Are your kids being shown pornographic images in school by teachers?

[Sherman]

Does Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, require the Church to observe certain bedroom morals, or is everything permissible?

Stop this line of questioning and applying immorality to Christians that do not belong to your particular brand of Christianity. You are getting very close to earning yourself a timeout.

 

[Idolater]

Stop this line of questioning and applying immorality to Christians that do not belong to your particular brand of Christianity. You are getting very close to earning yourself a timeout.

Sherman, Dispensationalists are able to sprinkle their Dispensationalism all over the place here, am I limited to sprinkle Catholicism only in cordoned off Catholic only threads? Or can you specify or just point out something brief that can help me calibrate appropriately? I have multiple threads going that I'm active in, maybe not as active as some, but I make appearances, how can I very quickly remind myself of the limit, to not exceed it? I just see Dispensationalists able to make bald assertions all the time that simply beg the question that Dispensationalism is the right biblical theology, and I know enough to not do that in threads that aren't specifically concerning Catholicism, but in this thread that's not what I'm doing. Me and RD got into a scuffle over me using a biblical term to describe something that is used in the Bible to describe that same thing. Can't I engage him in a philosophical and theological dispute (all within the thread's topic) without exceeding a limit that as far as I'm concerned, Dispensationalists exceed all the time? Or what is the deal here? What am I doing wrong?

 

[Sherman]

Sherman, Dispensationalists are able to sprinkle their Dispensationalism all over the place here, am I limited to sprinkle Catholicism only in cordoned off Catholic only threads? Or can you specify or just point out something brief that can help me calibrate appropriately? I have multiple threads going that I'm active in, maybe not as active as some, but I make appearances, how can I very quickly remind myself of the limit, to not exceed it? I just see Dispensationalists able to make bald assertions all the time that simply beg the question that Dispensationalism is the right biblical theology, and I know enough to not do that in threads that aren't specifically concerning Catholicism, but in this thread that's not what I'm doing. Me and RD got into a scuffle over me using a biblical term to describe something that is used in the Bible to describe that same thing. Can't I engage him in a philosophical and theological dispute (all within the thread's topic) without exceeding a limit that as far as I'm concerned, Dispensationalists exceed all the time? Or what is the deal here? What am I doing wrong?

You are missing the point of my post. Don't push sexual immoral labels on all non-Catholic Christians by making blanket statements about them. They are plenty of Christians outside the Catholic church that find fornication in all its forms and masterbation destestable.

You need the clarify the term 'gentile' Does it mean someone who is an unbeliever? Or is it a blanket for someone who is not a Catholic? If you are using it as a blanket for someone outside your church, then it is disallowed because you are unnecessarily provoking other members because you are linking immoral behavior with people that are not Catholic with blanket statements and that is just wrong.

 

[Right Divider]

Does Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, require the Church to observe certain bedroom morals, or is everything permissible?

Weird and extremely vague question.

 

[Sherman]

The question gives me pause to wonder if he trying to market fornication, adultery and masterbation to people outside his group.

 

[Idolater]

You are missing the point of my post. Don't push sexual immoral labels on all non-Catholic Christians by making blanket statements about them. They are plenty of Christians outside the Catholic church that find fornication in all its forms and masterbation destestable.

You need the clarify the term 'gentile' Does it mean someone who is an unbeliever? Or is it a blanket for someone who is not a Catholic? If you are using it as a blanket for someone outside your church, then it is disallowed because you are unnecessarily provoking other members because you are linking immoral behavior with people that are not Catholic with blanket statements and that is just wrong.

Sherman, I'm relentlessly accused of being a pagan on TOL. Is not idolatry immoral behavior?

I'm not going to press it, but is there a way to protect me from this constant false charge against me? I'm not an idolater.

 

[ok doser]

I'm not an idolater.

Yeah, right

and I'm not a doser


sheesh

 

[Sherman]

Sherman, I'm relentlessly accused of being a pagan on TOL. Is not idolatry immoral behavior?

I'm not going to press it, but is there a way to protect me from this constant false charge against me? I'm not an idolater.

This is not a Catholic website. Trying to push sexual immorality onto all non-catholics will lead to a permaban. We are done here.

 

[Idolater]

This is not a Catholic website. Trying to push sexual immorality onto all non-catholics will lead to a permaban.

I did not do that, and I will not either.

 

[Idolater]

Sexual purity in the bedroom is approved by God. Perversion is not.

I think 'perversion' is a good word here. It is a better translation of the Greek 'porneia'. Paul distinguishes between natural and unnatural perversion (homosexual offense, for example), but he also has another category that is even beyond unnatural, in 1st Corinthians 5:1

It is reported commonly that there is perversion among you, and such perversion as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

But Paul wasn't aware of bonobos. And why would he be, and furthermore, why would his audience be? Bonobos live in just one area, right in the middle of Africa.

Bonobo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[marke]

I think 'perversion' is a good word here. It is a better translation of the Greek 'porneia'. Paul distinguishes between natural and unnatural perversion (homosexual offense, for example), but he also has another category that is even beyond unnatural, in 1st Corinthians 5:1

But Paul wasn't aware of bonobos. And why would he be, and furthermore, why would his audience be? Bonobos live in just one area, right in the middle of Africa.

Bonobo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Atheist evolutionists claim homosexual tendencies are inherited from animal ancestors. Humans do not have animal ancestors in spite of what the deluded think. Human homosexuality is a direct result of the inherited sin nature from Adam.

 

[Right Divider]

I think 'perversion' is a good word here. It is a better translation of the Greek 'porneia'. Paul distinguishes between natural and unnatural perversion (homosexual offense, for example), but he also has another category that is even beyond unnatural, in 1st Corinthians 5:1

But Paul wasn't aware of bonobos. And why would he be, and furthermore, why would his audience be? Bonobos live in just one area, right in the middle of Africa.

Bonobo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no such thing as "natural perversion". You come up with the most insane ideas.

Perversion is against that which is natural.

Sexual perverts and those that try to support them do like to use those monkeys as examples of "natural perversion". Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Idolater]

There is no such thing as "natural perversion". You come up with the most insane ideas.

Perversion is against that which is natural.

Romans 1
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, [perversion], wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Are they all against that which is natural?

Sexual perverts and those that try to support them do like to use those monkeys as examples of "natural perversion". Nothing could be further from the truth.

1st Corinthians 5:1 seems to have found some bonobos living among the Corinthians.

 

[Right Divider]

Are they all against that which is natural?

1st Corinthians 5:1 seems to have found some bonobos living among the Corinthians.

I must say that you are a complete idiot.

The term "natural" must be understood IN ITS CONTEXT. Just like every other word in the Bible or any other written text.

 

[marke]

Are they all against that which is natural?

1st Corinthians 5:1 seems to have found some bonobos living among the Corinthians.

Just because atheistic sex perverts think they descended from black homosexual bonobos does not mean they descended from filthy animals.

 

[Idolater]

I must say that you are a complete idiot.

You 'must' say it? I'm not sure how seriously you take it that words mean things.

The term "natural" must be understood IN ITS CONTEXT. Just like every other word in the Bible or any other written text.

I think you just proved that you're not to be taken too seriously when you start instructing us about grammar and interpretation. You don't use words as if they mean what they mean, you regularly exaggerate instead. Hyperbole.

 

[Idolater]

Just because atheistic sex perverts think they descended from black homosexual bonobos does not mean they descended from filthy animals.

I was more thinking that they're possessed by demons. Paul calls what the bonobos do unnatural, even though they are an example of nature. So it must be demons.

 

[Right Divider]

I was more thinking that they're possessed by demons. Paul calls what the bonobos do unnatural, even though they are an example of nature. So it must be demons.

Nature was corrupted by the fall.

 

[marke]

I was more thinking that they're possessed by demons. Paul calls what the bonobos do unnatural, even though they are an example of nature. So it must be demons.

I doubt barbarians believe they are possessed by demons, but the evolutionist rubes among them believe they descended from dumb animals through Darwin's evolution.

 

[Idolater]

Nature was corrupted by the fall.

And? So what? Why don't all the species act like bonobos then. They are unique. They engage in things that Paul says is "not so much as named among the Gentiles".

There must be some reason. And it can't just be something that should affect every other species the same way.