Sex and Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

[
It was he who made it into the institution you know as the RC's. And it wasn't modern: the famed "Dark Ages" hadn't even yet begun. Look at the dates. Don't you know any history at all?

So your charges are against Catholicism. See if you can find one willing to argue with you.

Apparently I know a lot more history than you do.

[Alexiev]

OK.

So why did you omit my own account of the Roman Catholic Church upbringing that I experienced in relation to your thread title?

I addressed it there, so get off of your high horse!

I have now read about 3/4 of the very lengthy article 4306 words in fact

Three things are particularly interesting philosophically upon the development of 'Christianity', not necessarily in the article:-
1. That the clergy were able to deceive their flock and insist upon their own prude and often bigoted personal views whilst claiming they represent what is in the Bible. Back for many years the flock of sheep were illiterate and also would not have the time to research the bullshit being insisted upon them by their priests.

2. That many of the weirdo versions of 'Christian' churches, predominantly in USA - with the big GOD hates Gays campaign etc the Pastors of which are still insisting to their poorly educated flock of sheep such nonsense. Thus, the flock are still not bothering to research the contents of the Bible.

3. Even upon this forum, especially from the fundamentalist "Christians", the USA form and atheists with their arguments against Christianity ALL of these types I have had throw preconceived ideas of Christianity - where, with current tech I can search the entire Bible and prove them wrong - they ALL make silly assumptions.


Per Article:-
It was rather interesting, stupid things that clergy would make up such as Christ was not able to get an erection & all the 'sinful' insistence pertaining to SEX - NONE of which are supported in the Bible - which returns me to my original point when I quoted your little summation..Which appears based on the Roman Catholic Church, that pertaining to Sex and Christianity - Christianity per the teachings of Christ - NONE of the PRUDE bullshit of any "Christian" Church matters..

Also, interesting in the article was that they suggest that it was the British Empire when expanding interests into Muslim territories, that buggery was accepted by the locals, and that it was the British that insisted that it's abhorrent - now look at Islam's attitude towards 'gay' men!

I still feel rather hard done by in you omittance of what I stated per your list which I agree with IC was clearly directed at Roman Catholicism, so, I'll repost it here:

As one that was born into a Roman Catholic School upbringing in UK - none of the above was ever taught to me. In secondary school there was even a brief thing about using a condom via our biology school teacher. The same teacher that showed us a video about abortion - the big no no. I recall stating to a friend next to me, that I'll never have an abortion. Well, many moons later I did.

So whenever I have attended Mass - never has anything re sex or abortion for that matter been mentioned. None of the above was ever mentioned - not even abortion or gay stuff..

GOD on the other hand is...well...rather fun in the sack once IT decides to show ITS love...if u can get the gist, GOD runs throughout our entire bodies - thus, mmm.

You may be familiar with Bernini's "The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa". This is the kind awesomeness - sexual ecstasy that I consider rather heavenly, a gift from GOD when I've stopped being a naughty boy..

Also, I recall watching a scientific study on women that have multiple orgasms. The main lady in the show, rather large, certainly not my type stated that she believed her multiple orgasms were a gift from GOD - in that (*faith included), something beyond her natural body function was causing it. They did CAT scans whilst she masturbated, quite a documentary - anyone interested should be able to find it rather easily. I've mentioned it on occasion to others and they say they also have seen it, so it's rather popular.

FROM GPT:-
"The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa" by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, which is located in the Santa Maria della Vittoria church in Rome, Italy. This sculpture is one of Bernini's masterpieces and depicts the mystical experience of Saint Teresa of Ávila, a Spanish nun and reformer of the Carmelite order, who described an intense spiritual encounter with God. The work shows her in a state of ecstatic rapture, with an angel piercing her heart with a spear in a dramatic and emotional pose.

The sculpture has been interpreted in various ways, with some viewers emphasizing the passionate and almost sexual nature of the scene, due to its sensual qualities and the way Teresa's expression and body are portrayed. However, the piece was intended to represent a divine spiritual experience, showcasing the depth of Teresa's religious fervor.


Main point being, it's the prude HUMAN nature of people of "faith", perhaps embarrassed that GOD may be watching their dirty acts that dictate a load of rubbish re sex within their religion.

Well, in the first 15 centuries of Christianity, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches represented mainstream religion. The major heresies (Manicheanism, Gnosticism, etc.) faded away. So the history of the religion is the history of the church.

The Bible was created by the Church. There were competing gospels, for example, that were not canonized. So I don't quite understand accepting the infallibility of the Bible without respecting the Church. Also, this wasn't decided until Constantine's conversion, so (acc. to IC) it was the Catholic Church that determined the Bible.

I've been to Avila, and read about Teresa. The statue is famous. Less well known are some of Teresa's sexualized religious fantasies and writings:

Beside me, on the left, appeared an angel in bodily form.... He was not tall but short, and very beautiful; and his face was so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest rank of angels, who seem to be all on fire.... In his hands I saw a great golden spear, and at the iron tip there appeared to be a point of fire. This he plunged into my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he pulled it out I felt that he took them with it, and left me utterly consumed by the great love of God. The pain was so severe that it made me utter several moans. The sweetness caused by this intense pain is so extreme that one cannot possibly wish it to cease, nor is one's soul content with anything but God. This is not a physical but a spiritual pain, though the body has some share in it—even a considerable share.”

I'm traveling today. More later. By the way I usually don't click on links, too. Especially if they're videos. At least my link was written.

[attofishpi]

Well, in the first 15 centuries of Christianity, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches represented mainstream religion. The major heresies (Manicheanism, Gnosticism, etc.) faded away. So the history of the religion is the history of the church.

The Bible was created by the Church.

The content of the Bible were not created by the Church - where Christianity is concerned the bits and bobs from accounts of scripture written close to and based on the life of Christ was included and some omitted.

There were competing gospels, for example, that were not canonized.

Yes, the tattered remnants of the Gospel of Judas was interesting, as I'm, sure was Thomas, Peter etc.. I am not overly into the buy bull to be honest, I get much info from the source (GOD). Although I should read those that were left out.

So I don't quite understand accepting the infallibility of the Bible without respecting the Church.

I'm one of the last Christians on Earth to suggest the Bible is infallible. What the latter clergy attempted to convince their flock of however gains no respect from me. In saying that, apparently either GOD or at least my sage that communicates from the aether (they don't indicate which is communicating), just a few weeks ago acknowledged that the Catholic Church IS THE Church of Christ.

I'd be certain however, that Christ isn't overly struck with awe at some of it's history, for certainly there were many times it showed little alignment to His teachings.

Also, this wasn't decided until Constantine's conversion, so (acc. to IC) it was the Catholic Church that determined the Bible.

Determined what went in, what went out, what order...yes -HOWEVER, based on scripture written down imo much of which from around the time of Christs actual life. Then you've got the OT stuff of course.

I've been to Avila, and read about Teresa. The statue is famous. Less well known are some of Teresa's sexualized religious fantasies and writings:

Beside me, on the left, appeared an angel in bodily form.... He was not tall but short, and very beautiful; and his face was so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest rank of angels, who seem to be all on fire.... In his hands I saw a great golden spear, and at the iron tip there appeared to be a point of fire. This he plunged into my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he pulled it out I felt that he took them with it, and left me utterly consumed by the great love of God. The pain was so severe that it made me utter several moans. The sweetness caused by this intense pain is so extreme that one cannot possibly wish it to cease, nor is one's soul content with anything but God. This is not a physical but a spiritual pain, though the body has some share in it—even a considerable share.”

Interesting.

[Monsuarre]

I just set an alarm on my phone for the same time every night with a label like "Write one thing you learned today" so I get into the habit automatically.

[Impenitent]

I just set an alarm on my phone for the same time every night with a label like "Write one thing you learned today" so I get into the habit automatically.

the closet in the monastery has no alarm

-Imp

[promethean75]

With only very few exceptions have i found the general rule among literate men to be that those who should most keep a journal end up never doing so, while those who end up doing so are those who should least keep a journal.

It makes for much unknown interesting and known uninteresting reading. This is the opposite of how we want it.

[accelafine]

Beside me, on the left, appeared an angel in bodily form.... He was not tall but short, and very beautiful; and his face was so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest rank of angels, who seem to be all on fire.... In his hands I saw a great golden spear, and at the iron tip there appeared to be a point of fire. This he plunged into my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he pulled it out I felt that he took them with it, and left me utterly consumed by the great love of God. The pain was so severe that it made me utter several moans. The sweetness caused by this intense pain is so extreme that one cannot possibly wish it to cease, nor is one's soul content with anything but God. This is not a physical but a spiritual pain, though the body has some share in it—even a considerable share.”

I'm traveling today. More later. By the way I usually don't click on links, too. Especially if they're videos. At least my link was written.

This is very funny. There's gay version by John of the Cross called 'Dark night of the soul'

[Immanuel Can]

Well, in the first 15 centuries of Christianity, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches represented mainstream religion.

This isn't correct. But they did have the most exhaustive records, and it's those records that are most of what current historians have, and what they tend to accept as "Christianity." But it's not. And it's never been all there was. The Reformation did not appear ex nihilo, for example. Rather, it appeared after a long series of conflicts between various religions and the Catholic inquisitions.

As for Gnosticism, it's still going, albeit in new forms. But in the old forms, it was still very much alive and kicking in the 17th Century.

The Bible was created by the Church.

It's the other way around, actually. If anything, we could say that the Bible created the Church, since it was only through the OT the gospels and the apostolic writings that we know there should be anything to call the Church.

There were competing gospels, for example, that were not canonized.

Not really. The oldest of these so-called "competitors," The Gospel of Thomas, dates from at least the second century AD. The NT draws on sources we can trace to no later than around 60 AD, and to earlier incidents. At most, you could say that Thomas and the subsequent "gospels" were creative fiction of later centuries, and so it's unsurprising they're not canonical.

[Alexiev]

[

It's the other way around, actually. If anything, we could say that the Bible created the Church, since it was only through the OT the gospels and the apostolic writings that we know there should be anything to call the Church.
[

Thanks for informing me. Silly me. I thought Jesus created Christianity and said He would biild His church on Peter. That was years before the gospels were written, and centuries before they were canonized.

I suppose the Bible is now worshipped in some circles instead of Jesus. This follows Paul, who warred with James the Just (Jesus' brother), and ignored Jesus while emphasizing Christ.

[Immanuel Can]

It's the other way around, actually. If anything, we could say that the Bible created the Church, since it was only through the OT the gospels and the apostolic writings that we know there should be anything to call the Church.

I thought Jesus created Christianity...

He did. He's the grounds of the beliefs that inspired the Church, that is "Christianity" itself. But the institution of the Church itself starts at Pentecost, after His ascention.

Even the nuns in Catholic school should probably have told you that. But if they didn't, then that's not your fault: it's on them, I guess.

That was years before the gospels were written, and centuries before they were canonized.

The gospels, yes: but the entire Old Testament already existed, and the gospels and epistles could not have existed until after the events they recorded had taken place: so it's not at all surprising they came after, is it?

[Alexiev]

It's the other way around, actually. If anything, we could say that the Bible created the Church, since it was only through the OT the gospels and the apostolic writings that we know there should be anything to call the Church.

I thought Jesus created Christianity...

He did. He's the grounds of the beliefs that inspired the Church, that is "Christianity" itself. But the institution of the Church itself starts at Pentecost, after His ascention.

Even the nuns in Catholic school should probably have told you that. But if they didn't, then that's not your fault: it's on them, I guess.

That was years before the gospels were written, and centuries before they were canonized.

The gospels, yes: but the entire Old Testament already existed, and the gospels and epistles could not have existed until after the events they recorded had taken place: so it's not at all surprising they came after, is it?

Maybe it's my fault for not attending Catholic School. The Old Testament existed, but it wasn't the "Old Testament". It was the Tankakh. Worship of the Bible seems to me to be a worship of a false idol. I went to an Orthodox Church once for a funeral. Their literature said that the Roman Church had added to apostolic tradition, and the Protestant churches had subtracted from it (with their sola scriptura approach).

Of course the apostolic tradition predated the Bible.

[Impenitent]

I thought Jesus created Christianity...

He did. He's the grounds of the beliefs that inspired the Church, that is "Christianity" itself. But the institution of the Church itself starts at Pentecost, after His ascention.

Even the nuns in Catholic school should probably have told you that. But if they didn't, then that's not your fault: it's on them, I guess.

That was years before the gospels were written, and centuries before they were canonized.

The gospels, yes: but the entire Old Testament already existed, and the gospels and epistles could not have existed until after the events they recorded had taken place: so it's not at all surprising they came after, is it?

Maybe it's my fault for not attending Catholic School. The Old Testament existed, but it wasn't the "Old Testament". It was the Tankakh. Worship of the Bible seems to me to be a worship of a false idol. I went to an Orthodox Church once for a funeral. Their literature said that the Roman Church had added to apostolic tradition, and the Protestant churches had subtracted from it (with their sola scriptura approach).

Of course the apostolic tradition predated the Bible.

you would think there'd be a 12 step program for apostolism, but by the 4th step, you need to find a higher power...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

I thought Jesus created Christianity...

He did. He's the grounds of the beliefs that inspired the Church, that is "Christianity" itself. But the institution of the Church itself starts at Pentecost, after His ascention.

Even the nuns in Catholic school should probably have told you that. But if they didn't, then that's not your fault: it's on them, I guess.

That was years before the gospels were written, and centuries before they were canonized.

The gospels, yes: but the entire Old Testament already existed, and the gospels and epistles could not have existed until after the events they recorded had taken place: so it's not at all surprising they came after, is it?

Maybe it's my fault for not attending Catholic School. The Old Testament existed, but it wasn't the "Old Testament". It was the Tankakh.

"Tanakh," you mean? Yes, that's the same thing. It's just the Hebrew name, rather than the Christian.

Worship of the Bible seems to me to be a worship of a false idol.

People don't worship the Bible. They pay heed to the Bible, so as to worship God.

I went to an Orthodox Church once for a funeral. Their literature said that the Roman Church had added to apostolic tradition, and the Protestant churches had subtracted from it (with their sola scriptura approach).

Well, I'll put the distinction the way that my opponents would, so as to present their case in its most charitable format.

The Catholics and the Orthodox believe in what they call an "organic" revelation: that the Bible may have been the starting point, but that the revealed truth of God "grows" through the pronouncements of the clergy and councils, which can alter, supplement, or even countermand earlier revelation. So they have added many rituals, demands, dogmas, edicts, creeds and practices from their traditions, and regard them as authoritative, even to the point of declaring some of them to be the basis of salvation itself.

The Reformation was over "sola scriptura": namely, the belief that the popes, prelates and councils have no such authority, and that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. It means "only Scripture," as you will recognize, and was one of five such "solas" of the Reformation. This is why there is such a difference between the Catholics/Orthodox, on the one hand, and the various Protestant groups, on the other.

[Alexiev]

The Catholics and the Orthodox believe in what they call an "organic" revelation: that the Bible may have been the starting point, but that the revealed truth of God "grows" through the pronouncements of the clergy and councils, which can alter, supplement, or even countermand earlier revelation. So they have added many rituals, demands, dogmas, edicts, creeds and practices from their traditions, and regard them as authoritative, even to the point of declaring some of them to be the basis of salvation itself.

The Reformation was over "sola scriptura": namely, the belief that the popes, prelates and councils have no such authority, and that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. It means "only Scripture," as you will recognize, and was one of five such "solas" of the Reformation. This is why there is such a difference between the Catholics/Orthodox, on the one hand, and the various Protestant groups, on the other.

Hmmm. This sounds exactly like what the sola scriptura folks do. Doesn't the New Testament promote the theology of Paul, who never met Jesus? Aren't his letters similar to the teachings of othrr priests, popes, and prelates? Why would their inclusion in the Bible by the same church whose other teachings are suspect suddenly make them irrefutable?

[Immanuel Can]

The Catholics and the Orthodox believe in what they call an "organic" revelation: that the Bible may have been the starting point, but that the revealed truth of God "grows" through the pronouncements of the clergy and councils, which can alter, supplement, or even countermand earlier revelation. So they have added many rituals, demands, dogmas, edicts, creeds and practices from their traditions, and regard them as authoritative, even to the point of declaring some of them to be the basis of salvation itself.

The Reformation was over "sola scriptura": namely, the belief that the popes, prelates and councils have no such authority, and that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. It means "only Scripture," as you will recognize, and was one of five such "solas" of the Reformation. This is why there is such a difference between the Catholics/Orthodox, on the one hand, and the various Protestant groups, on the other.

Hmmm. This sounds exactly like what the sola scriptura folks do. Doesn't the New Testament promote the theology of Paul, who never met Jesus?

Actually, Paul did meet Jesus. Have you ever heard of the road to Damascus incident? (Acts 9:3-8)

Aren't his letters similar to the teachings of othrr priests, popes, and prelates?

Actually, no.

And you can find that out for yourself, if you wish to take the time; so you don't have to take my word for it. But the later dictates of popes and councils have often even wildly gone against what Scripture has said. And that's actually what produced Luther's rebellion against the RC's, and generated the Reformation. It was that gap between the Bible and the RC authorities that was the cause of the conflict, and the reason that the Reformers insisted that "only Scripture" (sola scriptura) should be the rule of faith.

Why would their inclusion in the Bible by the same church whose other teachings are suspect suddenly make them irrefutable?

Catholic theology demands total obedience to the Pope. What the Pope declares from his throne (they call this "ex cathedra") is taken by Catholics to be the absolute word of God, and the more recent word of God than anything in Scripture. So it replaces whatever Scripture says, in their thinking, with something newer and more authoritative, they say.

Remember that this is the great "advantage" Catholics claim for their view of divine revelation: that they say it's "organic" and "grows" over time. This means it changes, and it changes to conform to whatever the Popes, bishops and councils declare it should say. But Protestants insist (or "protest") that only the Bible is authoritative, and any religious authorities must bow to God's revealed Word, the Bible. So "sola scriptura" it is, for them.

And now you know what made the Reformation happen. The differences between the two views of what the Word of God was became too profound. And Luther et al. noticed, and tried to "reform" the existing Catholic theology, bringing it back closer to the Biblical text -- obviously, without success.