A
Alex337
Guest
Actually it’s very relevant as demonstrated what sodomy refers to may not be what you think.
- Status
A
Alex337
Guest
It seems to me that passage was more about divorce than anything else.
A
Alex337
Guest
I’ll be honest, it does look like Paul says the desire arises from denying God. While the Church had tried to clarify it into a nicer light it does seem to say that.Thorolfr:
As I noted, the Church has explained these things, including the difference between the inclination to be attracted to the same sex (which is not a sin) and the decision to give oneself permission to decide what is right and wrong independently (which is the cardinal sin of pride or hubris, which is what St. Paul is talking about).
Again: there is no reason to hash this all out as if we have no guidance on the matter. We can profitably explain the teachings in many ways, as that may improve our understanding, but there is no profit in beginning with the premise that the teachings themselves might be incorrect. They are reliably correct. We can bank on that.
I’d again assume he was referring to simply unchaste lust.
A
Alex337
Guest
“Why is it not mentioned in the gospel?” Is a worrying way to look at things. A lot of stuff wasn’t specifically condoned.
A
Alex337
Guest
Thorolfr:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
When I said why is it not mentioned in the gospel, I was speaking about the time when Jesus was talking marriage, where my question was: If God believed two men should be together in matrimony then why didn’t Jesus (who is God) say anything about it? Yes many things were not condoned, one of which were homosexual acts, as it is considered contrary to God’s will.
For starters, we live in a world that is different from the world that Saint Augustine lived in. I agree slavery shouldn’t exist but in those but it did exist for various reasons (including the fact that there were different forms of slavery) and you have to accept that. Yes, Saint Augustine was a man who agreed with disciplining slaves using a lash. He lived in a different time period where punishments seem severe but were more common compared to the modern perspective (where lashing even spanking is hardly done).
Also, as a side note: My parents told me stories about how they were disciplined. They usually got hit with a slipper, hit with a ruler by a teacher, or even the wooden spoon. If that kind of disciplinary action was used in present day, then we would see it as cruel. So yes, we have changed our ways in disciplining people.
Your choice of wordplay when you say “Whipping a slave lovingly” gives the appearance that you did not understand what I said. Augustine said to use the lash but do it with a loving spirit (as in INTENTION). He condemned the whipping of slaves with vindictive intentions (having or showing a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge).
(This thread has been derailed by the subject of slavery. Either make a new thread or we should stop the conversation)
Last edited:
A
Alex337
Guest
Sorry; no one ever whipped a slave with a loving spirit.Alex337:
When I said why is it not mentioned in the gospel, I was speaking about the time when Jesus was talking marriage, where my question was: If God believed two men should be together in matrimony then why didn’t Jesus (who is God) say anything about it? Yes many things were not condoned, one of which were homosexual acts, as it is considered contrary to God’s will.
For starters, we live in a world that is different from the world that Saint Augustine lived in. I agree slavery shouldn’t exist but in those but it did exist for various reasons (including the fact that there were different forms of slavery) and you have to accept that. Yes, Saint Augustine was a man who agreed with disciplining slaves using a lash. He lived in a different time period where punishments seem severe but were more common compared to the modern perspective (where lashing even spanking is hardly done).
Also, as a side note: My parents told me stories about how they were disciplined. They usually got hit with a slipper, hit with a ruler by a teacher, or even the wooden spoon. If that kind of disciplinary action was used in present day, then we would see it as cruel. So yes, we have changed our ways in disciplining people
Your choice of wordplay when you say “Whipping a slave lovingly” gives the appearance that you did not understand what I said. Augustine said to use the lash but do it with a loving spirit (as in INTENTION). He condemned the whipping of slaves with vindictive intentions (having or showing a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge).
I don’t think it’s okay because it was relatively less bad.
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
And you have the facts to prove that no slave was whipped for discipline with the hopes of him or her doing better in life??
(Make a new thread on this. we need to stop derailing this thread)
Last edited:
A
Alex337
Guest
People don’t whip slaves with a loving spirit. People rarely own others while possessing a loving spirit, there are exceptions there but once whipping comes in it stops.Alex337:
And you have the facts to prove that no slave was whipped for discipline with the hopes of him or her doing better in life??
Whiping slaves is wrong. Even if the time period said it was okay; unless morality changes over time?
Edit: answered before the edit, sorry.
Last edited:
K
klmt123
Guest
It’s a sin, just because the world says it’s okay doesn’t mean it is. Man’s laws are not God’s laws. All homosexual acts are forbidden, so what would be the point in marriage?
A
Alex337
Guest
Follow up question: is marriage just for sex?
K
klmt123
Guest
Marriage is for having a family, by procreating naturally. 1 man and 1 woman. Marriage has to be consummated and homosexuals can not do that as it requires a penis into a vagina and ejaculating in the vagina.
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
With procreation isn’t the sexual act inside marriage also meant for a stronger unity between husband and wife?
Last edited:
K
klmt123
Guest
Yes. Husband and wife. Not husband and husband. Or wife and wife
Last edited:
A
Alex337
Guest
In your opinion. What about people who can’t have children out of interest?
K
klmt123
Guest
They are still able to marry because there is nothing they did to make themselves unable to have kids.
A
Alex337
Guest
But I thought marriage required vaginal intercourse to completion?
K
klmt123
Guest
Why are you on this site if you dont agree with the teachings?! Go find another site!
K
klmt123
Guest
It does. Seman into vagina, without hormonal contraceptive or barrier. Not all acts of intercourse result in pregnancy. Woman are naturally infertile during part of the month, without doing anything to make themselves infertile.
Last edited:
A
Alex337
Guest
I’ve explained this, I enjoy polite discussion. I don’t care for living in an echo chamber, so I try not to only speak to people I agree with
- Status