How can it elude the top minds of academia that the purpose of sex is reproduction?

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So Jesus smiles when people hump dogs?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No. But you moved the goalposts, because you went from sex for pleasure to violating dogs.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You said it’s the opposite of sin, which makes sex which cannot procreate a virtue. All moral decency and just reason applied to the purpose, shape and functionality of our sex organs condemns beastiality so it must be virtuous by your logic.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I didn't mean that doing the opposite of the law of nature is a virtue (though many times it is), but that the law of nature is evil. You are looking at everything from a 100% carnal and fleshly perspective with no true morality except that of atheism and nature: "might is right".

Romans 1:19-2:10 are not authentic, only a fragment of 2:2 stood in the original. Paul had lots of "gnostic" ideas, as does Christianity in general, he would've never appealed to nature as a source of morality. That's the pastoral editors and church fathers from the second century who wanted to make sure everyone had the "correct" interpretations.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So I just showed you where the Bible justifies what I’m saying and you claim what I quoted doesn’t count because, if true, you’d be condemned as a heretic.

Maybe—just hear me out here—you’re twisting scripture to your own destruction.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The evidence says your canonical version is the twisted one. Tertullian makes it look like that passage was omitted in Marcion's Apostolikon. It just so happens that that same passage has a very unusual amount of words and stylistic choices that are unlike Paul. A complete coincidence, I'm sure. It also makes far better sense when the interpolation is removed, resulting in a coherent argument related to what he was talking about beforehand rather than random zigzagging from topic to topic and contradicting itself at every turn.

It wouldn't matter much though. Who said it's Paul's place to decide these matters?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Let’s not play “invent my own religion”.

The Bible says what it says, and whether you believe it is a moot point and red herring to just keep the discussion going.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not inventing my own religion, or I'd just be repeating the same process all over again. The fact is the church invented the Bible in the 4th century. It was not designated by God, nor did he promise to preserve it or have it inerrant.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Tell it to God’s face when He asks you by 2030.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well first I'm going to have to make sure he's actually God and not an archon pretending to be God. And if I'm being judged I already know it's an archon, because the real God went through so much trouble to get us acquitted.

I also know that God is not the Catholic Church, so that won't be a problem with him. He wants us to listen to Jesus, not "the Bible", which has become a major idol.