Sanctity and Sexuality are not opposite, they are?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Archedreamer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
roveau said:
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**.
Click to expand...
So sex and sanctity are opposites then:shrug:
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Why?

Sin is not merely normal, its unavoidable:shrug:
Click to expand...
This is the same kind of rationalization that goes into the more humorous, and thus illustrative, argument, “Why take a shower? I’m just going to get dirty tomorrow.”

To bring it into better focus, though, a health analogy will perhaps prove more useful. It is as though you were to say, “Why should I wash my hands, take vaccinations, avoid contact with contagious individuals, etc.? Everyone gets sick sooner or later.” It’s foolishness, to be blunt. You take care of yourself because health is preferable to sickness. This applies to both body and soul. Because sin is, above all, a sickness of the soul. And, like a true sickness, its ill effects are contagious.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
So sex and sanctity are opposites then:shrug:
Click to expand...
I think there was a bit of misunderstanding there. It’s not that sex and sanctity are opposites. Many earthly things are sacred that will not be in heaven: the sacraments, for instance. There will be no Eucharist in heaven, no confession, etc. It’s not that such things aren’t sacred, it’s that they would serve absolutely no purpose there. We won’t need the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine because he is already there, and we are in need of no further sanctification. We won’t need the sacrament of confession because there will be no more sin. And we won’t need sex, because there will be no procreation.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
This statement is directly contradicted by Catholicism’s constant focus on the supposed omnipresence of sin.
Click to expand...
See 1 Timothy 4:3 that addresses this sort of false ascetism and says it is not just wrong, but a demonic idea.
1Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, 5for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer.*
Click to expand...
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The main purpose of the damned’s existence is to glorify God. They chose to glorify God by showing his power when they rejected him. It is true that the damned life is long, but it only matters if they would change their minds if they lived longer - which they would not. The angels made their choice almost instantly so what difference does the time span make.

Not sure how your statement that it is easy to become damned conflicts with anything. It is also easy to fail out of school. Doesn’t mean that one has to do so if one has the intelligence not to. 🤷
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
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.

That doesn’t sound plausible (it sounds like propaganda actually)🤷
Click to expand...
Then the point is closed; the reason why it matters either way is the same reason that you are taking important parts of the faith to be propaganda while others are going yearly to worship based on the wonder of these events.

1 Corinthians 15:17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is pointless… If our hope in Christ has been for this life only, we are of all people the most pitiable. It is the same thing here w/ regarding the “practicality” or “relative worth” of the life of a priest versus a lay person. If miracles do not exist and God does not exist, the life of a monk is a waste of his time and a drain on our society. If he “hates this world” then shouldn’t he rather kill himself then ask the lay people to financially support his prayer life. Who is he praying to if God does not exist? W/o God, those who follow such a religion are not only not practical but “pitiable” as the good saint says.

As for people surviving without food, Therese Neumann did so in the 20th century. And she was witnessed by doctors as well as non-believers.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
This is the same kind of rationalization that goes into the more humorous, and thus illustrative, argument, “Why take a shower? I’m just going to get dirty tomorrow.”

To bring it into better focus, though, a health analogy will perhaps prove more useful. It is as though you were to say, “Why should I wash my hands, take vaccinations, avoid contact with contagious individuals, etc.? Everyone gets sick sooner or later.” It’s foolishness, to be blunt. You take care of yourself because health is preferable to sickness. This applies to both body and soul. Because sin is, above all, a sickness of the soul. And, like a true sickness, its ill effects are contagious.
Click to expand...
Yes, in addition to this, there is always forgiveness for any repented action. There is a sacrament of Reconciliation and also private repentance.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
So sex and sanctity are opposites then
meltzerboy said:
Not for Judaism. There is nothing so mundane or secular that it cannot be sanctified. However, that does not mean that sex is holy regardless of the manner in which it is practiced.
Click to expand...
Really:rolleyes:

Then why does Judaism have all those rules concerning the ritual impurity of women (most of which are tied to women’s reproductive cycle)?
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Why?

Sin is not merely normal, its unavoidable
davidv said:
Not so, God has given everyone sufficient grace resist any and all temptation and not sin. Most are too lazy to make the effort to resist.
Click to expand...
As I understandable it, Catholicism teaches that everybody has sinned except for Jesus and the Virgin Mary (and they were very much special cases).

Therefore it doesn’t seem reasonable to assume that people could avoid sin if they would simply make the effort.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
This is the same kind of rationalization that goes into the more humorous, and thus illustrative, argument, “Why take a shower? I’m just going to get dirty tomorrow.”

To bring it into better focus, though, a health analogy will perhaps prove more useful. It is as though you were to say, “Why should I wash my hands, take vaccinations, avoid contact with contagious individuals, etc.? Everyone gets sick sooner or later.” It’s foolishness, to be blunt. You take care of yourself because health is preferable to sickness. This applies to both body and soul. Because sin is, above all, a sickness of the soul. And, like a true sickness, its ill effects are contagious.
Click to expand...
No, sickness is when something is abnormal and wrong with the body.
If the body is operating as normal (and as the Catholic Church will usually stress, sin is all too normal) then that person is not sick.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
I think there was a bit of misunderstanding there. It’s not that sex and sanctity are opposites. Many earthly things are sacred that will not be in heaven: the sacraments, for instance. There will be no Eucharist in heaven, no confession, etc. It’s not that such things aren’t sacred, it’s that they would serve absolutely no purpose there. We won’t need the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine because he is already there, and we are in need of no further sanctification. We won’t need the sacrament of confession because there will be no more sin. And we won’t need sex, because there will be no procreation.
Click to expand...
So, according to you, sex is (when used correctly) just about making babies.
 
HailStarofSea said:
Then the point is closed; the reason why it matters either way is the same reason that you are taking important parts of the faith to be propaganda while others are going yearly to worship based on the wonder of these events.

1 Corinthians 15:17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is pointless… If our hope in Christ has been for this life only, we are of all people the most pitiable. It is the same thing here w/ regarding the “practicality” or “relative worth” of the life of a priest versus a lay person. If miracles do not exist and God does not exist, the life of a monk is a waste of his time and a drain on our society. If he “hates this world” then shouldn’t he rather kill himself then ask the lay people to financially support his prayer life. Who is he praying to if God does not exist? W/o God, those who follow such a religion are not only not practical but “pitiable” as the good saint says.

As for people surviving without food, Therese Neumann did so in the 20th century. And she was witnessed by doctors as well as non-believers.
Click to expand...
Do you have any proof this grand claim?
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
No, sickness is when something is abnormal and wrong with the body.
If the body is operating as normal (and as the Catholic Church will usually stress, sin is all too normal) then that person is not sick.
Click to expand...
You are correct in saying that bodily sickness is when something is abnormal and wrong with the body. But you are wrong in saying that the Catholic Church says that sin is normal. This is patently false. Sin is fundamentally abnormal, it occurs when something is “wrong” with the soul, to use your own words. You are commiting the semantic sin (sorry, couldn’t resist) of equivocation: Sin is not “normal”, it is “common.” There is a difference.
And again, my parallel stands: Just like sin, bodily sickness is not normal, but it is indeed all too common. How many people do you know who haven’t had numerous colds, flus, infections, etc. throughout their lives?
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
So, according to you, sex is (when used correctly) just about making babies.
Click to expand...
No, that is not what I meant at all. Forgive me if my answer was a bit pat, but I was merely giving a condensed example. Time doesn’t always permit me to descend into lengthy treatises on theology. Any well catechized Catholic knows that sex is held, in the view of the Church, to serve a three-fold purpose: procreation, the bonding of the spouses through the fulfillment of each other in an act of self-giving, and, this is perhaps the most important of all in the context of this discussion, as an image of the holy trinity and thus a foreshadowing of our union with God in that “holy family.” So once again, sex becomes obsolete in the beatific vision because it is the actualization of a reality of which sex is merely a sign.

And, objectively, the creation of new life is the fundamental purpose of sex, so that aspect cannot be divorced from the act without distorting it. Hence why it is considered sinful (using something good against its intended purpose.)
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Why?

Sin is not merely normal, its unavoidable

As I understandable it, Catholicism teaches that everybody has sinned except for Jesus and the Virgin Mary (and they were very much special cases).

Therefore it doesn’t seem reasonable to assume that people could avoid sin if they would simply make the effort.
Click to expand...
Who made you the arbiter of what is reasonable? We have numerous Saints throughout the ages who have demonstrated the conquering of sin in their lives.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Why?

Sin is not merely normal, its unavoidable

As I understandable it, Catholicism teaches that everybody has sinned except for Jesus and the Virgin Mary (and they were very much special cases).

Therefore it doesn’t seem reasonable to assume that people could avoid sin if they would simply make the effort.
Click to expand...
So we will assume you do not shower? And you shouldn’t because…
It’s futile!!! Taking a shower is futile! It’s pointless, you know you’ll be required to take another, and another and another. The dirt and smell are unavoidable. You should choose not to deal with it.

The point is not that we have weaknesses and failings. The point is, how do we deal with them? Why should we deal with them? Do I sense a relationship in there somewhere that we are striving to understand? Does that make life messy and complicated, and sooo…unexplainable? I think maybe I just won’t shower anymore, and I can avoid all these questions.

This is where atheism falls to pieces. Common sense and reason tell us that all of life can’t be reduced to logical contructs and sense data. And so we chase our tails, arguinig over semantics and using words and mathematics to conveniently eliminate things which can’t be explained, but sure enough existn to any reasonable person. I takes a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist. .
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Do you have any proof this grand claim?
Click to expand...
Well, you’ll have to translate it out of German. 😉 Ewald. , G.: Die Stigmatisiertr von Konnersreuth. The local Bishop asked her to be examined by Dr. Otto Seidl who had her under surveillance from July 14 to 28, in 1927, under the observation of four Mollersdorfer Sisters, members of a nursing order, who came to her home. Professor Ewald, MD and Professor of Psychiatry at Erlangen (a nonbeliever in the supernatural explanation) also headed this. Rules: They bathed her, they measured the water used in cleaning her teeth, the water used to enable her to swallow the Host, to keep bodily discharges. Apparently after 1930, Therese had no natural elimination - urination, stool, and menustration. Checked temperature and pulse. Measured blood shed. Saved cloths.

Paramahansa Yogananda visited her and wrote about her in Chapter 39 of Autobiography of a Yogi: Mystical Phenomena in the Life of Threresa Neumann, by Most Reverend Josef Teodorowicz. en.wikisource.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi/Chapter_39
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top