Sex and Christianity

[attofishpi]

ONCE AGAIN, the "expert" of DECEIT and DEFLECTION has PERFORMED its GOAL and SHOWN its EXPERTISE, here.

The opening post is ABOUT 'sex and christianity' YET "immanuel can" does NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT 'this' NOR even HAVE 'this' TALKED ABOUT BY others, so it CHANGED the 'topic' TO something ELSE, here.

Once again, Mr SELFISH interjects showing he has NO IDEA what ANYONE is actually stating..

Y don't you SELF ANALYSE - if you had a functioning brain you'd understand what an idiot you are.

You should be banned from the forum for this ONGOING NONSENSE.

[Age]

Once again, Mr SELFISH interjects showing he has NO IDEA what ANYONE is actually stating..

Y don't you SELF ANALYSE - if you had a functioning brain you'd understand what an idiot you are.

For a 'self-claimed' NON IDIOT you just about ALWAYS FAIL TO SHOW and PROVE HOW and WHY your CLAIMS are ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, or Correct.

Just MAKING CLAIMS is NOT SHOWING NOR PROVING that 'they' can be substantiated.

[Age]

ONCE AGAIN, the "expert" of DECEIT and DEFLECTION has PERFORMED its GOAL and SHOWN its EXPERTISE, here.

The opening post is ABOUT 'sex and christianity' YET "immanuel can" does NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT 'this' NOR even HAVE 'this' TALKED ABOUT BY others, so it CHANGED the 'topic' TO something ELSE, here.

You should be banned from the forum for this ONGOING NONSENSE.

That you ABSOLUTELY HATE and DETEST BEING QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED OVER your ABSURD CLAIMS, which you OBVIOUSLY can NOT back up and support is REALLY VERY OBVIOUS.

Now, what 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER ABSURD CLAIM, FROM "attofishpi", which 'I' WILL ASK 'you' TO PROVIDE just ONE example of WHAT, EXACTLY, is this so-called 'ONGOING NONSENSE', and SHOW and PROVE WHY 'that' IS what you call 'NONSENSE', EXACTLY.

Now, what I think should be MORE APPROPRIATELY BANNED, in A 'philosophy forum', are CLAIMS that one WILL NOT back up and support, and thus are NOT SUBSTANTIATED, as well as 'those' who WILL NOT just CLARIFY their VIEWS, BELIEFS, and/or POSITIONS.

But, it is CERTAINLY NOT 'my position' to TELL others HOW TO 'run' what they HAVE CREATED.

[attofishpi]

ONCE AGAIN, the "expert" of DECEIT and DEFLECTION has PERFORMED its GOAL and SHOWN its EXPERTISE, here.

The opening post is ABOUT 'sex and christianity' YET "immanuel can" does NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT 'this' NOR even HAVE 'this' TALKED ABOUT BY others, so it CHANGED the 'topic' TO something ELSE, here.

You should be banned from the forum for this ONGOING NONSENSE.

That you ABSOLUTELY HATE and DETEST BEING QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED OVER your ABSURD CLAIMS, which you OBVIOUSLY can NOT back up and support is REALLY VERY OBVIOUS.

Only by the forum IDIOT.

[Age]

You should be banned from the forum for this ONGOING NONSENSE.

That you ABSOLUTELY HATE and DETEST BEING QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED OVER your ABSURD CLAIMS, which you OBVIOUSLY can NOT back up and support is REALLY VERY OBVIOUS.

Only by the forum IDIOT.

TYPICAL GROUP MENTALITY. If 'we' can 'TRY TO' MAKE just 'one another' LOOK LIKE 'the idiot', then 'we' can TAKE 'the spotlight' OFF OF 'us'.

LOOK AT what IS IN the opening post, here, "attofishpi", and then just LOOK AT what you SAID and WROTE, here.

you are talking ABOUT some body who has multiple orgasms, and 'the size' of 'that body', and how 'that type' is NOT 'your type', and then about some sculptor that was INTENDED to NOT be about 'sex' AT ALL.

The opening post IS ABOUT 'sex and christianity', in case you FORGOT.

[Alexiev]

[

None of that matters. All that matters is what GOD/Christ stated in Biblical scripture. What men (*clergy) decide for their daft flock of sheep to believe later matters not.

Huh? Does that mean you're not interested in the history of religious thought? Doesn't what millions of people believe and are taught "matter"? You complain that Age is self-centered (a complaint of which I heartily approve), but then you show an anti-intellectual lack of inerest in any beliefs other than your own. What Catholic Orthodoxy teaches clearly "matters" in a great many ways.

[Alexiev]

Ummm...no. Sorry...that's verifiably incorrect.

If you look, you'll find out that Roman Catholicism was established by Constantine, following the Battle of Milvian Bridge, in 312 AD. That's common knowledge, on all sides. Meanwhile, Jerome lived from 347 to 319 AD. So the RC's certainly existed, and it is they who call him a "saint," and they who regard "saints'" traditions as authoritative.

So you've got to talk to the RC's on that one.

I'm not an expert, but I think you're wrong. The Roman Church didn't separate from the Orthodox church for 700 years after Constantine.

A totally different incident. You're not talking about the establishment of the Roman institution, but instead about a thing called "The Great Schism." A "schism" is a division in an existing thing. That was when the original institution split, one claiming to be "orthodox" (meaning, "the one that has the theological truth") and the other one claiming to be "catholic" (which means, "universal" or "worldwide"). Whether these names they took to insult each other were literal or merely postures, you can figure out. But the institution from which both came began with Constantine, at Milvian Bridge, in 312 AD.

This isn't controversial history. All historians, both the Catholic and the Orthodox, as well as all the secular historians, will tell you the same thing.

Roman Catholicism has changed over the centuries. When Constantine converted Christiaity was a small, insignificant cult. If he founded the modern Catholic Church, we can hardly blame him for its modern iterations. Apostolic Christianity was doubtless different from any modern form of Christianity -- but it's evolution is, at least, interesting. By the way, did you read the bit about how Martin Luther considered approving of polygamy?

[attofishpi]

[

None of that matters. All that matters is what GOD/Christ stated in Biblical scripture. What men (*clergy) decide for their daft flock of sheep to believe later matters not.

Huh? Does that mean you're not interested in the history of religious thought? Doesn't what millions of people believe and are taught "matter"? You complain that Age is self-centered (a complaint of which I heartily approve), but then you show an anti-intellectual lack of inerest in any beliefs other than your own. What Catholic Orthodoxy teaches clearly "matters" in a great many ways.

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!

[Alexiev]

[

None of that matters. All that matters is what GOD/Christ stated in Biblical scripture. What men (*clergy) decide for their daft flock of sheep to believe later matters not.

Huh? Does that mean you're not interested in the history of religious thought? Doesn't what millions of people believe and are taught "matter"? You complain that Age is self-centered (a complaint of which I heartily approve), but then you show an anti-intellectual lack of inerest in any beliefs other than your own. What Catholic Orthodoxy teaches clearly "matters" in a great many ways.

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 read your post. Did you read the article?

[attofishpi]

Huh? Does that mean you're not interested in the history of religious thought? Doesn't what millions of people believe and are taught "matter"? You complain that Age is self-centered (a complaint of which I heartily approve), but then you show an anti-intellectual lack of inerest in any beliefs other than your own. What Catholic Orthodoxy teaches clearly "matters" in a great many ways.

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 read your post. Did you read the article?

Admittedly, no. I am so accustomed to skipping past links on this forum, I have more interest in what people making the post have to say. I just re-viewed the OP and do see there is a link, will have a read when I have some more time.

[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 read your post. Did you read the article?

Admittedly, no. I am so accustomed to skipping past links on this forum, I have more interest in what people making the post have to say. I just re-viewed the OP and do see there is a link, will have a read when I have some more time.

My summary didn't do it justice. I found it very interesting.

[Age]

[

None of that matters. All that matters is what GOD/Christ stated in Biblical scripture. What men (*clergy) decide for their daft flock of sheep to believe later matters not.

Huh? Does that mean you're not interested in the history of religious thought? Doesn't what millions of people believe and are taught "matter"? You complain that Age is self-centered (a complaint of which I heartily approve),

Here 'we' have ANOTHER CLAIM, and ANOTHER ACCUSATION, ABOUT 'me'. So, WHY you do you SEE and/or BELIEVE that I AM 'self-centered' FOR, EXACTLY, "alexiev"?

Let 'us' SEE if 'this one' WILL ANSWER and CLARIFY, and REVEAL, EXACTLY, WHY it HAS and HOLDS its VIEWS and BELIEFS ABOUT 'me', here.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not an expert, but I think you're wrong. The Roman Church didn't separate from the Orthodox church for 700 years after Constantine.

A totally different incident. You're not talking about the establishment of the Roman institution, but instead about a thing called "The Great Schism." A "schism" is a division in an existing thing. That was when the original institution split, one claiming to be "orthodox" (meaning, "the one that has the theological truth") and the other one claiming to be "catholic" (which means, "universal" or "worldwide"). Whether these names they took to insult each other were literal or merely postures, you can figure out. But the institution from which both came began with Constantine, at Milvian Bridge, in 312 AD.

This isn't controversial history. All historians, both the Catholic and the Orthodox, as well as all the secular historians, will tell you the same thing.

Roman Catholicism has changed over the centuries. When Constantine converted Christiaity was a small, insignificant cult.

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.

[Alexiev]

[
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. Also, since I'm not arguing about anything (except history) I have no idea what you are talking about. Read the article. You might learn something.

[attofishpi]

Huh? Does that mean you're not interested in the history of religious thought? Doesn't what millions of people believe and are taught "matter"? You complain that Age is self-centered (a complaint of which I heartily approve), but then you show an anti-intellectual lack of inerest in any beliefs other than your own. What Catholic Orthodoxy teaches clearly "matters" in a great many ways.

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 read your post. Did you read the article?

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.