File: Screenshot_20260619_12351(...).jpg (669 KB, 1080x1734)

669 KB JPG

>>18538200
Seems like you're making shit up again.

>>18538200
baka us guys can't even be friends without being called gay

It's a blood brother ritual

>>18538241
Sol is two men fucking

>>18538228
God did this with Jonathan and David.

File: Sweet_stories_of_God;_in_(...).jpg (936 KB, 1596x2398)

936 KB JPG

The problem with reconciling medieval and modern views on "homosexuality" is this: the religious prohibition is on sodomy. That's all it cares about. It doesn't care if you think men are beautiful or you are really attached to your male friend or whatever. Whereas the modern word "gay" encompasses a whole range of things. Are basically romantic feelings for another men that make you want to kiss him "gay"? OK, so what? Just don't be a sodomite.. Plato writes about this in Phaedrus.

>>18538200
It's a Roman-style late-term adoption, changed to fit with the Christian monarchy they were living under at that point. It's not actually gay or meant to be gay, though I guess the gays used it as well.

>>18538200
Yes, early Christianity was full of fags and trannies. This doesn't get talked about enough because Christians start losing their minds and won't stop shaking and screaming no true Scotsman.

It's very political and just makes so many people mad. I can easily see an academic becoming as infamous as Richard Carrier just for publishing a systematic monograph on the topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valesians

>>18538200
Nobody wants to hear this but Pentecostals are the true bulwark against faggotry.

Propagandists will try to insinuate that this is some kind of blessing, public recognition of, or acceptance of open sodomy.
Really it's just in line with Jesus sending out his disciples in pairs.
It's good to have someone you can trust to watch out for you.
A confidant even, someone who's comfortable telling you when you're making a mistake.

>Boswell
>died of AIDs related complications
well that sucks

>offered a revolutionary interpretation of the Western tradition, arguing that the Roman Catholic Church had not condemned gay people throughout its history, but rather, at least until the twelfth century, had alternately evinced no special concern about homosexuality or actually celebrated love between men
this simply isn't true
moreover, love doesn't have anything to do with carnal acts which the Catholic church of the medieval period emphasized were unnatural

this thesis is pure wishful thinking
the church fathers, of antiquity mind you forget the medieval era, unanimously condemn sodomy and hermaphroditsm

>>18538353
A recurring topic in regards to your language is that at least specifically to your language it's very common that words have changed their meaning for a particular purpose

The word means an inhabitant of Sodom, and it is tied to a story that is not necessarily about anal sex but general abuse even if perhaps mostly sexual abuse

That is something that absolutely encompasses sex of the vaginal kind

As far as Plato goes, there is an inherent part of philosophy that engages in love exchanges that nurture the heart but that focusing too much in the material is a detriment

I think it has more to do with ensuring that those who engage with it don't let themselves get carried away with physical lust and ensure that their hearts and minds are also in it

>>18538743
Anal sex is intrinsically disordered because it can literally never result in new life.

The genitals have a certain telos, that is to say purpose, which are ordered towards reproduction.
Misusing them, for example for simple gratification, is wrong.

Love isn't, in itself, an expression of hedonism.
Hedonic acts do not perfect love.
Love between men is not made complete through sodomy, in fact this sin actually degrades it.

Consummation of a sacramental marriage, which is distinguished from natural bonds by it's unification of man and woman as becoming one flesh with the church itself because it is fundamentally about the creation of new life, can *never* be compared with sodomy.
Full stop. That is a non-negotiable, it's not up for debate.

One is truly sacred, and in line with the command to be fruitful and multiply.
The other is a mortal sin, unclean.
Anyone deliberately trying to spread confusion in the church regarding this issue is going to pay for it.

>>18538773
Becoming a priest is intrinsically disordered

>>18538773
Are foot massages a misuse of the telos of feet...

>>18538773
>Anal sex is intrinsically disordered because it can literally never result in new life.
Do you ever clean your room?
If so congratulation, you are destroying sacred holy untouchable life by genociding bacteria

>>18538773
>appeal to nature

Lol

>>18538241
>blood brother ritual
Sounds satanic. Enjoy hell.

>>18538228
"non-carnal" is the official position but it's well known that gays used it as a way to legitimize their sexual activities. it's pretty obvious when two men would set their lives up in every way that a normal couple would. the church wasn't oblivious either. it's just clear that organized gay unions are better than gay pandemonium.

>>18539192
That's a terrible analogy.
Nobody walks on their dick.
Your genitals and feet have different functions.

Your dick doesn't get calloused and sore from being trod everyday.
Foot massages aren't even sexual.

Part of what makes the human hand special is it's ability to heal.
Fisting someone is actually a misuse of this gift.

It literally damages your rectum, the opposite of healing. Because it was not designed for that activity. Bleeding fissures of this kind is why anal sex is the fast track to disease transmission.
Grown men in their 40s literally wear diapers because of this shit play. That's really not intended by God or healthy.

>>18539432
Imagine actually taking time out of your life to post such inane drivel just because you're triggered.
What a waste.

>>18539640
The church has been gay from the very beginning. That's why they vow to not have sex with women and why they constantly molest and rape little boys even to this day. That's also why the early church had a frequent problem with trannies (Origen, et al).

Goddamn, I just cannot imagine being so cucked that you go see "priests" for advice or life guidance as if they were some sort of authority figures or role models when they all turn out to be fags, pedophiles, and trannies and in the best case scenario anti-social autists or schizophrenics.

>>18539656
Does teleology only apply to sex?

>>18539640
No, it isn't "well known".
You're just making shit up.

>when two men would set their lives up in every way that a normal couple would
This is just an entirely inaccurate characterization of what this ritual means.
It's was never common for these men to cohabitate like you'd normally expect people united in the sacrament of marriage to.

In fact, these same men would often be married and have families.
It's not a choice between two options, because it has nothing to do with sodomy.

The church simply does not endorse sodomy.
It never has, Christian sexual ethics exist.

This entire practice has it's source in the early Egyptian monastics.
What OP might not understand is that these men, and later women, went into the desert in order to fully turn their backs on carnal temptations and intensely focus on their relationship with God.

They didn't start doing this so they could secretly indulge homosexual inclinations. They could have done that in the cities, like so many other's during that time did.
No, this was instituted as a means of strengthening one another's resolve. They could mutually rely on their brother for support, had someone to pray for and praying for them.

It has nothing to do with a carnal act and everything to do with a spiritual bond.
Not a sacrament, because that one actually is defined in part by the common commitment to nuptial union as a blessed act. But after the kind, not a true marriage in that there is no real expectation of physical intercourse and the becoming of one flesh, but similar in that they are dedicated to one another.

St Anthony was beset for years by visions of beautiful women which tempted him to abandon the solitary life and return to the secular sphere.
He would have never dreamt that 1600 years later people would be accusing him and the other solitaires he inspired of sacralizing sodomy.

He would have identified that as insanity.
In fact his words about sanity in society in the latter days, and the merit of everyday people who are still able to live faithfully (he said his ascetic practice would be put to shame by their resilience in the face of a world gone mad) really do apply to this thread in particular.

>>18538773
If two natural bodies can engage in sex then it is natural. Abstract thinking is less natural, and you engage in it, dont you?

Appealing to the natural order is silly when you have all kinds of arrangements among so many species.

Do spirits breed? Do stars breed?
No. Only humans and other mortal species breed to "live forever".

Our existence is not exactly something to write home about. Thats why all your religious and mythological stories are allegories of...not human lives but recreations of cosmic and metaphysical events.

And if God is two merged entities, God already said he enjoys the pleasure and satisfaction of being men who engage in sex with men.

Because the asshole is pleasureable, the prostate is pleasureable, the penis is pleasureable, ejaculation is pleasureable and the male body is incredibly warm and comforting.

And neither wants to be a female, so there's that.

Then its fine and you guys can move on and not freak out so much.

The category of sodomite makes no sense and I'm starting to believe it had nothing to do with homosexuals but strong men of other civilizations assraping jews as an act of dominance