[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 300x365, 111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6508943 No.6508943 [Reply] [Original]

>reading the Catholic "Theology of the Body"
How do Catholics justify being for homosexuals remaining celibate on moral grounds?

>> No.6508989

>>6508943

The same way they justify heterosexuals for being celibate on moral grounds.

Are you fucking retarded?

>> No.6509019

the old testament is a 'shadowy haze' of the true word: that of Jesus. Jesus had absolutely nothing to say in regard to homosexuality. if He found it that unimportant then so do I. not to mention, chastising and judging others is something he did feel compelled to instruct the masses on.

>> No.6509052

>>6508943
it's contrary to nature
as in classic natural law

>> No.6509084

>>6509019

You're misrepresenting the issue at hand, which is one of the role of intercourse in the life. According to Catholic doctrine, sexual intercourse was designed with the intent purpose of promoting and creating life, which is the ultimate act of creation and the ultimate gift which God has bestowed upon mankind. Any act which perverts or otherwise is contrary to this consummate act is anathema and therefore is considered in contrast to the will of God.

The issue isn't one of homosexual acts or heterosexual acts. It's an issue of the role of sex in the eternal plan. Based and debauched sex driven by lustful desires is a perversion of love and therefore a perversion of the role of intercourse. A sexual act which can not or otherwise is not acted with the express purpose of promoting and bringing life is considered evil. Thus, premarital or casual sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is considered a perversion of the function of sex--which is the eternal and ultimate expression of love and whose end is to produce life.

The Catholic Church doesn't condemn homosexual acts because it is homosexual. It is condemned because it is a submission to our based lustful desires. In much the same way heterosexual acts outside of a stable and committed and sanctified marriage is condemned.

This is why chastity is considered preferable to wanton sexual acts. The Catholic Church isn't singling out Homosexuals specifically. This is a modern distortion of Catholic teaching and one which SJW's and politically charged entities have tried to distort with the express purpose of painting the Church in a bad light.

All people are called to Chastity until they enter a holy unity and matrimony with another consenting and loving individual. Each of whom are prepared to foster and cultivate new life.

>> No.6509338

>>6509019

This is some hyper-fundamentalist sola scriptura reasoning.

>> No.6509359

>>6509084
This is a brilliant post.
How does that fit into the idea of gay marriage thought?

>> No.6509377

>>6509359
gay marriage doesnt exist though

>> No.6509390

>>6509084
so straight married couples who can t conceive shouldn t be having sex?
yah, but no

>> No.6509398

All the loops and rationalizations you come up with simply can't justify the absurdity of God hating a gay couple for no good reason.
This is the one point of Christian theology I just can't buy, I've read up on it, wasted so much of my time, but sorry, it's bullshit. It's a shame too, if I was straigh I'd be a Catholic and marry some bitch, this way I literally can't have any sort of sexual pleasure in my life, EVER, AT ALL. That is ludicrous, it's fucking insane. And I usually defend Christians on these kinda discussions, I've done it a hundred times but I am so sick of this cognitive dissonance. Deep down, I know loving commitment is a good thing regardless of gender, and I could only pretend I'm following this doctrine, but no. I'm going with my conscience.

>> No.6509401

>>6509377
Not in third-world shitholes it doesn't.

(But it even exists in some of those. For shame, USA.)

>> No.6509402

>>6509398
see
>>6509084

>> No.6509406

Why do catholics presume to understand the will of God, an omnipotent and omniscient being?

>> No.6509416

>>6508943
There is literally nothing wrong with celibacy

>> No.6509417

>>6509406
Through their authority to teach it that has been passed down through apostolic succession and originally given by God.

>> No.6509419

>>6509406
Because it makes uneducated southern Europeans give you money.

>> No.6509431

>>6509390
yes they can, because the act is being directed to its end, even if, by no fault of their own, the end doesnt take place
>>6509398
there is a good reason, but i think you may have read it already, or not
anyway, your issue here is that you hold sexual pleasure in such high regard, so i doubt any explanation will be enough for you
but ill pray for you, anon

>> No.6509437

>>6509390
>so straight married couples who can't conceive shouldn't be having sex?
Didn't you read his post? Sex is for creation, so people who can't conceive, or know they can't conceive, more over, shouldn't have sex.

>> No.6509438

>>6509390
>so straight married couples who can t conceive shouldn t be having sex?
>yah, but no

In some senses, no. Just because it's an idea you don't like or agree with doesn't make it any less valid.

>> No.6509444

who cares, religion is a meme

>> No.6509457
File: 26 KB, 450x321, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6509457

>>6509444
M'nigga

>> No.6509461

>>6509444
>444
trips confirm

>> No.6509463

>>6509437
>>6509438
except they can, since there isnt any voluntary impedement when the act is realized
impotent couples cant get married tho

>> No.6509464

>>6509444
And not a very good one, at that.

>> No.6509465

>>6509417
And after all that time, a series of many, many imperfect humans managed to exactly represent this will? That seems very improbable, don't you think?

>> No.6509475

>>6509406
because God, having intellect, is intelligible
>>6509465
not with the Holy Spirit by your side

>> No.6509477

>>6509084
It takes a special kind of unthinking tinkertwat to assert sex not done for procreation is "in contrast to the will of God." It's both disgusting and wowing that the Catholic Church has so long maintained so patently false a notion.

>> No.6509482

>>6509417
Haha, wow.

>> No.6509493

>>6509398
>All the loops and rationalizations you come up with simply can't justify the absurdity of God hating a gay couple for no good reason.

He doesn't hate gay couples.

>This is the one point of Christian theology I just can't buy, I've read up on it, wasted so much of my time, but sorry, it's bullshit

No you haven't. Stop lying

> if I was straigh I'd be a Catholic and marry some bitch, this way I literally can't have any sort of sexual pleasure in my life, EVER, AT ALL.

What the fuck are you even on about? Married couples can enjoy sexual pleasure as much as they want provided they are willing to accept and foster the responsibilities that come with the creation of life.

>That is ludicrous, it's fucking insane.
Again, just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it insane. There's that open-mindedness that the Gay community is always going on about...

>And I usually defend Christians on these kinda discussions, I've done it a hundred times but I am so sick of this cognitive dissonance.

The pot calling the kettle black. Just because you don't agree with a position or worldview doesn't make it insane or ludicrous.

> Deep down, I know loving commitment is a good thing regardless of gender, and I could only pretend I'm following this doctrine
Of course they are good things. No one is saying they aren't. I'm simply presenting the doctrine why debased sexual acts are viewed at as anathema in the eyes of the Catholic Church. You are welcome to disagree, but no one, including the Church, has ever said that loving committed relationships are bad things. You're projecting now.

>I'm going with my conscience.
Nice spook brah.

>> No.6509494

>>6509438
>Just because it's an idea you don't like or agree with doesn't make it any less valid.

No, but an idea is rendered invalid when there is very little rational or proof for it. Luckily.

>> No.6509495

>>6509463
Of course they CAN, but this is a question as to whether they should.

>> No.6509496

>>6509431
and you already how is it is to punch a whole in that argument. over-analyzing the bible is pointless for any Christian.
the message of Jesus is not vague and needs no metaphysical circle jerk.

>> No.6509521
File: 34 KB, 370x370, Aquy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6509521

>>6509465
Not exactly.
Jesus gave the apostles the authority to teach the faith. Their authority is what gives the Gospels its authority, as it's the teachings written down. The apostles passed on that authority. This is where the church gets its authority to make claims about doctrine.

God's law is understandable to humans, as Paul says it's written on their heart. It is innate to them. However, it's difficult to discern and the church uses its authority to define it with clarity. And yes, they are imperfect people but their authority means that they are guided by the Holy Spirit on these occasions where they must exercise that authority given to them.

And it's not God's will in full. We understand and know the essence of it but as we begin to know more about the world it will grow. Thus, it's dynamic in application but the same in dogma and essence.

>> No.6509525

>>6509475
Who told you the holy spirit was by your side? the descendants of the apostles?

>> No.6509527

>>6509477
>It takes a special kind of unthinking tinkertwat to assert sex not done for procreation is "in contrast to the will of God." It's both disgusting and wowing that the Catholic Church has so long maintained so patently false a notion.

You're misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I stated. Again, properly ordered sexual intercourse is intercourse between individuals willing to ACCEPT the responsibilities of the possible result of conception. I'm not saying that every time a married couple has sex, they have to do it with the intent to procreate. I'm saying that they must be willing and prepared to accept the possibility and responsibilities of conception should that happen.

This is exactly why the church has a hardline stance against contraceptives and abortion.

Again, I'm not the one being unreasonable or 'unthinking'. Just because the view of the Church triggered you doesn't make its position any less valid or important. You're more than welcome to disagree with the Church's view, but at least try and understand it before you go on railing against something you know nothing about.

It's ironic that the Catholic Church remains the bastion of upholding mankind to a higher state of being. The Church is the one institution which is saying that people can and should overcome their base desires to set them apart from animals and bring them to a more full understanding of their uniqueness in the cosmos. That's probably the most progressive stance one can take in the modern world.

>> No.6509533

>>6509527
spook city

>> No.6509537

>>6509525
>Who told you the holy spirit was by your side? the descendants of the apostles?

Umm..Christ Himself.

Are we being raided or something? Typically most anons who post in religion threads have at least some basic understanding of Church history.

>> No.6509539

>>6509495
i dont see why they shouldnt, if theyre married and do it out of love to each other and have relations in such way that ends in the way it was meant (benis in bagina).

>>6509496
the bible isnt the only way to know God. You can know him by reason too.

>>6509525
the big guy
>On this rock i'll build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"

>> No.6509544

>>6509527
>This is exactly why the church has a hardline stance against contraceptives and abortion.

They actually have a hardline stance against contraceptives and abortion because most of those babies that won't get made are poor third-worlders who are uneducated--that is, the only people left in the world who can actually be duped into believing something like what the Catholic Church asserts.

>> No.6509546

>>6509537
The charlatan?

>> No.6509549

>>6509544
>They actually have a hardline stance against contraceptives and abortion because most of those babies that won't get made are poor third-worlders who are uneducated--that is, the only people left in the world who can actually be duped into believing something like what the Catholic Church asserts.

Holy shit. You cannot possibly be this retarded to believe this stupid fucking meme.

Go back to r/atheism you ignorant retarded faggot.

>> No.6509559

>>6509539
No, sex is solely for pro-creation.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

>> No.6509562
File: 189 KB, 717x880, FviuO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6509562

>>6509549
Your response is a meme. You know that, right.

>> No.6509564

>>6509546
oh shit, someone call /pol/

>>6509544
>baiting in a discussion
>ever
back to /b/

>> No.6509577

>>6509537
>Umm..Christ Himself.
Christ talked to you personally? How spectacular. Or do you mean the bishops told you he said that? because we haven't yet established that they have any idea what they're talking about so I have no reason to believe them when they say that.

>> No.6509578

>>6509559
it is directed at procreation, but the unitive aspect is a part of it too
so an act that is in essence procreative ignoring the condition of either participant and assuming there hasnt been any manipulation of the faculty being used, isnt inmoral

>> No.6509579

>>6509562

The only way to fight memes is with more memes of course.

>> No.6509584

>>6509577

I could waste time telling you about apostolic succession and Biblical interpretation, but you should probably learn what those are before you make any other stupid comments.

>> No.6509588

>>6509577
you still have no reason to believe otherwise, a rational reason of course
also "on this rock"

>> No.6509592

>>6509584
pffffffffffffffffffffft

>> No.6509616

>>6509592
underage bait

>> No.6509617

>>6509588
>you still have no reason to believe otherwise, a rational reason of course
I would say it is pretty rational to believe people are lying to me when they have to resort to circular arguments to justify their authority.

>> No.6509631

>>6509617
>God comes to Earth
>Calls himself Jesus
>Goes to Pete
>Yo Im gonna be leaving soon so I'll leave you in charge, here are my powers, dont worry I got ya

>> No.6509637

>>6509631
Who are you quoting?

>> No.6509640

>>6509637
it's a meme
>2015
>not getting memes

>> No.6509645

>>6509527
>This is exactly why the church has a hardline stance against contraceptives and abortion.


I don't understand.

>people should be willing to accept responsibility of something that could happen
>thus using means to ensure it doesn't is wrong

?

>> No.6509647

>>6509493
Lol, look, I know every single point you could make on this issue, I've read it so many times and every possible angle I'm tired of it. I understand natural law as formulated by Aquinas, I know the teaching of the Catechism etc.

The point is still, it's bullshit rationalization. Of course you can say God doesn't hate anyone and give me some faux-scholastic bullshit, but the fact of the matter is, according to this teaching masturbating once in your life is enough to send your soul to eternal punishment unless you feel really bad about it and talk to a priest about how you touched your cock. The effect this teaching has had, and still has on humanity is evil and insane. Catholics have this dumb idea that everyone who disagrees with them doesn't understand anything about Catholicism. I go to a Catholic university, I read about this shit all thetime, I undunderstand the arguments. They are ultimately flawed, when examined carefully. But don't be mistaken, I don't underestimate them, I know exactly how from a skewed view you cam buy into this whole thing, because I've been there. Very intelligent, rational people buy into it, it wouldn't last for this long if it wasn't carefully constructed madness placed on sound greek philosophy. It didn't help that I'm an Aristotelian broadly speaking, but man he would be ashamed of what became of his ethics.

>> No.6509648

>>6509645
OH YEAH
well then
SHUT UP HEATHEN

>> No.6509654

>>6509647
OK, so shut up and
DIE
and
GO TO HELL already

>> No.6509663

>>6509648
>>6509654
We were doing so well and then you came along

>> No.6509667

>>6509663
stop talking to me, fedora fucking shit
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>> No.6509674

>>6509052
>it's contrary to nature
Obviously not
>as in classic natural law
Absolutely disgusting

>> No.6509734

>>6509525
>Who told you the holy spirit was by your side? the descendants of the apostles?

Jesus gave his authority to the apostles. The apostles passed on that authority and began that chain of successors. All faith that God is with us is that God said so.

>> No.6509740

>>6509734
>Jesus gave his authority to the apostles.

Yes, of course he did. You know because they said so. (Snicker)

>> No.6509741

>>6509647
what is it that you disagree with, or think is flawed?
>according to this teaching masturbating once in your life is enough to send your soul to eternal punishment
so? masturbating shouldnt be accepted as a normal behavior
>>6509674
>give reason
>no, no
absolutely plebian

>> No.6509745 [DELETED] 

>>6509740
go away schlomo

>> No.6509753

>>6509740
>they said so
He has his apostles, who were close to him but he had disciples beyond that that are witness to these claims. If they were going to be refuted, they would be refuted in their time but they weren't because there was people who knew it occurred.

>> No.6509756

>>6509741
>masturbating shouldnt be accepted as a normal behavior

Even animals masturbate. Under no reasonable definition of "natural" is jerking it not natural.

>> No.6509766

>>6509753
The Biblical accounts were written far after Jesus croaked.

>> No.6509767

>>6509647

What exactly is flawed about it besides you not liking the idea of not being able to have sex

>> No.6509773

>>6509756
if a faculty is directed towards a specific end, then any use contrary to that end isnt normal/moral
>Even animals masturbate
so? theyre animals

>> No.6509779

>>6509766

Most scholars say within a generation of his death.

Not bad considering he was not Alexander the Great

>> No.6509782

>>6509773
Haha. You've got spooks up the ass, bro. I'd be surprised if you actually believe all this, frankly.

>> No.6509783

>>6509766
Biblical accounts were finished during the lives of the apostles, with only small asides made to explain prophecies after them. They are transcribed versions of the oral teachings they gave prior.

Your comment does not weigh on my original argument.

>> No.6509787

>>6509084
>It is condemned because it is a submission to our based lustful desires.
Imagine two couples where both persons in both relationships are virgins, they love their partners fully and truly, none of them have ever even so much as ogled a person that wasn't their partner, but the one couple is heterosexual and the other is homosexual. How can you possibly condemn the one for lust when there is no lust? The great Christian lie is to use this bait and switch line of thinking for everything. See how Christians morph really existing love (which is to say, /the Holy Spirit itself/) into something distasteful and evil. Is it any wonder that they took to the world seeking to plunder all they could and destroy everything that remained? Is it any wonder that they deliberately created an intercontinental trade route with assembly-line efficiency for the wholesale of men, women, and children? Are we really shocked to learn that these creatures committed their generations murder and steal entire continents from peoples that were always willing to share the lands peacefully and through hundreds of years made hundreds of treaties to that effect, none of which any Christian ever kept?

But they talk about "love" and "perversion".

>> No.6509796

>>6509741
>Natural law
>not for plebeians

You have 5 years to explain how homosexuality is contrary to nature yet occurs in all kinds of animals groups including humans.

>> No.6509805

>>6509782
>Dear diary, today I went on 4chan and saw a post that disagreed with me, I pulled off a Ghostbuster and called it a day

>> No.6509810

>>6509787

it looked like you were going somewhere thought provoking in your first three sentences

And then you went full retard and ended up vomiting a fallacious piece of bitterness.

>> No.6509812

>>6509779
>Most scholars
No they don't. The gospels are hodge-podge rewrites of older materials that didn't survive.

>> No.6509816

>>6509787
> How can you possibly condemn the one for lust when there is no lust?
There is no lust here and there is nothing wrong with those two couples. Homosexuality in the Bible deals with sex, not love or orientation.

>> No.6509823

>>6509812
>this is what people actually believe

>> No.6509835

>>6509779
>Most scholars say within a generation of his death.

Er, no. People didn't live to be 100 back then. Try again, dear.

Even if they were written during his life, that doesn't mean they chronicle events that actually happened.

>> No.6509838

>>6509084
Good post.

Special attention to the fact that the Church comdemns homossexual ACTS. Most people nowdays understand homossexuality to be a part of one's identity. So there's this dissonance between people thinking that being gay is a sin while the actual sin is the homossexual intercourse which is a sin, because it is motivated only by lust.

See the ten commandments, there's no sin about BEING things, instead, they're all about DOING things. The only debatable case is the original sin, and that's aplicable to anyone if it accepted.

So, in one hand, being atracted to the other humans of the same sex is not sin, since it is not an action that one can really control. On the other hand, homosexual sex is a sin, since it is an action that puts lust in the deserved place of God.

>> No.6509841

>>6509812
>No they don't

Oh I'm sorry

I meant most credible scholars who actually do the research not internet parrots.

>> No.6509842

>>6509787
love is not exclusive to partners
sex is, and you need man and woman to do it properly

>> No.6509843

>>6509810
I'm not bitter at all since I don't care what "Christians", especially 4chan "Christians", think, and even if I did I'm not gay. And there's no fallacy, it's all demonstrated in the quoted post if not in everyone's lived experience.

>> No.6509844

>>6509835
>>6509835
>Er, no. People didn't live to be 100 back then.
This has no bearing on the original anon's point. It's irrelevant.

>> No.6509851

>>6509843
>I'm not bitter at all
We don't know that's not true. Look at your shit.

>> No.6509855

>>6509843

You need to look up a list of fallacies and then re-read your posts

here you go

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

>> No.6509861

>>6509796
fallacy of equivocation, that's not what nature means in the context of natural law

>> No.6509864

>>6509816
>>6509842
You've missed the essential part: if there is no lust in these two relationships /then the sex act in both parties necessarily can not be acts of lust, as is stated/. Christianity assumes that gays must be "lustful" and sinful in their sex because it's not heterosexual intercourse. This is clearly fallacious.

>> No.6509868

>>6509796
>i don't know what natural law is

Start with the Greeks

>> No.6509869

>>6509835

Within 70-100 years of his death

If you want to consider that two generations then okay

> that doesn't mean they chronicle events that actually happened.

Is there anyone in history that we can claim "they" chronicled the events that actually happened.

Are you skeptical of any and all ancient historical figures?

>> No.6509870

>>6509823
People that read outside of your Bible study group, yes.

>> No.6509873

>>6509787

Equivocating on "love" here. Christianity does not condemn love in its purest, most general sense: the will for the good of the other. Christians are called to love their neighbour and to love God, indeed to love all the world. This love is by nature inclusive rather than exclusive, and can ans should exist between people regardless of sex, creed or station. So if the love between the lovers is of this first type, then such friendships should by no means be condemned.

However, when the love in question is romantic love, it is another story. Romantic love, qua romantic, seeks sex and therefore marriage as its consummation. The distinctly sexual character of this love gives it a more-particular nature than love in the general sense: a romantic love which orders one's actions away from the distinctly procreative and unitive goods of sex, is disordered as romantic love, and choosing to act in accordance with it, is therefore a disordered act of the will, and immoral. This condemnation exists within the context of the purer, general love- the will for the good of the other. It is precisely because the Christian understands the objective good of human beings that he condemns perversions and distortions of that good.

Is it any surprise, then, that these people went out into the world and ended the institution of slavery, which had plagued mankind since its infancy?

>> No.6509875

>>6509861
>natural law

You mean nonsense on stilts.

>> No.6509885

>>6509869
>Are you skeptical of any and all ancient historical figures?

Yes, all. Why shouldn't I be?

>> No.6509888

>>6509875
No, he meant natural law.

>> No.6509892

>>6509864
lust in christianity means a sexual perversion
because homosexuality bypasses the procreative end and the unitive end (as in union between male and female of the same species) then it qualifies as a sexual perversion

of course your posts are full of emotional sophistries, which make me think youre gay or know someone who is gay

>> No.6509906

>>6509888
No, he means nonsense on stilts. Natural law is pure sophistry.

>> No.6509910

>>6509906
no I actually meant natural law
>goes to /lit/
>doesnt know how to read

>> No.6509912

>>6509864
>You've missed the essential part: if there is no lust in these two relationships /then the sex act in both parties necessarily can not be acts of lust, as is stated/.

So you're saying that if a couple came together our of purely love and no lust whatsoever all sex they do could not done out of lust but love.

This is fallacious, as the capacity for lust comes from the individuals and not the relationship itself. Just because it's a relationship formed out of pure love does not mean people cannot act out of lust. There is nothing to assert they are barred from it.

>Christianity assumes that gays must be "lustful" and sinful in their sex because it's not heterosexual intercourse.
Are they not seeking sex for uniting themselves through pleasure alone instead of partaking in the gift of creation?

>>6509870
Apparently modern historians sit in at my Bible study group then.

>> No.6509918

>>6509892
>which make me think youre gay or know someone who is gay

Do you not know someone gay? Do you ever leave the house?

>> No.6509919

>>6509910
Would you might citing the sources on this quotation of yours?

>> No.6509928

>>6509918
Not him but
>more emotion
If you want to make an argument out of sentiment and not rationale please tell someone first.

>> No.6509931

>>6509918
yes i do, but i dont get that in the way of acknowledging that he is messed up (by no fault of his own of course)

>> No.6509954

>>6509906

Nah, natural law is the ultimate ethics: rationally perspicuous (because it's grounded in human nature), meta-ethically sound, meshes well with larger studies of ontology and theology, and affirms the basic institutions of society and the common opinions of the bulk of mankind.

>> No.6509956

>>6509931
>he is messed up

I don't know him, but I'd be willing to bet you're more 'messed up', just by the complexity of the messed-uppedness you've exhibited here thusfar.

>> No.6509960

>>6509873
>a romantic love which orders one's actions away from the distinctly procreative and unitive goods of sex, is disordered as romantic love, and choosing to act in accordance with it, is therefore a disordered act of the will, and immoral.
So, for the Christian, it is immoral -- /disordered/ -- for a man to marry and have sex with an infertile, whether by accident or by age, woman? No, I don't think so.

>Is it any surprise, then, that these people went out into the world and ended the institution of slavery, which had plagued mankind since its infancy?
Christians didn't do any such thing. The watershed moment that ended slavery in the UK was an insurance case, and, in the US, a civil war over regional and federal power. Abolitionists that happened to be Christians helped slaves and helped end slavery, but you distort their actual actions within political power.

>> No.6509968

>>6509928
Just because someone strongly disagrees with your shoddy arguments doesn't mean they're emotional. You seem emotional by continuing to appeal to that instead of actually making arguments to defend yourself.

>> No.6509980

>>6509968
yeah
so what
fuck off heretic

>> No.6509984

>>6509956
so everyone who doesn't hold hands with each other while singing "being gay is OK" is messed up to you
or rather anyone who doesnt share your emotivist plagued opinions?

>> No.6509995

>>6509960
>So, for the Christian, it is immoral -- /disordered/ -- for a man to marry and have sex with an infertile, whether by accident or by age, woman? No, I don't think so.

Not necessarily. The sexual desire is ordered toward the procreative and unitive goods in the sexual way, insofar as it orders actions toward sexual union, which is of its nature procreatively-oriented. Now it may be that other causes (e.g., age, accident) cause sex to be unable to achieve the good to which it is oriented- in that case, this is a defect in the body, and not in the agency of the sex partners nor even in their acts of sexual congress. So no, such acts would not be immoral.

>> No.6509999

>>6508943
Stupidity and limiting God.

>> No.6510007
File: 1.40 MB, 489x367, giphy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6510007

>>6509084
>Catholic Church getting poor as shit families to not use condoms

>> No.6510008

>>6509984
The items you use for proof and the items you use to inform your worldview are hilariously inept. They have all been disproven centuries ago. That is messed up.

>> No.6510013

>>6510008
Which items? From what I have seen, the "refutations" amount to basic confusions about what is meant by nature, grounded not in any new finding, but a deficient general metaphysics.

>> No.6510023

>>6510007
If Africa has told people anything, it's that's the distribution of condoms widespread into the community of people does more to hurt than to help.

The distribution of contraceptive methods is what enabled the sexual revolution to take off and there is no denying it had a greater economic toll on society that what was going on before it.

>> No.6510028

>>6509999
Quads of truth

>> No.6510029

>>6509912
>So you're saying that if a couple came together our of purely love and no lust whatsoever all sex they do could not done out of lust but love.
YOU said, or agree, that homosexuality "is condemned because it is a submission to our based lustful desires". This is a category error, a conflation of two things (homosexual act and lust) to /make those two things identical/ when they clearly don't have to be. That is the key problem. It is also a strict separation of two other things (heterosexual act and lust) that clearly doesn't have to be. That is another problem. The only difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex is that one, if the conditions are met, -could- result in pregnancy where as the other can not possibly. But no one actually condemns marriage and sex between barren heterosexual couples, yet this is "immoral" in the case of homosexuals. This is just a rhetorical maze of illusions.

>> No.6510030

>>6510023
I'm thinking more of Hispanic families in my country than niggers who can't even get sex ed, to be honest.

>> No.6510040

>>6510029
but "lustful desires" are meant to be perversions of the sexual faculty, you seem to be equivocating it with "longing for pleasure of some kind"

>> No.6510044

>>6509995
>The sexual desire is ordered toward the procreative
How can sex between persons knowingly incapable of giving birth be "ordered toward the procreative"?

>> No.6510047

If it comes out that a priest regularly masturbates, then does he lose his position?

>> No.6510048

>>6510023
>the distribution of condoms widespread into the community of people does more to hurt than to help.

Come again? This is such an outrageous (ridiculous) claim.

>> No.6510049

>>6510030
This doesn't change anything.

also
>sex ed
>mattering

>> No.6510054

>>6510044
b/c they straight so get free pass

>> No.6510056

>>6510044
as in "it ends with benis eyaculating in bagina"

>> No.6510057

>>6510023
>If Africa has told people anything, it's that's the distribution of condoms widespread into the community of people does more to hurt than to help.
>The distribution of contraceptive methods is what enabled the sexual revolution to take off and there is no denying it had a greater economic toll on society that what was going on before it.

>Making a response out of two unrelated and unsubstantiated propositions.

Yeah, we're gonna have to go on more than just faith for this one m80. Here's something that can't be questioned: there are going to be 9 billion people on earth by 2050- the vast majority coming from developing countries- all of whom are going to be expected to coexist on this increasingly barren rock.
What the fuck do you think is going to happen? Will god will us a second planet?

>> No.6510061

>>6510049
It does change something. Married couples are going to have sex regularly, it's full retard to say they should be doing it always without a condom, especially if their poor. It contributes to misery and poverty for the children, which contributes to crime and unemployment.

>> No.6510066

>>6510029
>That is the key problem.
Again, are they not seeking sex for uniting themselves through pleasure alone instead of partaking in the gift of creation?

>> No.6510070

>>6510057
jsus waiting for more ppl on earth so he can save more ppl

when there are lots of ppl on earth then jsus come

we jus wait

>> No.6510072

>>6510054
why are gays so butthurt?

>> No.6510077

>>6510066
>the gift of creation

You talk like a grandma. You're legit out-of-touch.

>> No.6510083

>>6510057
>Here's something that can't be questioned
i can question it,so youre argument is false

>> No.6510086

>>6510072
Not gay. Just not dumb enough to believe this nonsense.

In all seriousness, I think you know it doesn't make sense, even if you don't want to admit it.

>> No.6510088

>>6510044

Because such sex fulfills its role in the sexual process- i.e., brings male and female together in a procreatively complementary manner. Of course "being brought together in a procreatively-complementary manner" isn't a sufficient condition of achieving the good of procreation, but that's immaterial to whether the manner of union is procreatively-complementary. In other words, the union itself may be procreatively complementary, even if other aspects of the sexual process are not, in that particular couple, functioning properly.

>> No.6510092

>>6510077
>having morality is being out of touch
unfortunately, it is

>> No.6510095

>>6510083
Are all Christians this immature?

>> No.6510100

>>6510066
>>6510040

Are you a virgin and unmarried? I honestly don't understand how you can be so obtuse. Sex is pleasurable, it's supposed to be pleasurable, and it's not just for making fucking babies. And you're still not addressing the fundamental problems of conflating conditions onto homosexual sex that simply don't have to be there.

>> No.6510106

>>6510070
Goddindunuffin

>> No.6510111
File: 19 KB, 560x398, 1429548106560.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6510111

>>6510100
>mfw Catholics think God have women clits to make babies with

>> No.6510114

>>6510092
Yeah, you're the last moral bastion on 4chan. Shit, what a dinosaur. What a joke.

>> No.6510118

>>6510048
Not at all. It's only outrageous if you focus on individual use instead of distribution itself. It's actually a more complex matter than most thing.

>>6510057
>overpopulation argument
The Earth is not anywhere near a place of overpopulation. Not ANYWHERE near. Overpopulation as we know it is a result of poor infrastructure and deliberately shitty family planning (such as India, whom have children purely so they can work until they can't any longer). Managing both manages the problem.

>>6510061
This is on an individual scale, which my claim didn't rest on originally.
Your claim depends on the notion that married couples ARE GOING to have sex regularly as a universal constant no matter changing conditions. We can see how America was pre-sexual revolution and plainly see that this isn't the case.

>> No.6510127

>>6510086
is it nonsense to believe that when something is done contrary to its end, it is not good?

suppose someone told you that intentionally puking your guts out after having a large meal was a kind of diet, what would be your response?

>> No.6510130

>>6510088
>>How can sex between persons knowingly incapable of giving birth be "ordered toward the procreative"?
>Because such sex fulfills its role in the sexual process- i.e., brings male and female together in a procreatively complementary manner.
No, it really doesn't. It just means the penis goes in the vagina and/or butt-hole instead of just the butt-hole.

>> No.6510138

>>6510100
>Sex is pleasurable, it's supposed to be pleasurable, and it's not just for making fucking babies.

>Eating is pleasurable, it's supposed to be pleasurable, and it's not just for taking in nutrients

>> No.6510143

>>6510100
Of course it's supposed to be pleasurable, but no one's saying it's not supposed to be pleasurable. What they are saying is that sex is (obviously) not *merely* pleasurable: what makes sex, sex, is precisely the procreative and unitive dimensions of the act. Hence the pleasure, if it is not to distort the nature of the sex act itself, ought not be pursued at the expense of the procreative and unitive ends.

>> No.6510147

>>6510138
>what is taste mommy

>> No.6510148

>>6510127
>is it nonsense to believe that when something is done contrary to its end, it is not good?
yes. that is nonsense. your hypothetical question is beyond retarded

>> No.6510153

>>6510138
Erm. Eating isn't just for taking in nutrients.

Not sure what you're trying to do with this argument, but it's failing.

>> No.6510159

>>6510143
So infertile men and women should've have sex?

>> No.6510162

>>6510143
It's not really sex with out a penis and a 'gina.

Got it.

You're dumb as fuck, for real.

>> No.6510166

>>6510138
What determines the final purpose of an act?

>> No.6510167

>>6510153
what else is it for?

>> No.6510168

>>6510130
Yes, correct. And the union of male and female reproductive organs, as opposed to the insertion of penises into miscellaneous orifices, is the reproductively-complementary configuration for human beings. It is not difficult to see this.

>> No.6510172

>>6510166
whatever I say it is

>> No.6510177

>>6510167
There are many foods without any nutrients whatsoever. Figure it out, tinkertwat.

>> No.6510181

>>6510162

I have no idea what you mean by "sex," but yes, correct. Call the traditional concept of sexual union "Schmex," if you want, but the name is not as important as the fact that what are commonly termed immorally perverse actions, are perversions of this faculty.

>> No.6510186
File: 42 KB, 698x672, oh no vaginas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6510186

>>6510167
>yfw you realize the world's first true AI is shitposting on 4chan pretending to be Christian so as to figure out what it "means" to be human

>> No.6510188

>>6510167
Taste and socializing. Are you telling me you take in nutritionally optimum meals, and stop at your nutrient requirements? Because if so, your food life is probably shit.

>> No.6510190

>>6510159
see
>>6509995

>> No.6510191

>>6510177
well, that isn't food
so there

>> No.6510198

>>6510188
His whole life is shit. You just know this dude is hilarious having sex.

>> No.6510201

>>6510166
God is apparently a utilitarian Englishman, except happiness is taken out of utility and we're just left with optimum production of prayer and tithes.

>> No.6510202

>>6510177
They either aren't for consumption or aren't made to fulfill their final purpose.

>> No.6510206

>>6510177
like what, amigo?
>>6510186
>yfw the end is imminent
>>6510188
no, tasting and socializing are just pleasures to encourage eating, you can eat without socializing and you can eat eat without tasting anything

>> No.6510216

>>6510201
>except happiness is taken out of utility
That's bullshit. Christianity asserts that happiness and personal fulfillment is found in love (God) and can be found in living according to our natural law. Materialism is not what Christianity focuses on and happiness can be found in a greater sense elsewhere. Look at the "Fruits of the Holy Spirit" mentioned in Christian scripture.

>> No.6510226

>>6510166
roughly speaking, and dont quote me on this, what results without any intervention to an act

>> No.6510234

>>6510216
Natural law is a pagan invention, it didn't figure into Christianity until long after Christ. As Zizek points out, Christianity was fundamentally a rejection of pagan natural law. There is neither man nor woman, the last shall be the first, etc. It was overthrowing the "natural order".

>> No.6510239

>>6510234
ok fine
your gay

>> No.6510246

>>6510234
>Zizek
Zizek is a supporter of predeterminism. Neither of us should be trusting him as an authority on Christianity.

>> No.6510253

>>6510239
I'm actually bi+ (I'm also sexually attracted to children, animals and many objects).

>> No.6510254

>>6510216
>is found in love (God)
>love (God)

There is just a shocking shitload of nonsene being crammed into this thread by the minute.

>> No.6510257

>>6510254
What?
God is love.
This is scriptural.
This is day 1 Christian stuff, man.

>> No.6510258

>>6510190
Let me break this down:
First you say:
>all homosexual sex is lustful so heterosexual sex is the only moral sex
This is rebutted by pointing out that:
>lust originates in persons and we can easily imagine a heterosexual couple without lust and a homosexual couple without lust, leading us to ask what the difference is
Which leads to the new argument that:
>the only moral sex is heterosexual sex because heterosexual sex is procreative.
This is easily rebutted because:
>not all heterosexual sex is procreative- some heterosexual couples necessarily can not procreate at all
Which leads to the new argument that:
>heterosexuals can have non-procreative sex and still be moral because heterosexual sex has the right sex organs involved

None of your statements are reconcilable with each other. This whole thing is a series of moving goal-posts precisely because it's an issue without ground.

>> No.6510260

>>6510254
>I don't understand Catholic beliefs concerning God so I'll just call them bullshit

>> No.6510261

>>6510246
Zizek is an atheist too, that doesn't mean he doesn't know his shit when it comes to Christianity. Have you read any of his debates with John Milbank?

>> No.6510266

>>6510258
THE HOLY WORD OF G-D says
YOU
ARE
WRONG
stop arguing
HERETIC SCUM

>> No.6510272
File: 712 KB, 720x540, wat shredder.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6510272

>>6510253
>>6510253
>(I'm also sexually attracted to children, animals and many objects)

>> No.6510274

>>6510258
except you are strawmanning the shit out of his statements, which is precisely what youve been doing this whole thread

>> No.6510275

>>6510258
Not him but men and women per set are capable of reproduction, that there are specific examples of men and women who aren't because of fertility issues doesn't change that, the act itself is still properly ordered.

Of course if a person is impotent (incapable of the act) as opposed to infertile that's another story.

>> No.6510278

>>6510261
>that doesn't mean he doesn't know his shit when it comes to Christianity.
He's a supporter of Predeterminism. This is enough to say he's no authority on Christianity. He may know some stuff but you shouldn't be using him as an authority on it if he's fucking up this hard on Christianity.

>> No.6510280

>>6510260
To be fair, they're bullshit whether one understands them or not.

>> No.6510284

>>6510257
God is ἀγάπη, which is a particular kind of love distinct from parental, brotherly and erotic.

>> No.6510286

>>6510278
>to be an authority on Christianity is to believe in it

you're stupid, man

>> No.6510288

>>6510278
>he doesn't agree with the Christian doctrine of free will, therefore he can't be an authority on Christianity
Imbecile

>> No.6510290
File: 605 KB, 400x400, punk.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6510290

MY FORMS

>> No.6510292

>>6510280
well that didn't take long to prove his point...

>> No.6510293

>>6510286
Zizek doesn't believe in Christianity, but he is quite friendly toward it and sees it as enormously influential in regards to communism.

>> No.6510303

>>6510206
It's ironic how Darwinian your attitude is.

>> No.6510307

another thread derailed, what a shame

but honestly speaking, i didnt know what else to expect

>> No.6510310

>>6510286
This is not what I'm understanding at all. He's supportive of Calvinism, which is exceedingly debunked in theology and destroys many ideas in theology when in practice.

>>6510288
That is precisely it. If you're working under a pretense that Christianity asserts predestination, which is highly false and thoroughly debunked in theology. Why the fuck would you take someone as an authority figure on a subject if they screw up on such a core and simple premise?

>> No.6510314

>>6510307
off-topic shitposting becoming a different kind of off-topic shitposting
so what

>> No.6510322

>>6510303
yah, right?
still, it is what it is

>> No.6510325

>>6510307
>topic is about catholics and homosexuality
>everyone talks about catholics and homosexuality

u r dum

>> No.6510338

>>6510310
>If you're working under a pretense that Christianity asserts predestination

Nobody asserted this. You are literally too stupid to live.

Fucking embarrassing.

>> No.6510347

>>6510338
>If you're working under a pretense that Christianity asserts predestination
Have you been reading?
Zizek asserts this. This is what I base my original claim on. Fucking read, /lit/.

>> No.6510349
File: 174 KB, 445x434, eindhovenTeam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6510349

>>6510310
>debunked in theology

>> No.6510355

>>6510347
>Zizek asserts this.

No, he doesn't.

>> No.6510356

>>6510349
>acting this dumb
Multiple parts of scripture debunk the notion of predestination.

>> No.6510360

>>6510310
Just because Zizek likes the idea of Christian determinism (which is really very interesting, best example of it is Moby Dick), doesn't mean he thinks Christianity inherently supports it. Being an atheist, he probably knows the Bible supports a bunch of things that contradict each other (and indeed, Acts 4:28 certainly sounds like determinism).

>> No.6510362

>>6510355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOUGR1SsTD0

Yes he does.

>> No.6510376

>>6510360
Not the guy you're talking to but

from >>6510362

he's saying "it has to be predestination" that saves you.

>> No.6510378

>>6510362
>"closest to my...spontaneous sensitivity"
He's coming completely from the angle of his own sentiments.

>> No.6510381

>>6510356
I don't think you know what debunk means.

>> No.6510390

>>6510376
>he's saying "it has to be predestination" that saves you.
Yes, from HIS own sense of logic in it. He's not coming from the angle that this is actually the case, because he doesn't even think the basis of the religion is actually the case.

>> No.6510393

>>6510362
You're stupid as fuck, man. He says he doesn't accept it because he agrees with determinism and rejects the free will.

You are completely incapable of thinking.

>> No.6510408

>>6510378
see
>>6510376

Look at his quote that is the title of the video.
Heck, try to look beyond the first few seconds of the video.


>>6510381
And I think you're deliberately trying to be obtuse but if we don't confront the argument directly and try to make insulting little asides to our actual debate we won't get anywhere.

>> No.6510412

>>6510325
i was just talking about>>6510290
but anyways the discussion stopped being interesting a while ago

>> No.6510414

hehehe my bottom smellz

>> No.6510420

>>6510408
Zizek is talking about his own views rather than the views of Christianity. You are not smart enough to be watching Zizek videos and then talking about them afterwards.

>> No.6510425
File: 40 KB, 298x299, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6510425

How the fuck does nobody get this, like the simplest, and I mean the MOST SIMPLE (as in a two yo knows this shit) thing about Christianity is that free will exists, it's how we deal with our urges in respect to gods wishes that rule our self worth.

>> No.6510426
File: 154 KB, 960x495, 734423_3977299929515_1238797136_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6510426

>>6510234
>Christianity was fundamentally a rejection of pagan natural law.
u wot m8
You're either stating "pagan natural law" is separate from "natural law" or ignoring the teaching of God's law being written on a hearts of all man.

Zizek is wrong if you're asserting the latter and you'll have to explain further if you're asserting the former.

>> No.6510441

>>6510426
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/human-rights-and-its-discontents/

"God's Law" of the new covenant is not even close to natural law, which was mainly developed by Aristotle and Cicero.

>> No.6510450
File: 212 KB, 1216x1817, Pigliucci-nonsense.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6510450

>>6510426
>the teaching of God's law being written on a hearts of all man.

>> No.6510452

>>6510362
Zhzh is based

>> No.6510459

>>6510450
That's a phrase from Scripture, which appears first in Isaiah in reference to the new covenant, which unlike the old will be written on the hearts of all men, iirc

>> No.6510464

>>6510459
All right. Still nonsense, though.

>> No.6510512

>>6510450
It's not nonsense, you simply struggle with it.
The line is that we have a natural inclination to partake in God's moral law and/or welcome it as the good.

>>6510441
Reading into it. I wish I knew it was this lengthy, but I'm glad it's interesting.
If you wanted to continue a chat you really should have paraphrased.

>> No.6510738

>explicit references to non-procreational sex in stuff like the Song of Songs
>Christians jumping through hoops to interpret it as totally not sexual

Also David and Jonathan are hella gay

>Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and belt.

Yeah, I should form a covenant with my boyfriend too...

>explicit references to non-procreational sex in stuff like the Song of Songs
>Christians jumping through hoops to interpret it as totally not sexual

Also David and Jonathan are hella gay

>Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and belt.

Yeah, I should form a covenant with my boyfriend too...

>> No.6510746

>>6510738
Thank you for bumping this truly excellent thread!

>> No.6510791

>>6510738
yeah, no one mentioned the bible as the basis of the arguments in this thread, only one or two bible quotes were posted

>> No.6511133

>>6510738
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan
>spouting modern interpretations of ancient texts

>> No.6511996
File: 108 KB, 1270x1136, 1412445113249.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6511996

>>6508943
>How do Catholics justify being for homosexuals remaining celibate on moral grounds?
because the gay agenda has been a politically motivated idea to create a model minority that is not difficult to 'free from oppression' and gives you voter sympathy and undermines your opposition.

The (rather weak) biological studies supporting the homo cause are an academically fostered misinformation. I blame liberal academic nepotism. Because you like being orgies or can't deal with your moms divorce does not mean you can spread lies to be respected for your sin.

Also, this is not /pol/ so take it to /pol/.