Philosophy Now Forum

This week's New Yorker has an interesting article about Christian attitudes toward sex through the centuries. Here's a link:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-r ... ld-virgins

Among the points:

1) The Roman Church often used the priesthood and nunneries as a sort of conversion therapy, a practice which continues.

2) The early church was down on sex in general -- even within marriage.

3) Until the 11th century, priests could get married. The church disapproved of legitimate children inheriting from the clergy (instead of the church inheriting).

4) St Jerome thought sex was disgusting.

5) It's bizarre that a proselytizing religion disapproved of the easiest way to increase its membership -- through members having children.

There's more. I recommend the article (I'm not sure if non- subscribers can read the link). I'd be interested to read what the Christians on this forum think.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 5:20 pm This week's New Yorker has an interesting article about Christian attitudes toward sex through the centuries. Here's a link:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-r ... ld-virgins

Among the points:

1) The Roman Church often used the priesthood and nunneries as a sort of conversion therapy, a practice which continues.

2) The early church was down on sex in general -- even within marriage.

3) Until the 11th century, priests could get married. The church disapproved of legitimate children inheriting from the clergy (instead of the church inheriting).

4) St Jerome thought sex was disgusting.

5) It's bizarre that a proselytizing religion disapproved of the easiest way to increase its membership -- through members having children.

There's more. I recommend the article (I'm not sure if non- subscribers can read the link). I'd be interested to read what the Christians on this forum think.

You need to ask the Catholics if any of that is true or represents their beliefs. Everything you listed is really about them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 6:15 pm
You need to ask the Catholics if any of that is true or represents their beliefs. Everything you listed is really about them.

True, but a lot of the article is about the early church. Jerome may be a Roman Catholic saint, but the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist when he lived. You should read the article.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 7:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 6:15 pm
You need to ask the Catholics if any of that is true or represents their beliefs. Everything you listed is really about them.

True, but a lot of the article is about the early church. Jerome may be a Roman Catholic saint, but the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist when he lived.

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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 7:10 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 7:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 6:15 pm
You need to ask the Catholics if any of that is true or represents their beliefs. Everything you listed is really about them.

True, but a lot of the article is about the early church. Jerome may be a Roman Catholic saint, but the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist when he lived.

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. In addition, Constantine moved the Capitol of the Empire to Constantinople. He established Nicene Christianity as the State Religion. During the "Byzantine Papacy", the Bishop of Rome was chosen by (or at least approved by) the emperor in Constantnople.

Several ecumenical councils denied the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the 4th and 5th centuries, although the See of Rome denied their authority.

In any event, the Roman Church (of course) claims descent from Peter, but the history is complicated, and the Roman Church didn't split from the Orthodox for many centuries.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 5:20 pm This week's New Yorker has an interesting article about Christian attitudes toward sex through the centuries. Here's a link:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-r ... ld-virgins

Among the points:

1) The Roman Church often used the priesthood and nunneries as a sort of conversion therapy, a practice which continues.

2) The early church was down on sex in general -- even within marriage.

3) Until the 11th century, priests could get married. The church disapproved of legitimate children inheriting from the clergy (instead of the church inheriting).

4) St Jerome thought sex was disgusting.

5) It's bizarre that a proselytizing religion disapproved of the easiest way to increase its membership -- through members having children.

There's more. I recommend the article (I'm not sure if non- subscribers can read the link). I'd be interested to read what the Christians on this forum think.

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.

However. 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.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 7:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 7:10 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 7:01 pm

True, but a lot of the article is about the early church. Jerome may be a Roman Catholic saint, but the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist when he lived.

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.

Did either of you read the article?

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 5:20 pm This week's New Yorker has an interesting article about Christian attitudes toward sex through the centuries. Here's a link:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-r ... ld-virgins

Among the points:

1) The Roman Church often used the priesthood and nunneries as a sort of conversion therapy, a practice which continues.

2) The early church was down on sex in general -- even within marriage.

3) Until the 11th century, priests could get married. The church disapproved of legitimate children inheriting from the clergy (instead of the church inheriting).

4) St Jerome thought sex was disgusting.

5) It's bizarre that a proselytizing religion disapproved of the easiest way to increase its membership -- through members having children.

There's more. I recommend the article (I'm not sure if non- subscribers can read the link). I'd be interested to read what the Christians on this forum think.

Are you interested in reading ONLY what so-called "christians" 'think', or, would you like to ALSO read what others 'know'?

See, the VERY REASON WHY 'the people' of that 'one theology' have some of 'the views' that they have, here, just about ALL of you posters, here, have NOT YET REALIZED, let alone CONSIDERED, and THOUGHT ABOUT.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 6:15 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 5:20 pm This week's New Yorker has an interesting article about Christian attitudes toward sex through the centuries. Here's a link:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-r ... ld-virgins

Among the points:

1) The Roman Church often used the priesthood and nunneries as a sort of conversion therapy, a practice which continues.

2) The early church was down on sex in general -- even within marriage.

3) Until the 11th century, priests could get married. The church disapproved of legitimate children inheriting from the clergy (instead of the church inheriting).

4) St Jerome thought sex was disgusting.

5) It's bizarre that a proselytizing religion disapproved of the easiest way to increase its membership -- through members having children.

There's more. I recommend the article (I'm not sure if non- subscribers can read the link). I'd be interested to read what the Christians on this forum think.

You need to ask the Catholics if any of that is true or represents their beliefs. Everything you listed is really about them.

So, ONCE MORE, the 'self-professed' "christian" has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR even A CLUE, AGAIN.

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

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:06 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 5:20 pm This week's New Yorker has an interesting article about Christian attitudes toward sex through the centuries. Here's a link:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-r ... ld-virgins

Among the points:

1) The Roman Church often used the priesthood and nunneries as a sort of conversion therapy, a practice which continues.

2) The early church was down on sex in general -- even within marriage.

3) Until the 11th century, priests could get married. The church disapproved of legitimate children inheriting from the clergy (instead of the church inheriting).

4) St Jerome thought sex was disgusting.

5) It's bizarre that a proselytizing religion disapproved of the easiest way to increase its membership -- through members having children.

There's more. I recommend the article (I'm not sure if non- subscribers can read the link). I'd be interested to read what the Christians on this forum think.

None of that matters. All that matters is what GOD/Christ stated in Biblical scripture.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, some people ARE ABSOLUTELY UTTERLY BLIND, and DEAF, and thus COMPLETELY STUPID.

LOL 'Nothing matters, unless 'it' is stated in biblical scripture'.

Could one come across MORE CLOSED, here?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:06 pm What men (*clergy) decide for their daft flock of sheep to believe later matters not.

But, BELIEVING, ABSOLUTELY, that ACTUAL 'snakes' TALK TO human beings is NOT 'daft'. And, in fact, 'this' is ONLY what REALLY MATTERS.

I will, AGAIN, suggest that the posters, here, ACTUALLY CONSIDER the ACTUAL words that they CHOOSE TO USE, and TO SAY and WRITE, here, in this forum. As, this IS A 'philosophy forum' there IS A strong chance that you WILL BE QUESTIONED, and/or CHALLENGED OVER the ACTUAL WORDS, and CLAIMS, that you SAY, WRITE, and USE, here.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:06 pm However. 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.

Did 'you' HAVE the abortion, or, someone ELSE that 'you' knew HAS 'the abortion'?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:06 pm 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.

'I' do NOT GET 'your so-called gist', here. So, WILL you EXPLAIN, ELABORATE, or CLARIFY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

you ALSO do CLAIM that God TELLS 'you' DIRECTLY that 'you are a (so-called) good christian', YET here you are HATING some people. Which, as far as I KNOW NOT some thing that "jesus Christ" EVER DID. In fact I though "jesus christ" and God LOVED EVERY one. So, THE 'God' that you CLAIM IS WITHIN 'you', and TALKS TO 'you' DIRECTLY appears to be VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FROM the OTHER God, which others TALK ABOUT and MENTION. So, THE 'God' that you CLAIM is so-called 'rather fun in the sack' might well ALSO ONLY BE some 'thing' of 'your OWN IMAGINATION', AS WELL.

But, 'you' "attofishpi" will NEVER EVER BELIEVE nor ACCEPT 'this', correct?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:06 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:06 pm 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..

But, you ALSO CONSIDER your IMAGINED 'God PUT you THROUGH HELL' was ALSO A GIFT FROM God, right?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:06 pm 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.

WHY did you SAY and CLAIM that 'that one' was 'rather large', and CERTAINLY NOT 'your type', FOR, EXACTLY?

WHO CARES what your OWN personal generalized and Incorrect VIEWS ARE OF 'size' or even of your OWN 'preferences', here? you started off talking ABOUT some so-called 'scientific study', and then go into your OWN PERSONAL VIEWS and PREFERENCES, which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, here, and as though you do NOT even KNOW what A 'scientific study' even IS, EXACTLY.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:06 pm
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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, "attofishpi" has MENTIONED some 'study', to a particular type of people, and BECAUSE 'they' say that they 'have also seen it', this MEANS 'therefore is is so-called 'rather popular'.

AND, as though 'this' has ANY thing AT ALL TO DO WITH the ACTUAL study, or, LOL even WITH the opening post, here.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:06 pm 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.

WHAT?

So, some sculptor, which WAS INTENDED TO REPRESENT ABSOLUTELY something ELSE FROM 'sex' you BRING UP and TALK ABOUT in regards to the opening post, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:22 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 7:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 7:10 pm
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.

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.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 11:37 pm Once again, Mr SELFISH interjects showing he has NO IDEA what Immanuel or ANYONE is actually stating..

LOL
LOL
LOL