Ask A Catholic II

[civ_king]

Like homosexual marriage for example.

One of my problems is that it is a complete non-sequiter. Family relationships psychologically prevent this thing, for example if you grow up from a young age with an adopted sibling then even if you know that they are adopted there is still a massive psychological barrier. This imprinting I suppose you could say is possible of friends too. If you are raised from an extremely young age with someone even though they might fit exactly with what you desire as a prospective spouse chances are you are not going to think about the person in that kind of way.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Which verse does it say she engaged in sex with God the Father?

No bible verse says that, and Domination3000 in no way implied that she did.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not attested in any canonical scripture. It is the traditional view of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but has no biblical basis.

What Domination3000 (and most protestants for that matter) believe is that Mary was still a virgin when she miraculously conceived by the holy spirit and was still a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, but that she did not remain a virgin for the entire remainder of her life. Most interpret Mark 6:3 plainly as meaning that after Jesus was born Mary had sex with her husband Joseph and gave birth to Jesus's brothers James, Joses, Juda, and Simon as well as an unknown number of sisters.

 

[Takhisis]

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not attested in any canonical scripture. It is the traditional view of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but has no biblical basis.

So even if Mary did have sex with her husband it wouldn't have been unlwaful as they were married before God, and so, I cannot see why we're sitll arguing about such a moot point 2000 years after the fact.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Of course it would not have been unlawful, or immoral. Protestants don't have any problem with it. It is the Catholics who insist that Mary must have remained a virgin forever.

 

[civ_king]

BC is a problem, if sex isn't about children, then you have the slippery slope of sex outside of marriage, which then leads to homosexuality being ok.

This thinking also leads to things such as euthanasia.

I probably have a very different understanding of love from you. To cuddle by the fireplace, to be held, to breathe in deeply his rich smell. To dance in the moonlight, under the stars. To carve beautiful, intricate things of wood, products of my labor, to give it to him, to see the smile on his face. To hold his hand, for us to pray, to ponder the deep wondrous mysteries of the Church watching the sunrise.

Where is the sin?

Okay, I admit I'm hopelessly romantic

I'm amazed at how effeminate I made outdoors stuff sound.

 

[bathsheba666]

Homosexuality is between Two consenting adults.

Incest is not.

If it was fine for the children of Adam and Eve, it's fine now.

 

[Arakhor]

That actually sounds nice, Civ_king, but then I'm a hopeless romantic too.

 

[kochman]

If it was fine for the children of Adam and Eve, it's fine now.

This is actually debateable...
Some would argue there were other humans around, based on the scripture. Genesis even talks of angels taking human wives, and a race of giants, if I am not mistaken.

On a side note... It's great that Civ_King has found his homosexuality, but there is a thread for that... no? I mean, it's been days of reiterating the RCC stance on homosexuality, etc... we know, we got it... change of subject?

 

[Arakhor]

In a question-and-answer thread, I believe you change the subject by asking a different question.

 

[civ_king]

This is actually debateable...
Some would argue there were other humans around, based on the scripture. Genesis even talks of angels taking human wives, and a race of giants, if I am not mistaken.

On a side note... It's great that Civ_King has found his homosexuality, but there is a thread for that... no? I mean, it's been days of reiterating the RCC stance on homosexuality, etc... we know, we got it... change of subject?

I have a question, "Where is the sin?" I want to know at what point does it become sin.

 

[kochman]

In a question-and-answer thread, I believe you change the subject by asking a different question.

Thanks for breaking that down for me... I am just pointing out that this thread seems to have gone on a huge tangent...

I have a question, "Where is the sin?" I want to know at what point does it become sin.

This is ask a catholic, so I can't really answer. If you are asking this protestant, the sin starts in the heart (physical lust) for hetero or homo. We are all sinners, and we are all forgiven as sinners.

 

[civ_king]

Thanks for breaking that down for me... I am just pointing out that this thread seems to have gone on a huge tangent...


This is ask a catholic, so I can't really answer. If you are asking this protestant, the sin starts in the heart (physical lust) for hetero or homo. We are all sinners, and we are all forgiven as sinners.

What I wrote is unequivocally homosexual, he said

...you have the slippery slope of sex outside of marriage, which then leads to homosexuality being ok...

I want to know how the thoughts I expressed are at least as sinful as sex outside marriage.
As you can probably tell it is mostly directed at NBAfan

 

[Takhisis]

I have a question, "Where is the sin?" I want to know at what point does it become sin.

At the point when you engage in sexual intercourse it's a sin from a religious point of view… if you go extremist enough, even looking at people in a funny way is a sin so YMMV.

 

[vonbach]

This is actually debateable...
Some would argue there were other humans around, based on the scripture.

There were, they were the other non adamic men (in other words non whites).
Adam for instance means to flush red. The other races were created earlier by
God. Who do you think Cain married?

 

[Takhisis]

vonbach, we've already stated plenty of times that biblical literalism is a Protestant thing.

 

[timtofly]

There were, they were the other non adamic men (in other words non whites).
Adam for instance means to flush red. The other races were created earlier by
God. Who do you think Cain married?

vonbach, we've already stated plenty of times that biblical literalism is a Protestant thing.

That is not even "biblical literalism". That is merely guess work.

 

[vonbach]

That is not even "biblical literalism". That is merely guess work.

Its not guess-work its fairly clearly spelled out in the Bible. You just don't like the implications.

 

[vonbach]

Since when does the commandment against adultery have anything to do with marriage?

a·dul·ter·ate (-dlt-rt)
tr.v. a·dul·ter·at·ed, a·dul·ter·at·ing, a·dul·ter·ates
To make impure by adding extraneous, improper, or inferior ingredients.

Its a commandment to the Adamic race not to race mix. The very sin that Eve
committed. Trees were symbolic of people. By fruits they meant "fruits of" as in the
"fruits of your labor" to partake is a euphemism to have sex with. This is the sin that
caused the expulsion from the garden of eden. It didn't have anything to do with apples.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The meaning of the English word Adultery is not relevant, as the biblical commandments used the Hebrew Zanah and the Greek Moicheia.


Symbolic interpretations of the first sin as being sexual in nature are completely without basis. The first commandment God gave to man was to be fruitful and multiply. It would have sinful for Adam and Eve not to have sex.


Of course it had nothing to do with apples. The fruit only came to be associated with an apple due to a Latin visual pun. Artwork in Roman Catholic Churches depicted the fruit as an apple because both Apple and Evil are spelled Malum in Latin. (Their pronunciation is not identical, as the first vowel in evil is short and in apple is long.) In Eastern Orthodox Churches the fruit was generally depicted as being like a fig or a pomegranate.

 

[Jehoshua]

Firstly Adam is hebrew is inidicative of the earth (adamah) other derivatives include (adom) which is the red colour of earth, and (dam) blood. But they are distinct derivates from the base word adamah and do not relate directly to the name of Adam.

The name effectively means Earth man, or the Corporeal One. ie (man), similar to how Enosh means Mortal. It was used throughout the middle east both as a personal name but also in the generic sense of mankind. Simply put your etymology of the name is defective. Presumably your assumptions on the book of genesis which are contrary to sacred tradition and orthodox christian doctrine (across the board) are likewise defective including for some of the reasons MagisterCultuum has mentioned..