuality or other pratices do not become right, just because “modern” consensus says so. When modernists say, the Church must accept and to deem these practices as right, then they simply are wrong. The Church will thanks heavens never bend down to sinful breaking of God’s law - however loud the word insists on worldly way.

Finally back to the topics question: Jesus = an asexual/non-sexual?
That’s almost same thing as if we’d ask; did Jesus desire to have a vacation in………
Or if a toddler asks, if in heaven he’ll have his teddy-bear or her dull.
I once even read in a forum the ridicules question: “Will we have sex in heaven?”………

Yours
Bruno
PS.:
why are you an “ANGRY” Atheist. What makes you angry?
 
Thanks! But I don’t think any believer would ever and not even in the back of his mind, connect God with sexual thoughts in any form or means. Though Jesus was fully human, He also was and is; fully God. Why would God want ALL to have what He gave and presented us, especially things we only an do with. A father neither desires the toy that he gave his beloved; the toy that’s so extremely important to his child.

Sorry, but that’s not right. See many old people in the Gospel, who received the grace to become pregnant…

Sorry, but that’s not right. The Church never argued such.

Sorry, but that’s not right. Christians nor the Church do not think so. Quite on the contrary…

Sorry, but that’s not right. The Church never tries to “influence sexual habits”, but the Church tries to bring people’s minds back to the right meaning of sexuality.

Sorry, but that’s not right. Celibacy is not an invention of the Catholic Church (though it’s been tradition ever since Jesus’ disciples), but all holy people; real Saints as well as monks and nuns, choose celibacy for being able to concentrate on higher things; God, Charity etc. Or take leaders of other religions, such as Dalai Lama who is honored by the western world even more than the Pope. They all live in celebacy. It’s simply wrong to think celibacy is an invention of our Church.

Sex if practiced the way as this divine option has been presented to us, is nothing in any way bad. God never gave nor gives us anything bad. But the way sex went off it’s normal track as well in our time as in the late ancient Greece or Rome, is simply wrong and widely sinful. Sin such as homosexuality or other pratices do not become right, just because “modern” consensus says so. When modernists say, the Church must accept and to deem these practices as right, then they simply are wrong. The Church will thanks heavens never bend down to sinful breaking of God’s law - however loud the word insists on worldly way.

Finally back to the topics question: Jesus = an asexual/non-sexual?
That’s almost same thing as if we’d ask; did Jesus desire to have a vacation in………
Or if a toddler asks, if in heaven he’ll have his teddy-bear or her dull.
I once even read in a forum the ridicules question: “Will we have sex in heaven?”………

Yours
Bruno
PS.:
why are you an “ANGRY” Atheist. What makes you angry?
This post is so fundamentally wrong, that I need to pause for thought to consider just how wrong it is.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I think your reaction is very understandable Bruno.

Thanks! But I don’t think any believer would ever and not even in the back of his mind, connect God with sexual thoughts in any form or means. Though Jesus was fully human, He also was and is; fully God. Why would God want ALL to have what He gave and presented us, especially things we only an do with. A father neither desires the toy that he gave his beloved; the toy that’s so extremely important to his child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
From what I can tell, to most Westerners thinking of sexuality in relation to Jesus Christ in any sort of positive way is counterintuitive. The idea that the more holy you are the less sexual you are (and visa versa) is very common.

Sorry, but that’s not right. See many old people in the Gospel, who received the grace to become pregnant…

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
But the Catholic Church has realized that this is a losing argument.

Sorry, but that’s not right. The Church never argued such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
If people think that Catholicism regards sexual desire and sex itself (even marital sex) as a necessary evil,

Sorry, but that’s not right. Christians nor the Church do not think so. Quite on the contrary

I was talking about perception.

Regardless of what you think that the Catholic Church actually teaches or has taught in the past, the fact that Protestants and those in the secular world see the Church as anti-sex is pretty undeniable.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
then the secularized people of the Western world will not take the Church seriously when it tries to influence habits and policy regarding sex and marriage.

Sorry, but that’s not right. The Church never tries to “influence sexual habits”, but the Church tries to bring people’s minds back to the right meaning of sexuality.

]

Wrong.

The Catholic Church has a long history of forming alliances with and meddling in the affairs of Catholic monarchies and their neighbors. The papacy even ruled its own European kingdom for a long stretch of time (source: newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm).

Think about that, there was once a land where the Pope ruled like a king. Guess whether or not the Pope’s personal kingdom had rules regarding sex and marriage:rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Now the Catholic Church is trying to convince everyone that it likes sex (which isn’t easy considering how long its been holding up celibacy as the ideal).

Sorry, but that’s not right. Celibacy is not an invention of the Catholic Church (though it’s been tradition ever since Jesus’ disciples), but all holy people; real Saints as well as monks and nuns, choose celibacy for being able to concentrate on higher things; God, Charity etc. Or take leaders of other religions, such as Dalai Lama who is honored by the western world even more than the Pope. They all live in celebacy. It’s simply wrong to think celibacy is an invention of our Church.

]

The Catholic Church didn’t invent religious celibacy…

So what?

I never claimed it did, but I was talking specifically about the Church and the way its perceived by the outside world.
 
Finally back to the topics question: Jesus = an asexual/non-sexual?
That’s almost same thing as if we’d ask; did Jesus desire to have a vacation in………
Or if a toddler asks, if in heaven he’ll have his teddy-bear or her dull.
I once even read in a forum the ridicules question: “Will we have sex in heaven?”………

?
If this topic is unworthy of discussion…

Why are you bothering to post in this thread?:rolleyes:
 
The papacy even ruled its own European kingdom for a long stretch of time .
Think about that, there was once a land where the Pope ruled like a king. Guess whether or not the Pope’s personal kingdom had rules regarding sex and marriage :rolleyes:
Think about that: there was once a land, where the Whites ruled like kings and felt entitled to kill anyone red or black. Guess whether or not their personal kingdom had ruled about human rights.
This goes to any country of the world - simply exchange red and black with Jews or any other group not suitable to the ruling cast.
Now, which fool then would condemn these peoples today, for mistakes and terrible sins their ancestors made in history?
the fact that Protestants and those in the secular world see the Church as anti-sex is pretty undeniable.
The fact that Chinese eat dogs, and Indians have castes of Untouchable and those in the Moslem World are celebrated martyrs when they as suicide bombers kill disbelievers, is pretty undeniable. They see our denying these things and naming them as wrong, as false. Would we therefore agree to their sight as right ? What makes you think that the seular world is right, and 2,5 Billion Christians are wrong? Ain’t that a bit of a narrow sight?

It’s clear why atheists keep being angry and you name yourself as such. They sadly enough never find peace, for one can’t find peace when departed from God. So, they remain in everlasting anxious mind, unless they find God again of Whom they originate and to Whom they will return to be judged when they probation on earth is over. Their conviction and “hope” to simply fade away as a daisy does after it’s time - won’t fulfill. Life - the real and actual life will in fact begin then, and you too will see it. Hopefully you will understand before you see God.

Yours
Bruno
 
Hey…in exceptional circumstances, the Spiritual power has the inherent moral Right to intervene in the secular sphere and function as the Temporal power, for the good of all…

Firstly, by sheer metaphysical logic, the earthly kingdom is of necessity subordinate officer or servant to the Spiritual Militia of the Church. The beliefs and errors of Nihilistic modernity mean zilch here, for what counts is what is ontologically, axiologically and metaphysically true–not the emotional vehemence of the enemies of the Church, or the quantitative shadowy emptiness of the numbers on the side of Her enemies! Quantity means zilch, metaphysically, logically, morally, politically, in every way.

Real Catholics need not become limp-wristed, masochistically self-defeating here and cave in to anti-Catholics and the irrationality of their empty arguments! No concessions at all!

The Roman Empire was self-imploded. Injustice was rampant. Administrative law ceased to exist. The Roman “race” was morally corrupted to the core, its senatorial class a shadow of its former self and oppressive to the commons; and then the Nordic-Germanic invaders, whose only rule was tribal fist-law, came in a sanguinary blitzkrieg, set a large portion of the Western Imperium ablaze, pushing down what was already practically fallen; and the Germanic sub-tribes and warlike Mannerbunde possessed the morality of
a gangsterism outshining even the brilliant decadent immorality of the necrotic, libertine Roman nobility. The Nordic-Germanic tribal leaders, carnage and warfare flowing in their veins, usurped the crumbling Imperial Roman and Byzantine authority, and claimed a feudalistic independence from all remaining imperial power, establishing themselves through sheer Terroristic Warfare as the new self-appointed, self-ennobled “aristocracy” of Europe. Everything was in chaos. The Romans and Germans were disordered in the extreme, each in their own ways. The idea of higher ethical justice…and State as Temporal “father-like” protector the altruistic good of all, even the weakest and the lower classes…the idea of the State as reflective of Higher Reason or Logos, whose legitimacy is based on some bare variety of Moral Goodness or Noblesse Oblige…was dead, nonexistent.

Inhering within the Church as the Supreme Intellective Leader of the Ordo of Christendom is the right to direct the “secular arm”, the knightly-administrative Station or Class, and to direct it along morally sound lines and educate it internally for the sake of good; and also invoke it for Spiritual or purely ecclesiastical reasons implicitly (but only occasionally and rarely is this virtual right of indirect coercion put into practice). In any case, when the “secular arm”, i.e. the the governing authorities,have become non-functioning and power exists merely as sadistic libido dominandi and the common good is totally ravaged with impunity, the Church then has the exceptional yet metaphysically undeniable right to assume the Temporal Authority itself as well; and rather than being a destructive element in Western history, Papal Headship preserved the West from its own internal self-dissolution in anarchy, provided as much civilized order and humanistic charity to all as could be given in the circumstances, and heroically resisted (and eventually tamed) the Nordic-Germanic “law of the Berserk”–that is, primitive, ugly, barbarian violence ruling “by grace of” corpse-mounds and mountains of innocently destroyed souls, Tyranny of Terrorist Blood-Reign as the Ape of true Authority, as the Devil is the Ape of God.

No Catholics need guilt-trips here, or need to feel depressively apologetic! Feel proud when accused of Papalism and Papalo-Caesarism, or Caesaro-Papalism, whatever it is…

Catholicism has only acted as an Agent against Chaos, historically… Temporal Power can never exist in schizophrenic isolation from Spiritual-Intellective Power–a Cosmic Metaphysical Law unassailable and irrepressible… The supreme coercive material power does belong to the Church as a virtually reserved moral right, intrinsic to the nature of human social organization… Each organic part of society needs the other, for the holistic greater good of all and social organicity… The Head of the body is the Head, and can never change its essence…

The Authority informally transferred to Papal Headship, preservative of the the Western Christian Ordo, was later humbly given back to the Temporal power when it “straightened itself up” and re-normalized morally, and the Carolingian Temporal Power, whose legitimacy and right-to-rule was directly based on its self-acknowledged Moral Submission to the uplifting and civilizing ethical system of the pontifical Church, FREELY chose to let a part of the earthly kingdom continue remaining in Papal hands as a type of "gift–the Papal States. The Papacy had an imprescriptable, acquired right over these lands…and later in history they were only usurped by the “arbitration” of the overreaching sword of the modern subversive State-Idea and its mercenaries–not any real justice.
 
No apologies, no depressive-bipolar self-flagellation needed anywhere!

Papal Catholicism reawakened Romanitas and made ethical heroes and saints out of former degenerates and libertines…purifying the Roman “race” and its senatorial leadership-class in an upward direction…only foreshadowed dimly in its primordial origins as a heroic, dignified people, arrayed against the common matriarchal and Dionysian Mediterranean cults of regressive spiritual putridity…

Papal Catholicism sublimated the Nordic-Germanic blood tendency towards uninhibited, endemic, tribal warfare into the refined gold of spiritually-enlightened Knighthood and magnanimous, selfless Chivalry, polar opposite ideals in hostile opposition to the lower mercenary impulse…creating the agapically-motivated Galahadic and Templarian Archetype for the patriciate classes of the West to strive after in the Moral Imagination…

Do we have to apologize for turning Greco-Roman degenerates into holy saints, and reinvigorating the Mediterranean elites so that they were not merely nominally “noble”, but “nobles of the spirit” too, in following the Church’s social teaching by acting humanitarian towards the commonality, the destitute and the unfortunate poor?

Do we have to apologize for transforming blood-lusting Nordic-Viking pirates, Berserkers and outlaw-warlords into True Warriors–whose bellicose spirit was not unrealistically denied, but given its right place and only redirected against manifestations of Chaos–whether in the form of internal Guardians of Peace and Enforcers of the Papal conciliar decrees concerning “the Peace of God” and later the “Truce of God” (Papal initiatives once again securing general order for all, and unafraid to penalize rebellious, violently-bent insurgent aristocrats and “black knights” who existed in anarchist autarky from all Lawfulness); or in the form of superbly disciplined battalions and shock-troops of idealistic Crusaders against alien Tartar and Islamic despoilers of our Eastern European Christian cousins…apologize for reforming and rehabilitating ex-gangsters and ex-criminals into God-informed, ascetic Templars and Hospitallers?

Do we have to apologize for creating Chivalry itself and the Spiritual Noblesse Oblige attached to all earthly power…the remnants of which ideas constitute the only saving grace of the modern deconsecrated, desecrated Nihilistic pseudo-states?

Guilt? No! Pride and more pride is what is called for… Never cry submission to the modern misguided agents of theophobic anarchy and materialistic, Nietzschean anti-Christianity!

Thank God for Papal Headship, I say, and if it ever needs to re-arise again due to exceptional emergency-conditions in these days of complete moral inversion, destruction of the State-Idea as Bearer of Higher Order, widespread hellblack Nihilism infecting all areas of life, and the Plutopornocratic-Oligarchic Tyranny of International Organized Crime, all glory be to its re-ascent!
 
I think you are referring to Matthew 5:27-28

usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=5

I think there is a big difference between lust and sexual attraction. I can see a woman in the supermarket and think she is cute, but without feeling lust for her. I suspect that is true for most men, and similarly for women seeing a cute guy.

As for the question in the first post, I agree with the point already made that we simply don’t have information about Jesus’ sexual attraction. The topic was not addressed by the writers of the Gospels… perhaps because it is irrelevant to the Good News?
As for the question in the first post, I agree with the point already made that we simply don’t have information about Jesus’ sexual attraction.
Just making a supposition here but Jesus being human in every way but sin obviously mortified His senses and didn’t subject His Will to the temptations of His lower human nature.
 
Thinking someone is attractive, and lusting for someone are two different things.
 
Thinking someone is attractive, and lusting for someone are two different things.
Totally Agree 👍

Its when we allow the desires of our mind to crave having sex with the attractive person. Then there is sinful intention and lust takes root in the heart…
 
Think about that: there was once a land, where the Whites ruled like kings and felt entitled to kill anyone red or black. Guess whether or not their personal kingdom had ruled about human rights.
This goes to any country of the world - simply exchange red and black with Jews or any other group not suitable to the ruling cast.
Now, which fool then would condemn these peoples today, for mistakes and terrible sins their ancestors made in history?

The fact that Chinese eat dogs, and Indians have castes of Untouchable and those in the Moslem World are celebrated martyrs when they as suicide bombers kill disbelievers, is pretty undeniable. They see our denying these things and naming them as wrong, as false. Would we therefore agree to their sight as right ? What makes you think that the seular world is right, and 2,5 Billion Christians are wrong? Ain’t that a bit of a narrow sight?

It’s clear why atheists keep being angry and you name yourself as such. They sadly enough never find peace, for one can’t find peace when departed from God. So, they remain in everlasting anxious mind, unless they find God again of Whom they originate and to Whom they will return to be judged when they probation on earth is over. Their conviction and “hope” to simply fade away as a daisy does after it’s time - won’t fulfill. Life - the real and actual life will in fact begin then, and you too will see it. Hopefully you will understand before you see God.

Yours
Bruno
So what’s your point?

That groups other than the Catholic Church have also done authoritarian and/or horrible things?

So what?

That doesn’t make the Catholic Church or its actions good.
If two wrongs don’t make a right, then everybody else doing something wrong certainly does not make a person or group doing wrong virtuous.

Or perhaps you think it doesn’t count if the Catholics and/or the Church itself does it?:rolleyes:
 
No apologies, no depressive-bipolar self-flagellation needed anywhere!

Papal Catholicism reawakened Romanitas and made ethical heroes and saints out of former degenerates and libertines…purifying the Roman “race” and its senatorial leadership-class in an upward direction…only foreshadowed dimly in its primordial origins as a heroic, dignified people, arrayed against the common matriarchal and Dionysian Mediterranean cults of regressive spiritual putridity…

Papal Catholicism sublimated the Nordic-Germanic blood tendency towards uninhibited, endemic, tribal warfare into the refined gold of spiritually-enlightened Knighthood and magnanimous, selfless Chivalry, polar opposite ideals in hostile opposition to the lower mercenary impulse…creating the agapically-motivated Galahadic and Templarian Archetype for the patriciate classes of the West to strive after in the Moral Imagination…

Do we have to apologize for turning Greco-Roman degenerates into holy saints, and reinvigorating the Mediterranean elites so that they were not merely nominally “noble”, but “nobles of the spirit” too, in following the Church’s social teaching by acting humanitarian towards the commonality, the destitute and the unfortunate poor?

Do we have to apologize for transforming blood-lusting Nordic-Viking pirates, Berserkers and outlaw-warlords into True Warriors–whose bellicose spirit was not unrealistically denied, but given its right place and only redirected against manifestations of Chaos–whether in the form of internal Guardians of Peace and Enforcers of the Papal conciliar decrees concerning “the Peace of God” and later the “Truce of God” (Papal initiatives once again securing general order for all, and unafraid to penalize rebellious, violently-bent insurgent aristocrats and “black knights” who existed in anarchist autarky from all Lawfulness); or in the form of superbly disciplined battalions and shock-troops of idealistic Crusaders against alien Tartar and Islamic despoilers of our Eastern European Christian cousins…apologize for reforming and rehabilitating ex-gangsters and ex-criminals into God-informed, ascetic Templars and Hospitallers?

Do we have to apologize for creating Chivalry itself and the Spiritual Noblesse Oblige attached to all earthly power…the remnants of which ideas constitute the only saving grace of the modern deconsecrated, desecrated Nihilistic pseudo-states?

Guilt? No! Pride and more pride is what is called for… Never cry submission to the modern misguided agents of theophobic anarchy and materialistic, Nietzschean anti-Christianity!

Thank God for Papal Headship, I say, and if it ever needs to re-arise again due to exceptional emergency-conditions in these days of complete moral inversion, destruction of the State-Idea as Bearer of Higher Order, widespread hellblack Nihilism infecting all areas of life, and the Plutopornocratic-Oligarchic Tyranny of International Organized Crime, all glory be to its re-ascent!
Thank you Hakathriel I needed a good laugh:D

So you’re arguing that the awesome influence of the Holy Mother Church :rolleyes: transformed the area that would become known as Christendom into a land of fairness, justice, prosperity, and strength and that if Church becomes that dominant again we will return to such glory days…

Well the first question that comes to mind is:
are you sober?
And if so, are you just trolling?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top