Sanctity and Sexuality are not opposite, they are?

[ndeparis88]

A strong suggestion if someone hasn’t made it already.

Read John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, or some book which explains it.

That’s just what I was going to post.

Sex is a great sign and a great real world example of the unity awaiting us in heaven. It’s just scratching the Love that God (who is love) has for us. It is a show of the divine play manifested in a human act. Sex isn’t good… IT:S SACRED! It’ s so GREAT that the way we see it now is degrading, an diminishes what it really means, I really recommend Christopher West’'s stuff for this he does a great job of putting the lofty writing of Male and Female TOB , down to earth terms.

 

[TarkanAttila]

That’s just what I was going to post.

Sex is a great sign and a great real world example of the unity awaiting us in heaven. It’s just scratching the Love that God (who is love) has for us. It is a show of the divine play manifested in a human act. Sex isn’t good… IT:S SACRED! It’ s so GREAT that the way we see it now is degrading, an diminishes what it really means, I really recommend Christopher West’'s stuff for this he does a great job of putting the lofty writing of Male and Female TOB , down to earth terms.

Amen, amen. For every thing Christ calls evil, there is a superior good that by and far outweighs it. And everyone is capable of it!

But once you’ve conquered today’s erroneous views on sexuality (at least in this day and age), you can pretty much conquer them all.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, is procreation really that vital? I seem to remember Adam, Eve, and Jesus coming into being without the need for any of that.

Also, the most important consideration is eternal life, and whether we enter Heaven or Hell and the clergy’s role is far more important than the laity in this respect. Its probably better to never have been born than to spend an eternal life in Hell.

There’s a word for this “superogatory” - goes above and beyond the call of duty. Only a “duty” can be obligated.

Here’s an example:sevenpillarsinstitute.org/dictionary/supererogation

Or a doctor who works on repairing broken bones instead of going into finance. We would think this is a good person. But the same doctor who works on repairing broken bones with a practice primarily devoted to those who can’t afford to pay and lives on next to nothing in Southeast Asia is more noble. But we can’t obligate doctors to do this.

Joking aside yes.
Without procreation the human race would die out.
Assuming that that is a* bad thing*, having people ready, willing, and able to breed is more important for our race than having priests. Its just that people breeding is taken so utterly for granted.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, is procreation really that vital? I seem to remember Adam, Eve, and Jesus coming into being without the need for any of that.

**Also, the most important consideration is eternal life, and whether we enter Heaven or Hell and the clergy’s role is far more important than the laity in this respect. Its probably better to never have been born than to spend an eternal life in Hell. **

There’s a word for this “superogatory” - goes above and beyond the call of duty. Only a “duty” can be obligated.

Here’s an example:sevenpillarsinstitute.org/dictionary/supererogation

Or a doctor who works on repairing broken bones instead of going into finance. We would think this is a good person. But the same doctor who works on repairing broken bones with a practice primarily devoted to those who can’t afford to pay and lives on next to nothing in Southeast Asia is more noble. But we can’t obligate doctors to do this.

According to that logic, most people should never have been born at all.
Since damnation is the default setting of Fallen (i.e. normal) humanity.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, is procreation really that vital? I seem to remember Adam, Eve, and Jesus coming into being without the need for any of that.

Also, the most important consideration is eternal life, and whether we enter Heaven or Hell and the clergy’s role is far more important than the laity in this respect. Its probably better to never have been born than to spend an eternal life in Hell.

**There’s a word for this “superogatory” - goes above and beyond the call of duty. Only a “duty” can be obligated.

Here’s an example:sevenpillarsinstitute.org/dictionary/supererogation**

Or a doctor who works on repairing broken bones instead of going into finance. We would think this is a good person. But the same doctor who works on repairing broken bones with a practice primarily devoted to those who can’t afford to pay and lives on next to nothing in Southeast Asia is more noble. But we can’t obligate doctors to do this. /QUOTE]

That is not a very convincing (theological) argument.
According to Catholicism everybody is supposed to strive for holiness.
Saying that its unpleasant or too hard is not considered a legitimate excuse (frankly many Catholics seem to have the idea that the more holy something is the more hard and unpleasant it is and visa versa).

 

[meltzerboy]

Reading on Spanish Wikipedia article about Shabat I encountered this phrase " Unlike what happens in Christianity, Sanctity and Sexuality are not opposite in Judaism (… so it is possible to have sex at Shabat…)".

that is a heavy stone thrown at us. More from a long-tradition Rabbinic Jewish caricature about Christians such as Barbarian Goys who have stolen their Light… so we Christians are troglodytes who say… no…sex! Vade retro! Or is it real?

I need documents to prove it is not real a complete opposition between Sanctity and Sexuality.

I remember writings of Faustina Kowalska talking about the Encounter between God and Us such as that Encounter between the married couple… The Bridegroom and his Bride. Really meaningful for me were those writings.

If the rabbi actually said this, he is ignorant of Christianity and Catholicism, in particular. Please don’t judge all of Judaism by the remarks of some Jews. Further, no sex is permitted in Judaism on Yom Kippur and also, I believe, on the Ninth of Av, since the latter is a day of mourning for the Jewish people. The Sabbath, however, is different, because it is a day of joy and learning and a celebration of life and the soul, not a day of atonement or affliction. One is supposed to eat, drink, and be merry. At the same time, the Sabbath is a day of meditation and being rather than one of workday activity, traveling, and doing. Therefore, Jews refrain from mundane matters, not only those that may require a lot of physical effort but also common tasks that are not so demanding. One simply appreciates life as it is, without trying to change and improve the world, which is one of the Jew’s tasks during the rest of the week.

 

[HailStarofSea]

That is not a very convincing (theological) argument.
According to Catholicism everybody is supposed to strive for holiness.
Saying that its unpleasant or too hard is not considered a legitimate excuse (frankly many Catholics seem to have the idea that the more holy something is the more hard and unpleasant it is and visa versa).

It is not only the theological argument - it is a key difference between Catholicism and theologies such as utilitarianism. Beliefs systems such as utilitarianism, which seems to be the one that you are thinking of, don’t focus on the rights or duties of the individual at all but only the greatest good for the greatest number.

No one said that it was avoided because it was unpleasant or too hard, but because it is not a DUTY. Virginity is also good because of how hard it is Catholicism says everyone is supposed to strive for holiness. It doesn’t say everyone is supposed to strive for holiness in the same way or that married life is unholy. However, this has already been pointed out in previous posts so it is unclear why it is so difficult to understand. This would only conflict with your statement if married life was unholy, which it is not.

 

[HailStarofSea]

Joking aside yes.
Without procreation the human race would die out.
Assuming that that is a* bad thing*, having people ready, willing, and able to breed is more important for our race than having priests. Its just that people breeding is taken so utterly for granted.

Not joking aside, faith aside. You are an atheist so you reject the first premise that God created humans and Jesus in the first place without the need for procreation or that angels exist who are all virgins. Consecrated virginity is called a "foreshadowing of what was to come " as it really doesn’t make sense without acknowledging the existence (and power) of God and eternal and supernatural life.

 

[HailStarofSea]

According to that logic, most people should never have been born at all.
Since damnation is the default setting of Fallen (i.e. normal) humanity.

Damnation is only for those who choose it. Those who choose salvation are not damned, and we have no idea if “most” people choose it or not. No one HAS to choose this as we are all created with the ability to choose eternal life. I suspect most people will end up in purgatory, but won’t really know this until after I die right?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It is not only the theological argument - it is a key difference between Catholicism and theologies such as utilitarianism. Beliefs systems such as utilitarianism, which seems to be the one that you are thinking of, don’t focus on the rights or duties of the individual at all but only the greatest good for the greatest number.

No one said that it was avoided because it was unpleasant or too hard, but because it is not a DUTY. Virginity is also good because of how hard it is Catholicism says everyone is supposed to strive for holiness. It doesn’t say everyone is supposed to strive for holiness in the same way or that married life is unholy. However, this has already been pointed out in previous posts so it is unclear why it is so difficult to understand. This would only conflict with your statement if married life was unholy, which it is not.

So what?

Saint Paul himself said that people should refrain from sex if their strong enough, so why not make that the goal for everyone?

If this world doesn’t matter (at least compared to the Next) then who cares if there are children or not?
Wouldn’t it be better not to be born into this sinful world (where damnation is so very easy to achieve) at all?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Not joking aside, faith aside. You are an atheist so you reject the first premise that God created humans and Jesus in the first place without the need for procreation or that angels exist who are all virgins. Consecrated virginity is called a "foreshadowing of what was to come " as it really doesn’t make sense without acknowledging the existence (and power) of God and eternal and supernatural life.

Yes, I don’t accept that notion.
But I don’t see how it would matter either way:shrug:

Farmers and the like are still far more important than priests in a practical sense.
It doesn’t matter how theoretically faithful to God everyone would be, if there are no people because everybody starved to death.

 

[HailStarofSea]

So what?

Saint Paul himself said that people should refrain from sex if their strong enough, so why not make that the goal for everyone?

Because it is better to marry than burn with passion as St. Paul also says? Because everything created by God is good, and thus it would be inane for God to make marriage a sacrament and then forbid it?

You just have to accept that while holiness is the goal, only sin is wrong, and choosing a lower level of holiness over a higher level of holiness isn’t wrong and merits no additional punishment except for what is implicit in that those who have a lower level of holiness receive a lower level of Heaven. Its like the parable of the talents. The person who had one talent and hid it was sinful. The one who only created four out of two was not punished because he didn’t create ten out of five.

If this world doesn’t matter (at least compared to the Next) then who cares if there are children or not?
Wouldn’t it be better not to be born into this sinful world (where damnation is so very easy to achieve) at all?

We aren’t animals without wills. Every single person who wants to be saved can, so no it is better to be born into this sinful world so that one can choose to go into a better world - paradise. I mean, failing out of school is easy. If you are intelligent enough to succeed in school, is it better to not have the chance to go since some people fail? No, for everyone who is intelligent enough to succeed, it is a privelege and gift to go to school. Everyone can be saved if they want to.

 

[HailStarofSea]

Yes, I don’t accept that notion.
But I don’t see how it would matter either way:shrug:

Farmers and the like are still far more important than priests in a practical sense.
It doesn’t matter how theoretically faithful to God everyone would be, if there are no people because everybody starved to death.

Priests can be farmers too, and actually priests shephered science into being so they have been very useful to farmers. But on that point, again faith matters. At one point, the Israelites survived on nothing more than manna from Heaven so even that point fails.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Because it is better to marry than burn with passion as St. Paul also says? Because everything created by God is good, and thus it would be inane for God to make marriage a sacrament and then forbid it?

You just have to accept that while holiness is the goal, only sin is wrong, and choosing a lower level of holiness over a higher level of holiness isn’t wrong and merits no additional punishment except for what is implicit in that those who have a lower level of holiness receive a lower level of Heaven. Its like the parable of the talents. The person who had one talent and hid it was sinful. The one who only created four out of two was not punished because he didn’t create ten out of five.

We aren’t animals without wills. Every single person who wants to be saved can, so no it is better to be born into this sinful world so that one can choose to go into a better world - paradise. I mean, failing out of school is easy. If you are intelligent enough to succeed in school, is it better to not have the chance to go since some people fail? No, for everyone who is intelligent enough to succeed, it is a privelege and gift to go to school. Everyone can be saved if they want to.

No that doesn’t make sense.
Catholicism is very clear on the fact that its all too easy to become damned.
And since eternity is much longer than any human lifetime, the main purpose of their (the damned’s) existence is to suffer.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Because it is better to marry than burn with passion as St. Paul also says? ** Because everything created by God is good, and thus it would be inane for God to make marriage a sacrament and then forbid it**?

You just have to accept that while holiness is the goal, only sin is wrong, and choosing a lower level of holiness over a higher level of holiness isn’t wrong and merits no additional punishment except for what is implicit in that those who have a lower level of holiness receive a lower level of Heaven. Its like the parable of the talents. The person who had one talent and hid it was sinful. The one who only created four out of two was not punished because he didn’t create ten out of five.

We aren’t animals without wills. Every single person who wants to be saved can, so no it is better to be born into this sinful world so that one can choose to go into a better world - paradise. I mean, failing out of school is easy. If you are intelligent enough to succeed in school, is it better to not have the chance to go since some people fail? No, for everyone who is intelligent enough to succeed, it is a privelege and gift to go to school. Everyone can be saved if they want to.

This statement is directly contradicted by Catholicism’s constant focus on the supposed omnipresence of sin.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Yes, I don’t accept that notion.
But I don’t see how it would matter either way

Farmers and the like are still far more important than priests in a practical sense.
It doesn’t matter how theoretically faithful to God everyone would be, if there are no people because everybody starved to death.

Priests can be farmers too, and actually priests shephered science into being so they have been very useful to farmers. But on that point, again faith matters. ** At one point, the Israelites survived on nothing more than manna from Heaven so even that point fails**.

That doesn’t sound plausible (it sounds like propaganda actually)

 

[prodigalson2011]

This statement is directly contradicted by Catholicism’s constant focus on the supposed omnipresence of sin.

The wickedness of man is indeed widespread; not even an atheist can deny that. I know you were using hyperbole, but even so, man accounts for a very small part of creation, and sin can only come from intellectual beings, so sin is constrained to a rather tiny part of creation; hardly “omnipresent.”

More importantly, though, your statement reflects a deep misunderstanding of the Catholic concept of “sin.” It goes something like this: all created things are good, in and of themselves. Sin, or evil, is not a “thing” in itself, but the willful privation of a created good. The use of a good thing against its intended purpose; the moral equivalent of using a hammer to clean a window. Put more simply, sin and evil are the freely chosen acts of moral agents that go against the proper order of things (which is synonymous with God’s will, goodness, etc.) So there is no contradiction between the reality of human sinfulness and in saying that all of creation is good.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The wickedness of man is indeed widespread; not even an atheist can deny that. I know you were using hyperbole, but even so, man accounts for a very small part of creation, and sin can only come from intellectual beings, so sin is constrained to a rather tiny part of creation; hardly "omnipresent."

More importantly, though, your statement reflects a deep misunderstanding of the Catholic concept of “sin.” It goes something like this: all created things are good, in and of themselves. Sin, or evil, is not a “thing” in itself, but the willful privation of a created good. The use of a good thing against its intended purpose; the moral equivalent of using a hammer to clean a window. Put more simply, sin and evil are the freely chosen acts of moral agents that go against the proper order of things (which is synonymous with God’s will, goodness, etc.) So there is no contradiction between the reality of human sinfulness and in saying that all of creation is good.

It is for human beings, because we carry our metaphorical baggage with us where ever we go.

 

[clem456]

It is for human beings, because we carry our metaphorical baggage with us where ever we go.

Well, then strive for holiness.

 

[roveau]

Sex is sacred inso much as it is the way in which man most fully reflects the image and likeness of God, …

It’s a bit of a stretch to say that sex is sacred. Of course there is nothing wrong with sex if confined to marriage. It is good and part of God’s plan for us on earth. It is a thing which must happen here on earth.

Jesus enjoyed his food but food isn’t sacred, you can’t live without it but it isn’t sacred. Jesus enjoyed wine but wine isn’t sacred unless it has been turned into the blood of our Lord. My kitchen isn’t sacred, neither is my car. The hospital which saves lives isn’t sacred.

Sacred is something set apart from the earth matters, sacred is something that deals with the spiritual. There isn’t sex in Heaven, and there won’t be in the Resurrection, we will be like the angels, as it clearly says in Matthew 22.30.