>>38766673
I don't think any religion is healthy to follow when you can worship God directly.
>>38766571
>>38766574
>>38766579
>>38766581
>>38766585
>>38766589
>>38766593
>>38766599

>>38766589
Based I like your posts, you've posted this one in my threads before

>>38766673
What exactly is this non-criminal sin, OP? I feel like you're not telling us for a reason.

>>38766708
It would derail the thread and is not entirely relevant what it is. There are many harmless things Christianity condemns, like keeping idols or slight (but responsible) overindulgence in things like food or recreational drugs

>>38766708
>>38766729
Keep in mind, Christianity literally tells it's followers to hate the world and not appreciate sensual or "worldly things". If you enjoy these things or don't hate the world, you cannot be a good Christian.

>>38766729
>>38766741
Just because you enjoy pizza doesn't make it right you freak.

>>38766696
>Based I like your posts, you've posted this one in my threads before
I'm happy that it makes sense and is helping someone out there. I felt pushed to make it because I felt like nobody was saying it and it needed to be said. I have written it all out countless times over more than 10 years and deleted it multiple times but always felt like God wanted me to try writing it all again. I just want to be clear that my goal is not to ever start a new religion or anything because that would defeat the purpose. I feel like we are being held prisoner by systems of limitation created by imperfect human beings, which is a huge waste of our time and is full of disinformation that keeps us away from whatever God's divine truth is. It would be like a jedi worshiping the church of mcdonalds in order to tune into the force each time, rather than connecting to the force directly. religions aren't bad, they're just highly inefficient and misused by humanity to the point of causing great confusion. Most people feel trapped into choosing one religion over another, or accidentally abandoning God along when they quit any of the countless imperfect religions and becoming atheist.

In general the most important points I want to make:
>God is perfect
>Humanity is imperfect
>Don't fall into the trap of worshiping God through another authority or entity or gatekeeper that isn't God.
>Worship God directly
>You do not need anyone's or anything's permission or help to worship God.
>God is all powerful because God is God, God does not need religions, religions need God. Humanity needs God.

>>38766708
Also I like how the word you decided to go with was "criminal". As if secular government that makes laws is the arbiter of morality and can arbitrarily decide what is evil while being the most demonstrably evil force in the world, stealing from people (over taxing), controlling their lives, telling them what they can and cannot say, forcing medical "treatment" on them (vaccines). You are an NPC

>>38766673
McDonald's food taste good, but it is not healthy. This makes you miserable. But so does being a fat ass 20 years later.

>>38766764
Yeah you definitely watch pizza.

>>38766758
>>38766770
What's wrong with eating a lot of mcdonalds once in awhile? What I meant by responsible overindulgence. You can actually eat a surprising amount of garbage and still be fit if you move around and exercise. I've heard of body builders eating the cheap shitty mcdonalds burgers

>>38766774
You are a pedo projecting, and that does actually directly harm people because people were abused and harmed in the production of it

>>38766762
Also:
It doesn't make sense that humanity tries to trap God inside of a building, or nail them to an object, as if God could ever be contained.

>>38766781
Yeah whatever you say freak.

>>38766673
>enjoy some food
GLUTTONY!
>see an attractive woman and think "she is beautiful"
ADULTRY!!!!
Just feel guilty about everything, feel bad all the time for no reason even if you are a good person etc. etc. etc.

>>38766791
I think YOU'RE the pedo who watches pizza because you're ignoring my reasoning and explaining that it does in fact do harm to people, and doubling down on this thing that no one else in this thread but you brought up.

>>38766793
>see an attractive woman and think "she is beautiful"
>ADULTRY!!!!

Christianity literally expects you to believe that simply noticing an attractive woman's body is "adultery" in your heart, and that doing it is as bad as practicing adultery in real life, and you must whip yourself and beg for forgiveness for it for the rest of your earthly existence.

>>38766826
>simply noticing an attractive woman's body is "adultery" in your heart

GOD gave us the biological urges to be naturally drawn to attractive women regardless of your marital status, by the way

>>38766826
>N-no you! I haven't been caught if's actually you!
Yeah sure little buddy! Just make sure to take you meds and everything will be alright! We'll help you!

>>38766826
Christians seem to get very angry or make illogical excuses when I post this, which is really sad because I can never get to the bottom of this mystery, and I guess I just have to come to the conclusion that it's a flaw, or it's telling the truth.
>>38765535
>Matthew 27:46
>46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
If jesus was God, then it would make no sense for jesus to ask God why God has forsaken jesus.

>Luke 18:18-20
>18 A ruler asked Jesus, `Good Teacher, what must I do so that I will live for ever?'
>19 Jesus answered him, `Why do you call me good? Only one is good, and that is God.
"Why do you call me good? Only God is good"
So jesus isn't good...? Only God is good, so jesus can't be God.

I even go so far as to ask this, and this is what followed
>>38765542
>Is the bible perfect, and the word of God?
>>38765557
>Yes
>>38765659
>If the bible is perfect and the word of God then God tells us clearly that jesus is not God.
>>38765673
>I'm not interested in arguing with you. You're wrong, and very stupid. John 1:1, 1 John 5:7. Clear teachings of the Trinity. Don't reply to this.

I will use homosexuality as another example. Excluding penetrative anal "sex", which does actually do harm to the body, who is actually harmed by two men being gay and touching each others dicks?

If a heterosexual couple wants to have sex purely for pleasure and not for procreation, who is harmed by that? Christianity preaches that it's wrong.

>>38766853
>If jesus was God, then it would make no sense for jesus to ask God why God has forsaken jesus.

They have many, many lame copes available to choose from. Just wait someone will post one in this thread.

>>38766897
>If a heterosexual couple wants to have sex purely for pleasure and not for procreation, who is harmed by that? Christianity preaches that it's wrong.
If you are a man, I ask: are women mentally ruined by unrestrained indulgence in sexual pleasure? Do they become a worse person because of it?
Vice-versa if you are a woman.
>who is actually harmed by two men being gay and touching each others dicks?
Someone gets harmed when a child becomes involved.
Homosexuality is not born: it spreads, like a cancer.

>>38766946
>Homosexuality is not born: it spreads, like a cancer.
>all homosexuals are pedophiles

This is a cope with very little to back it up. There are many men who touch little girls as well.

>Homosexuality is not born: it spreads
>not one single person in the entirety of human history has ever been homosexual without being molested by a pedophile

>>38766946
>I ask: are women mentally ruined by unrestrained indulgence in sexual pleasure?

Not necessarily. I will refer to my earlier post >>38766729
>(responsible) "overindulgence"

In Christianity any sex for any purpose aside from reproduction is sinful and wrong. Some Christians have even said to me that sex in the act of procreation is wrong and a sin. Because it's enjoyable, presumably.

>>38766673
OP what do you think of this?

>>38767018
>OP what do you think of this?
oops
>>38756907
there sorry

>>38766673
I mean, a colorblind person may not know they are colorblind until someone tells them.

I know a guy who didn't know he was colorblind until he was an adult.

He never knew he had a problem, until he did.

I think that's pretty applicable to many things, it's just easy to single out religion because it touches on peoples belief systems.

Doctors used to say some wild stuff ~200 years ago, and people just did it anyway, only to find out later it was bad advice.

>>38767024
Updated:

This is all metaphorical satire and parody for philosophical and entertainment purposes only and should never be taken seriously by anyone.

Everything is a lock, key, password, handshake, or spell
For example: lawyers or politicians or celebrities are essentially wizards casting spells because they understand what to say and do to achieve whatever their desired outcome may be.

Science is metaphorically a cult
Religion is metaphorically a cult
Governments are metaphorically a cult
Corporations are metaphorically a cult
Every relationship is metaphorically a cult
Every group is metaphorically a cult

I'm not saying any of these thing are bad in any way, I'm just saying that all organized human relationships are metaphorically a cult.

Yes, there are actual bad cults out there, but for example- a good cult would be a happy healthy marriage between a sweet old couple that has lasted decades.

A cult has
>Members
>Rules
>Rewards
>Consequences

If you get a Costco membership, you are simply in a metaphorical cult of being able to shop at Costco. Nothing bad at all. Pretty awesome actually.
But if you take a shit on the floor like Rick and Morty sing about, you are exiled from the cult of Costco.

Same thing goes for all things.
>You live in a country
>You break the law
>You are exiled to jail
>Jail is also like a cult
>Jail is known to have rival groups between inmates, guards are another group as well, etc. etc. etc.

If I get a girlfriend, our relationship is like a cult. If we cheat, we broke the rules, and we are exiled from each other. We break up. Same goes for divorce.

If someone well in school, they get to ascend to the metaphorical cult of college.

Everything in this world, (which is also like a cult) is a huge collection of interwoven and overlapping layers of metaphorical cults within metaphorical cults.

It's not good or bad, it just is the way it is.

>>38767059
>I mean, a colorblind person may not know they are colorblind until someone tells them.

It's not explained how things are wrong though, it's just declared and you're expected to immediately accept it as fact because a man in a dress read it to you out of a grimoire

>>38767067
That's very location based, but true.

Priests differ in their depth of knowledge and pubic willingness to discuss matters, past what's required of them.

But, generally, if you ask why the "rules are the rules" you can get a thought out answer.

It may not "satisfy" or be reliant on a stack of other presumptions, but neither of those make the answer "wrong."

I like to study theology, personally, and I have found incredibly nuanced answers to common questions.

Perhaps check out St. Thomas Aquinas' work. It's rather exhaustive.

>>38767081
>homosexuality is wrong because it's anti-god/anti-nature
>even though it's been observed in animals and humans are also part of nature

>>38767065
small update

This is all metaphorical satire and parody for philosophical and entertainment purposes only and should never be taken seriously by anyone.

Everything is a lock, key, password, handshake, or spell
For example: lawyers or politicians or celebrities are essentially wizards casting spells because they understand that in theory they could theoretically find the correct secret combination of words and actions to achieve whatever their desired outcome may be, such as a lawyer understaning law well enough to save their client, or a celebrity dancing and singing to become rich, or a politician winning an election.

I swear that 110% of this thread is just blatant lies about things you fools know nothing about...
Do what thou wilt shall be the fullest extent of the law.

>>38766999
>not one single person in the entirety of human history has ever been homosexual without being molested by a pedophile
Here's another thought experiment: "not one single person in the entire history of humanity has ever been infected with smallpox without being in contact with another human being infected with smallpox."
...riiiight. Except for patient-zero, and the various ways that you can contract it from un-earthed soil and shit like that.
Exceptions do not prove the rule. In the 1800's, there was probably like 500 homosexuals in existence, on the whole planet. Nowadays, it's more than 5000x that.
>>38767009
>In Christianity any sex for any purpose aside from reproduction is sinful and wrong.
As in real life.
Putting feel-good feelings in your groin without the necessary lead-up (proper intimacy, discussions about the future, etc) is putting the cart before the horse, and basically treating people like objects, furniture. It not only has repercussions on society as-a-whole (since whore-ish behavior is incentivized), it also has negative repercussions on the people involved. Their relationship starts deteriorating, and they can't figure out why.
It's like if the "social drinker" starts drinking without the presence of people. That's called "an alcoholic".

>>38767105
>I swear that 110% of this thread is just blatant lies about things you fools know nothing about...
>Do what thou wilt shall be the fullest extent of the law.
Why are you quoting Aleister Crowley?

>>38767117
Because that man was twice the man you ever will be.

>>38767090
Layered Presumtion approach: are you intimately familiar with what "Natural Law" is within Christianity? It's not really an observation of "nature" as we think about "nature."

More direct approach: It's believed to be against human dignity, because there is no possible "ends" to homosexual acts other than sexual pleasure itself.

The argument is that it denegrates human sexuality into fetishes, and rendered both (or all parties) sexual objects merely used one-by-another for pleasures sake.

Also, to note, so far as I am aware, homosexual acts in "nature" are typically displays of domination; which, again, would lend credance to the idea of it being "against human dignity" to practice.

Not trying to argue with you, but if you want answers, I can give what I know.

>>38767090
Parents eating their young has been observed in nature.
Dressing up like an entire other species has been observed in nature.
War has been observed in nature.
Rape has been observed in nature.

Now, tell me: do we live by the laws of the jungle? Or the laws of man?

>>38767113
>In Christianity any sex for any purpose aside from reproduction is sinful and wrong.
>As in real life.
>Putting feel-good feelings in your groin without the necessary lead-up (proper intimacy, discussions about the future, etc) is putting the cart before the horse, and basically treating people like objects, furniture. It not only has repercussions
repercussions like bringing an innocent soul into an evil corrupt world to suffer as a human child whom the world will inflict with terrible unholy and undeserved punishments such as
>genital mutiliation
>autism injections
>incarceration for the entirety of their childhood (school)
>college debt
>working in an office or fast food place for life (slavery)

NO! ADULTS MUST NOT HAVE INTIMACY UNLESS IT'S FOR THE PURPOSE OF RIPPING A BABY ANGEL OUT OF HEAVEN AND ESSENTIALLY FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES SENDING THEM TO HELL, BECAUSE WE ARE PRO LIFE! YOU SICK FUCK...

>>38767123
>Because that man was twice the man you ever will be.
Didn't he just summon demons with homosexual intercourse or something insane, and pave the way forward for modern satanism? Why'd he do that? For what purpose?

>>38767144
>Parents eating their young has been observed in nature.
>Dressing up like an entire other species has been observed in nature.
>War has been observed in nature.
>Rape has been observed in nature.

Nome of that explains how homosexuality is wrong or evil though. Can you explain where the evil is done?

>>38767113
>In the 1800's, there was probably like 500 homosexuals in existence, on the whole planet.

Most delusional /pol/tard award

>>38767152
Well, that's the Christian angle.

What's mine?
Forget about "sex for the purposes of procreation."
Just don't have sex.
Ever.
For any reason.
Simple as.

I think that the stuff about The Garden of Eden is, in fact, an elaborate metaphor for dealing with women. You stick your dick in them: you die early, and in shame. Avoid that at all costs.

>>38767165
Plenty of people have done so already, but your retort is "well, animals do it, so it must be right!"

No, retard. We create laws because we imagine that humans can be better. If you want to live a life of mindless hedonism: just shut up, and do it. No one's stopping you.

>>38767191
>but your retort is "well, animals do it, so it must be right!"

No, my original retort was saying I don't see the evil intent in two men being sexual with each other. You still haven't explained where the evil is without going on a ridiculous rant about how every single gay man is a pedo and there were less than 1000 gays 200 years ago

>>38767208
>You still haven't explained where the evil is
Uhh, alright. Can't believe you've missed it, but here's all the good arguments in this thread so far:

>>38767113
>>38767143
>>38766946

You want one more?
Here goes: the mere existence of homosexual marriages - barring any other repugnance they may have inherently - actually degrades heterosexual relationships.
Because, you see: I don't know if you know this, but western nations are below replacement-level birth rates.
So first of all: every homosexual person is a LACK of a heterosexual, potentially child-bearing person. They are shirking their duty to humanity.
Second of all: the centralization of gay shit in the school system, media, and government has the net effect of making the institution of marriage as-a-whole a laughing stock. It's tied very closely with why there's a recruitment crisis in the army right now. You add gay shit, you NECESSARILY remove heterosexual men, because they don't put up with gay shit. Women are fine with it for some reason, tho.
Third of all: they're fucking annoying, cannot self-reflect to save their lives, and make their sexual activities an integral part of their personal identity.
In short: they are antithetical to everything I hold as honorable and just. They are the jesters, in a court of queens and kings. Irreverent for the sake of it.

>>38767178
>Just don't have sex.
>Ever.
>For any reason.
>Simple as.
A good set of rules to follow regardless to keep the good souls safe in heaven.

>>38767143
>More direct approach: It's believed to be against human dignity, because there is no possible "ends" to homosexual acts other than sexual pleasure itself

How is experiencing pleasure against human dignity? I already said I agree anal sex is harmful, but that's not what I'm talking about

>>38767283
Yes, pleasure is almost always against human dignity. This is why "hedonism" is general frowned upon. A man should have SOME ends besides "wee wee feels good". If that's a by-product, so be it.

Let me explain what I mean: a man is starving in the woods for three days. He finally finds an apple. The sugars make his mouth and tongue basically burn with ecstasy. In this case, the pleasure is a good: he is preventing death by succumbing to this pleasure.
Another example: a basement-dwelling NEET takes a chug of his Mountain Dew. His mouth experiences a similar sensation, due to the large amount of sugars. In this case, the pleasure is NOT good. "Succumbing to the pleasure" will actually CAUSE his death, in this scenario.

So basically: how do YOU know if a pleasure is good or not? If it is directed towards higher aspirations. In the food analogy: you don't want to be the starving man with the apple, or the fat man with the Mountain Dew.
You want to be the fit man with the head of broccoli. Because HIS pleasure arises from the long-term benefit that this action is going to have on his body. He is trending towards life. All the other examples are on the brink of death.

How does all this relate to sexual activity? Here, maybe MF DOOM can explain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci_XcL4nYos

>>38767325
>A man should have SOME ends besides "wee wee feels good".

What if you have other virtues and good things you strive toward and work hard for, and also happen to like sexual pleasure? Are you just not allowed to enjoy sexual pleasure?

>>38767351
That's called a "vice". The opposite of "virtue". You can have the virtue of "chastity", which is a good thing. Or you can lack it, which results in a sin called "lust", which is a bad thing.

I'm a good man, 90% of the time, but I also smoke lots of weed, daily. Like, 5 joints a day.
I can recognize that I'm a good man that does bad things. Can you?

>>38767367
>I can recognize that I'm a good man that does bad things

Why are vices "bad" if they don't completely take over your life?

>>38766673
Christianity doesnt care if you sin, they just care you have the right label, they care you are Christian.
Once you are Christian, you can go ahead and sin all you want, and there's Jesus to forgive you for it.
When you are Christian, sinning is just a flawed human as we all are and thank God he is merciful, and when you arent sinning you are an example of God's ppower and grace and how much better Christianity has made you.
But if you arent Christian and sinning, then you are an example of how horrible humans are without Christianity, and if you arent sinning then you are trying to deceive good Christians by putting on a show.

>>38767325
>So basically: how do YOU know if a pleasure is good or not?

The burden of proof lies on you to prove something is bad when it isn't immediately obvious.

>>38767382
Vices basically operate like addictions. In fact, that is EXACTLY how you should think of them.
Gluttony is an addiction to food.
Lust is an addiction to sexual pleasure.
Pride is an addiction to self-gratification.

The important thing to remember about an addict is that they're unlikely to admit it (or even recognize it) until the damage is large enough to destroy families and shit.
So why let your food addiction ruin your liver and heart?
Why let your addiction to sex give you STDs?
Why let the pride inside you prevent you from asking for critical help, or enable you to shun people who can benefit from your presence?

Honestly, my guy: don't take anything in the Bible or whatever as ACTUAL spiritual mystical truth. It's better to take it as a self-help guide. Old-ass men, who have been around MANY blocks, eventually figured out all of the things that lead men astray, and for what reasons, and wrote them down, and said that "God" told them to. Regardless of what God did or didn't say: don't you think you should read what they wrote, and think about some of it for a while? Just because lust hasn't consumed your life YET doesn't mean that the possibility is precluded from tomorrow. We're all human. We all have very similar weaknesses.

>>38767283
Pleasure is not intrinsically evil, despite what some may claim. Not even sexual pleasure, when properly ordered.

Within Christianity, properly ordered sexual relations in a sacramental marriage are a means of grace, even.

Sexual relationships are meant to be unitive and procreative.

History concludes that, undisturbed, the overwhelming majority of man and woman will order themselves into a martial relationship, have sexual relations, and procreate.

Couple this with favorable Scriptures that promote a.) the maritial relationship and b.) sexual relations within said relationship, and you have a basis to declare this "Man's Nature."

It is evident from observing man, and it is not against God's revealed will.

It is undignified to enter a sexual relationship by which the natural ends are obstructed by choice.

It's sort of like scamming someone. It's wrong to do, even if both parties agree to the scam.

I shouldn't sell you a car for 60k, then keep both the money and the car. Even if you're fine with it, or "fetishize" the idea of being scammed, it doesn't make it okay.

The human brain can adapt to almost any circumstance, given the right incentives and stimuli.

Thus, a person can agree to do something that is objectively bad for them, and even enjoy the experience.

The idea in Christianity is to protect people from having their minds disordered to the degree that they applaud their own torment.

>>38767429
>reddit spacing

>>38767405
That's the problem with sin, and liberal politics, and so many other things.
You can't see the danger in a one-step logical analysis, so you assume it doesn't exist.
When, in fact: whoredom DOES have lots of long-term consequences. Ask the 80-year-old whores. Oh wait, there aren't any, lol!
When, in fact: unrestrained migration DOES have a knock-on effect that basically cripples every worthwhile institution in a given country. It's hard to see all that when you're looking at a drowning baby on Facebook, but the danger DOES exist, my guy! Put your "They Live" glasses on! The danger's RIGHT fuckin' there!

>>38767325
>Because HIS pleasure arises from the long-term benefit that this action is going to have on his body.
So we should succumb to this pleasure.

>>38767443
>When, in fact: whoredom DOES have lots of long-term consequences.

If you look back in the thread I never advocated having mass anonymous sex or being a whore. I mentioned monogamous couples having sex for pleasure, which you think is evil for some reason

>>38767435
I type like I think.

I don't even know what Reddit Spacing is. I see people get accused of it, but the accused texts hardly seem consistent.

For what it's worth, I used to get flamed on Reddit for "format" and "spacing" as well, so I guess I don't meet either standard.

>>38767435
If you, or someone, would explain the concept to me, I'd attempt to "space" right.

But until then, I'm just gonna do what ive always done.

>>38767470
There's no reason why your post needs to be separated into several mini paragraphs, taking up more space on the page. It should have gone like this:

>Pleasure is not intrinsically evil, despite what some may claim. Not even sexual pleasure, when properly ordered. Within Christianity, properly ordered sexual relations in a sacramental marriage are a means of grace, even. Sexual relationships are meant to be unitive and procreative. History concludes that, undisturbed, the overwhelming majority of man and woman will order themselves into a martial relationship, have sexual relations, and procreate. Couple this with favorable Scriptures that promote a.) the maritial relationship and b.) sexual relations within said relationship, and you have a basis to declare this "Man's Nature."
>It is evident from observing man, and it is not against God's revealed will. It is undignified to enter a sexual relationship by which the natural ends are obstructed by choice.
>It's sort of like scamming someone. It's wrong to do, even if both parties agree to the scam. I shouldn't sell you a car for 60k, then keep both the money and the car. Even if you're fine with it, or "fetishize" the idea of being scammed, it doesn't make it okay. The human brain can adapt to almost any circumstance, given the right incentives and stimuli. Thus, a person can agree to do something that is objectively bad for them, and even enjoy the experience. The idea in Christianity is to protect people from having their minds disordered to the degree that they applaud their own torment.

>>38767445
Exactly. We should succumb to the not-pleasure of eating an un-adorned sprig of broccoli, for the long-term benefit. It's like, succumbing to the pleasure of staying up all night to finish a school project. It actually feels like shit, but it's the kind of thing that a man has to do.
>>38767447
>If you look back in the thread I never advocated having mass anonymous sex or being a whore.
But what you are advocating for is, in effect, commodifying the most intimate and special experience that is present in any healthy sexual relationship.
When you do it for the right reasons: it ACTUALLY feels good. Like eating the broccoli. It feels good, guilt-free. You're doing the right thing.
When you have sex JUST for pleasure... ok, but what if she doesn't want to today? Does that mean that your wife is denying you pleasure? Does that mean that she isn't a good wife? Does that mean that you should leave her?
All of these thoughts NATURALLY enter your mind, because you're transforming an activity that's supposed to be spontaneous and loving, into something that is bought-and-sold like so many Reese's Pieces. If the store clerk doesn't give you your Reese's: you get angry, right? Now your wife is the store clerk, and her pussy is the Reese's.

>>38767499
>the not-pleasure
So did you lie when you said your example had pleasure, or are you lying now that I've pointed out were advocating for a certain type of p[pleasure rather than no pleasure?

>>38767499
>When you do it for the right reasons: it ACTUALLY feels good

Why can't a man have sex with his wife just because he loves her and not for the sole purpose of creating children?

>>38767507
I'm saying it has no immediate pleasure, in-the-moment. Like EVERYTHING ELSE that is good for you in this world. Delayed gratification.
The not-pleasure of broccoli is in anticipation of the health to come.
The not-pleasure of chastity is in anticipation of the beautiful relationship that will blossom because of it.
There's nothing inherently "pleasurable" about either activity.

>>38767516
Delayed pleasure is still pleasure, and you are advocating that we succumb to delayed pleasure.

>>38767511
Thankfully: I answered that EXACT question in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted. Try reading it again.

>>38767516
>The not-pleasure of broccoli is in anticipation of the health to come.
I like broccoli and think it's delicious. I also love Brussel sprouts. Are you a neet who lives off tendies his mommy makes him for din dins?

>>38767481
Ahh, gotchu. See, that just looks messy to me personally; but I can understand the desire to take up less room on the board.
Not that you asked, but I tend to write in small paragraphs/sentences, cause I prefer to read that way. Makes it easier to think about the information, then jump to next point.
Nonetheless, I'll try to be more thoughtful in that regard. As they say "When in Rome..."

>>38767526
>When you have sex JUST for pleasure... ok, but what if she doesn't want to today? Does that mean that your wife is denying you pleasure? Does that mean that she isn't a good wife? Does that mean that you should leave her?

No..? What a retarded hypothetical. What if you both want to have sex for pleasure and bonding, out of love? Is that simply beyond the pale?

>>38767528
>>38767520
Hey, I've got a better idea: respond to this guy instead. He basically answers all of your questions, in one well-written post. Argue against that.
>>38767429

>>38767544
He disagrees with what you said. If you like his post, then what you wrote is wrong.
You should read it again and learn from him.

>>38767159
Because he felt like it.

>>38767539
Just follow the hypothetical for one second, ya idiot.
Imagine a SCENARIO where a wife may not want to have sex. Shouldn't be impossible, right? I think this kind of thing happens on occasion.
Then follow to the next question, and assume you're not perfect. And so on. Repeat until you get to the end of the hypothetical.

>>38767544
>hey I've got a better idea, reply to this guy because I can't provide a good explanation and my Christian cognitive dissonance is too strong

>It's sort of like scamming someone. It's wrong to do, even if both parties agree to the scam.
Sex doesn't just serve the purpose of procreation it also strengthens pair bonding

>>38767552
>Imagine a SCENARIO where a wife may not want to have sex. Shouldn't be impossible, right?

Then don't have sex that day. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this for you. People who have sex with their wife for pleasure don't immediately become rapists when their wife isn't in the mood that day.

>>38767549
I'm wording Christian theology in my own way (which is the same thing he's referencing).
You're autistically throwing a fit over "delayed pleasure" vs. "pleasure pleasure", and how they're different, but then I was arguing they're the same at one point, and how does that work?
Just shut up.
Listen to the other guy.
You STILL don't have a response for him, so I think it's above your pay-grade.

>>38767560
>People who have sex with their wife for pleasure don't immediately become rapists when their wife isn't in the mood that day.
That isn't what I said would happen. Follow the hypothetical again, and answer EACH question. There wasn't one about rape.

>>38767570
>All of these thoughts NATURALLY enter your mind

If you think men whose wives deny them sex sometimes immediately think about leaving them then I don't know what to tell you other than I can tell you've never been married

>because you're transforming an activity that's supposed to be spontaneous and loving, into something that is bought-and-sold like so many Reese's Pieces.

No it isn't. You can have spontaneous and loving sex without having a child because of it, and there's no clearly defined reason why you can't. Or why you can't have regular sex and still remain faithful to each other, which plenty of people do

>>38767555
Unitive and procreative.
The necessary compnents to procreate must be present in the relationship, and a will that does not obstruct either unity or procreation.
To the Christian, this includes sex from the moment of marriage and even past the menopausal period; or dysfunction to the sexual organs.
One must not need the capability to procreate; only the ordinary parts necessary. God opens and closes the womb, according to the Christian, and so long as the sexual relationship contains the "compatible" parts, a miracle may occur.

Again, this is observed throughout history. Marriage and sexual relations were primarily functions of procreation. Sexual pleasure is (or atleast can be) good; and since it is (or at least can be) a means of grace, it has salvific properties.
But the proper expression of man's sexualality is within marriage between a man and a woman, who do not will to obstruct parenthood.

>>38767602
>If you think men whose wives deny them sex sometimes immediately think about leaving them
I'm not saying that it's a 1-1 correlation.
I'm arguing like a lawyer here.
If the conditions exist where a REASONABLE man can resent his wife (because, we've established that it is reasonable for him to expect his wife to give him pleasure, and maybe the denial of that is tied to his worth as a person, and if he's not respected in that way then maybe he should move on): then that's a bad thing.
We shouldn't set things up so that an EXTRA-ordinary, super-moral man is able to succeed. Everyone falls short of that AT SOME point.
So instead, I say that we curtail some of these natural tendencies. You expect food from your wife, cuz she can cook. She expects money from you, cuz you work. You shouldn't expect sex from her, cuz she has a vajayjay. That's LITERALLY treating people like objects.

>>38767628
>If the conditions exist where a REASONABLE man can resent his wife
But that's not reasonable. It's not reasonable to expect your wife to give you sex literally whenever you want it, just because you both have sex on a semi regular basis.

>>38767555
And, I'll be honest... "pair bonding" is kind of a sham. It's a thing, but... I don't think its a good reference to make for this topic. The concept "raped into submission" exists, because pair-bonding can be exploited.

Oftentimes, men who are raped have intense shame because they "got aroused", and become confused about their sexuality and their rape experience. The truth is, getting an erection in such a horrid circumstance doesn't say anything about a person, except they don't have ED. So, if rape can make men question their own sexuality due to physical/neurological responses to stimuli, I think referencing "pair bonding" as the basis for human sexual ethics is a bit... wrong.

>>38767649
>The concept "raped into submission" exists, because pair-bonding can be exploited.

Anon I'm talking about two consenting adults clearly having sex of their own volition. I made that perfectly clear

>>38767647
...but she gave me sex all of the OTHER times! And I had it really rough at work! I've been waiting for this ALL DAY!
Maybe she's on her period? But you've timed it, it should've been a few weeks ago...
...maybe I'm not as attractive to her anymore? Maybe she has a thing on the side, so she's tired-out from all the fucking that Tyrone is giving her?

All of these thoughts sound like they're coming from children, but really: people can be EXCEPTIONALLY childish in relationships. I bet men and women often say something different: but their internal monologue is EXACTLY how I described.
So instead of romanticizing the other gender, and yourself, for that matter: take things as they are. Realize that people are GOING to make mistakes: and if your marriage is a no-fail mission, you have to REMOVE the vectors for mistakes to happen through. You can't just live with them, "dance in the water and not get wet." It's impossible. It WILL end in disaster.

You think you're "sex-positive" or something? How about you hook up with one of those polyamorous broads? That should be good for you, right? Sex is good, and she's giving sex! What's wrong with that?

>>38767687
>You think you're "sex-positive" or something?
No I just think adults in a relationship should be allowed to have sex. Not a radical concept

Do you have a wife/girlfriend?

>>38767665
You really seem to have trouble with people using extreme examples to raise a point.

>If the drought continues at this rate, governor: ALL of the crops will die!
>...well, it's impossible for ALL of the crops in this state to die. I think a few are drought-resistant, right?
Right... you ABSOLUTE retard!

>>38767687
>How about you hook up with one of those polyamorous broads? That should be good for you, right? Sex is good, and she's giving sex! What's wrong with that?

I made clear earlier that we were talking about monogamous couples, so now you're just being disingenuous

>>38767700
Answer my question first: why isn't your girlfriend the polyamorous "town bicycle", as-it-were? Why talk about monogamous relationships in the first place.
If sex is good, then we should do it all the time, right?

>>38767665
I'm not insinuating otherwise.
I'm pointing out the reality that pair-bonding, while a thing, should not be a core component of sexual ethics.

The same neural responses you're referencing addict men and women to pornography everyday; and even some degenerates to animals. There has to be a greater constraint on human sexuality than "pair bonding" or you end up with a mess. Thus, Christian ethics exist. Which include "pair bonding" by the term "unitive." The main divergent point here is "procreative," because that secures the male/female dynamic, excluding masturbation, and animals.
To exclude "unitive" (which means consensual) would include rape as a permissible practice. It's all thought out, you just don't seem to like the answers. That's okay, but its disenguous to claim Christians have no reasons to believe what they believe.

>>38767702
>You really seem to have trouble with people using extreme examples to raise a point.

Yeah, it's idiotic when an infinitesimally small number of real world cases are comparable.

>>38767715
Again: the issues with arguing by analogy are cropping up.
Have you been diagnosed with autism, or another learning disability?

>>38767719
>If sex is good, then we should do it all the time, right?

With YOUR wife, sure. Sex without love is meaningless and worthless, as I've said many times.

>>38767720
>That's okay, but its disenguous to claim Christians have no reasons to believe what they believe.

They are bad, incomplete reasons

>>38767728
>arguing by analogy
I'm only interested in facts, chief

>>38767726
>infinitesimally small number of real world cases are comparable
No?
You're telling me the number of divorces on the planet is "infinitesimally small"?
You're telling me the number of women (and men) reporting abuse is "infinitesimally small"?

People provide excuses that are particular to their particular situation. "The relationship was REALLY over when he called me ugly." No, I think the relationship was REALLY over when you started treating each other as objects for convenience. Abuse naturally flows from that.

Let me give you a little life-lesson: coupled with the fact that immediate pleasure is usually not good, you wanna know what else is not good?
Convenience.
It's a trap, sold to you by billionaires to make money. In reality: almost EVERYTHING that was introduced in the last 300 years for "convenience" has killed an aspect of human society that was worth living for. "Inconvenience" is a synonym for "actually being forced to interact with people for once".

>>38767732
Sex divorced from baby-making is ALSO divorced from love.
If you don't want to make a family with this woman: why are you here?

>>38767751
>You're telling me the number of divorces on the planet is "infinitesimally small"?
People have been having recreational sex all throughout history, so that is not the sole reason for it. Not everyone in history was a puritan mayflower pilgrim

>>38767758
>Sex divorced from baby-making is ALSO divorced from love.
>If you don't want to make a family with this woman: why are you here?

You realize couples who have children usually keep having sex, right? Some people just want to have 2-3 kids, not 12

File: thread.jpg (9 KB, 200x202)

9 KB JPG

>>38766673

>>38767763
>Not everyone in history was a puritan mayflower pilgrim
My grandmother was.
So was her grandmother.
So was her grandmother.
This is how western society has been run for thousands of years.
You want a brothel: go to Arabia.
>>38767772
>You realize couples who have children usually keep having sex, right?
I call those people "irresponsible." You're wasting precious time making your pee pee feel good, when you could be double-checking your finances, or planning a romantic date for the next day or something.
It hits the same as "I've had kids and shit, pay taxes. Why can't I smoke crack now?" It's mindless hedonism for the sake of it.

>>38767795
>This is how western society has been run for thousands of years.
Do you think the Greeks and Romans were chaste? Kek

>>38767795
>having sex with your wife because it's mutually enjoyable is like smoking crack

Incel moment

File: 1349026272326.jpg (24 KB, 319x443)

24 KB JPG

>>38767810
Something being mutually enjoyable doesn't make it good. And a feeling of euphoria DEFINITELY doesn't mean that.
Look at the example of crack. You can do it in groups, and it feels good. By your logic, it IS good! I should offer my wife a crack-pipe to smoke up. Her pleasure is my pleasure.
>>38767806
Just because the Greeks were gay as fuck: doesn't mean you have to be, as well.

>>38767739
I mean, to be fair, my entire discourse has essentially been me saying "your reasoning is bad, and incomplete" but in more words. I guess we're at a point that can't be resolved via an image board.

For what it's worth, I'll say three Hail Mary's for you.

Have a good one Anon.

>>38767894
>I'll say three Hail Mary's for you.
Sorry I'm not an idolater.

>>38767899
Already said 'em.
Clarity for your understanding of human sexual ethics is already in the hands of the Mother of God, and in the ears of Christ at this point.

>>38767934
>Mother of God
Papism is a mental illness

>>38767934
Yo senpai, fr fr: I've said about 150 Hail Marys this week, and I'm STILL not sure about the whole "mother of God" thing.
Like, just because you're the mother of a particular manifestation of God (that he ordained for a specific reason), doesn't mean that you're now the MOTHER of God, that makes no sense. You're either the wife, or the step-mother.

>>38766673
>Be faggot
>Fuck up once a while
>Keep that feeling of failure for the rest of your life

>Be Christian
>Fuck up in a while
>Confess
>Get forgiven
>Feeling of sin is gone

>>38767968
It's a fitting title, as Christ was God from conception to ascension. The title originates to combat the Nestorian Heresy, in which a Priest named Nestorias tried to claim Mary was the mother of Christ, but not the mother of God. Thereby alluding to the idea that Christ was not divine at birth.

The title "Mother of God" is given to Mary to reinforce Christ's divinity from conception. Nothing we could ever say about Mary could possibly inflate her "status", because God already gave her a very unique status; the only woman ever chosen to birth God, Himself.

Marriage is not necessary because no sexual act occured. The virgin birth was fitting for many reasons, but also necessary to fulfill prophecy given centuries beforehand. Hope that helps. Keep praying to the Mother of God, she's our mother too, after all.

>>38768105
>she's our mother too, after all.
The pagan lunacy is off the charts

>>38767968
Also, to add, consider this: Jesus is the only person to walk this Earth who got to choose His birth mother. And He chose Mary. That's a pretty wild concept.

God didn't need a mother to incarnate, but He chose to have a mother. Ergo, we call her "the Mother of God."

On the cross, He gave His mother to the Church "behold, your mother." Thus, she became our mother too. If we live in Christ, we also acknowledge Mary as our spiritual mother; because she's the mother of whom we live in, and He outright gave His mother to us, to care for us, and be cared for by us. Hope that clears that up, in case it was unclear.

>>38766729
If you can tell me the verse that makes you think food or drugs are sinful, perhaps I can help you understand it in a new way.

If you can't tell me the verse, maybe someone is just projecting their own opinions on God and telling you something that isn't true.