Want does not follow need. — Heister Eggcart

Sure, it doesn't NECESSARILY follow it. But I never claimed it did.

Perhaps you don't need to be in a relationship, that is true. But one does still require love, which does not depend on sex. — Heister Eggcart

I don't think one NEEDS love. Rather one wants love, because they feel, know and understand that it is good.

What? Have you not read anything that I've written so far? You've said the complete opposite of what I've argued this whole time... — Heister Eggcart

No I have, I'm saying that your sex is a necessary evil argument, simply entails that logic that I've outlined there. it's a reaction to that logic.

No, sorry, this is pure mumbo-jumbo, Agustino. You are NOT one in body with the other when having sex. All that has happened is one genitalia fitting into another. That's it. That's all. Nothing more. Now, you can believe that some spiritual event has taken place because sausage meets bun, but this does not uproot what very simply, and physically, happens during sex. — Heister Eggcart

No, sorry, this is pure ignorance, Heister. You are NOT just having a physical experience when having sex, just like the words in a book aren't just ink on a page. Things have meaning - sex does too.

I'll wait while you find me the time when Jesus had sex in order to more closely commune with his Father. — Heister Eggcart

And did I say that you have to have sex in order to be in closer communion with God? Of course not. But remember the metaphors used in the Bible. Christ and his Church are like the bride and groom. Man and wife. Sex as a unitive practice applies only between man and wife, but it symbolises the theosis that can be achieved between man and God, on a different level of course. That's why the Bible says the married people become ONE flesh - not two, not three, not five hundred. That's also why sex outside of marriage was considered an evil - it prevents the goal of ONE flesh.

If we were both in the US, I'd tell you that I agree with Hanover that the SCOTUS overstepped its authority with Roe V Wade. But the ultimate effect is that abortion is now normalized in the US. When the vote comes to amend the constitution (and I could see that happening in the next 50 years or so), most Americans will agree that abortion is a right because they're used to it. — Mongrel

So you're basically telling me that you agree they did the wrong thing, but you don't want to remedy it because you like it and folks are used to it. So I guess then if someone does something wrong, but it's good for us, then we shouldn't seek to remedy it. Nice principle to have that, no? :P

I gather from what you've said that your main concern is not that abortion is murder, but that it seems to you to have something to do with sexual freedom. By and large, this isn't an American attitude. It exists here, but it's lunatic fringe. — Mongrel

I don't care what is "American" or not. I care what is right and just. And no - my problem with abortion is that it's a MURDER which is used to justify sexual immorality - which is even worse than it just being murder. Killing a thief who attacks you is also murder, and yet that's in self-defense and clearly not a moral tragedy. So the fact that it's murder alone is not sufficient.

The state shouldn't choose between the two evils. — Agustino

The state has an obligation to protect the life, liberty, and property of the individuals within it. That includes the fetus of the raped woman, so the state would have every right to make her carry the pregnancy to term. The child need not be raised by her, but it ought not to be prevented from being born.

So you don't see having to carry and raise the child of a man who raped you as an evil? — Agustino

No.

Why? — Agustino

Answering this might take us too far down a rabbit trail. Suffice it to say, I have not been convinced of what's so special about sex besides its conferral of physical pleasure. The latter is simply not enough to recommend it to me.

The child need not be raised by her, but it ought not to be prevented from being born. — Thorongil

Sure then I would have no qualms with it, apart of course from worrying what will happen to the child?

You are NOT just having a physical experience when having sex, just like the words in a book aren't just ink on a page. Things have meaning - sex does too. — Agustino

Inked words on a page are only meaningful when we understand what they mean. Sex may be the same way, but you've yet to explain your way out of intentions and why sex means anything beyond its physical context.

And did I say that you have to have sex in order to be in closer communion with God? Of course not. — Agustino

You've argued that sex brings about a oneness, a kind of love. If you think that, then sex is then a means toward communing more closely with God, which would be a highly dubious claim.

Going back to my first response here, if sex does not bring someone closer to "God", then there really is no good reason for you to have sex in the first place.

That's why the Bible says the married people become ONE flesh — Agustino

This is metaphysical gibberish which does not escape the fact that a couple's bodies are NOT one when having sex.

apart of course from worrying what will happen to the child? — Agustino

Well, there are things called orphanages, which have existed for a very long time and still do. Are they as ideal as having a mother and a father? No. But they serve their purpose adequately enough, if they are properly supported.

Inked words on a page are only meaningful when we understand what they mean. Sex may be the same way, but you've yet to explain your way out of intentions and why sex means anything beyond its physical context. — Heister Eggcart

But I already told you what sex means. It means becoming one, spiritually and physically, with the beloved. It's a symbol of unity. The way theosis is symbolised by Heaven and Earth uniting at the end-times for example.

You've argued that sex brings about a oneness, a kind of love. If you think that, then sex is then a means toward communing more closely with God, which would be a highly dubious claim.

Going back to my first response here, if sex does not bring someone closer to "God", then there really is no good reason for you to have sex in the first place. — Heister Eggcart

That oneness that sex (can) bring about is only an imperfect image of the oneness that can be achieved between man and God through theosis after death.

This is metaphysical gibberish which does not escape the fact that a couple's bodies are NOT one when having sex. — Heister Eggcart

Do you read your Bible literarily? :P Or is it only sex that you like to read literarily?

Well, there are things called orphanages, which have existed for a very long time and still do. Are they as ideal as having a mother and a father? No. But they serve their purpose adequately enough, if they are properly supported. — Thorongil

Perhaps.

But I already told you what sex means. It means becoming one, spiritually and physically — Agustino

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, :’(

That oneness that sex (can) bring about is only an imperfect image of the oneness that can be achieved between man and God through theosis after death. — Agustino

Tell me, Agustino, why is sexual chastity a virtue in Christianity?

Do you read your Bible literarily? :P Or is it only sex that you like to read literarily? — Agustino

You seem to be, as there's no reason for you to continually say that there is physical unity between two people during sex when there is not. Period.

So you're basically telling me that you agree they did the wrong thing, but you don't want to remedy it because you like it and folks are used to it. So I guess then if someone does something wrong, but it's good for us, then we shouldn't seek to remedy it. Nice principle to have that, no? — Agustino

I believe abortion is moral up to the end of the second trimester. I spent 7 years working in neonatal intensive care. My principles on the issue are firm and informed.

I don't care what is "American" or not. I care what is right and just. — Agustino

Then you have my respect even if we disagree.

. And no - my problem with abortion is that it's a MURDER which is used to justify sexual immorality - which is even worse than it just being murder. Killing a thief who attacks you is also murder, and yet that's in self-defense and clearly not a moral tragedy. So the fact that it's murder alone is not sufficient. — Agustino

Native Americans performed abortions before white people got here. They used one of my favorite plants to do it: mayapple. I doubt it had anything to do with justifying sexual immorality. More likely it was about what the tribe could support. Anyway.. there's not much point in our trying to come to agreement on this because you aren't likely to ever have any influence in my part of the world and I won't have any influence in yours. So we can definitely agree to disagree.

So we can definitely agree to disagree. — Mongrel

Boring! O:)

Dude.. do you really think sex is ugly or were you just being silly?

I'm being silly and serious, HA!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, :’( — Heister Eggcart

>:O

Tell me, Agustino, why is sexual chastity a virtue in Christianity? — Heister Eggcart

Correction: sexual chastity OUTSIDE of marriage is a virtue in Christianity. Sexual chastity while married is NOT a virtue, that's precisely why St. Paul told married people in Corinthians not to deprive each other - even as they were expecting great tribulations and needed to fortify themselves (for which chastity was better). For those who are devoted entirely to God - the monks - chastity exists. But for example for priests - in Eastern Orthodox Christianity of which I am a part - chastity isn't required. Priests can be married, if they are married, then being chaste is not a requirement.

As for why sexual chastity is a virtue outside of marriage? Because (1) to be a slave to lust is harmful to yourself and others, (2) sex was designed for procreation (includes child rearing) and for unitive purposes which can both be unachievable outside of marriage and with multiple partners. God created one Eve for Adam, which complemented him - was, even literarily, part of him.

You seem be, as there's no reason for you to continually say that there is physical unity between two people during sex when there is not. Period. — Heister Eggcart

Why don't you tell us why you think sex is always evil then? Why don't you think spiritual and physical union through sex can be achieved?

I actually agree with that >:O

My point isn't to convince you - it's to lay out an argument. You have to judge an argument on its terms. You cannot swap terms and plug in your conceptions. My argument is valid. — Agustino

So is this argument:

Those who have casual sex are righteous
So-and-so has casual sex
Therefore so-and-so is righteous

Validity is only half of it. You also need to show that your premises are true.

I don't think they can think that if they understand their souls. There cannot be two women in your life, just the same way there can't be two suns in the sky - or two pieces of a puzzle which can go in the same place.

What do you mean by having someone in your life?

Why don't you tell us why you think sex is always evil then? Why don't you think spiritual and physical union through sex can be achieved? — Agustino

If sex were okay then monks wouldn't fear it like the plague. Paul wasn't a dummy, he realized that most people are sexually obsessed lunatics, so he wrought the idea of marriage chastity in with both the Jewish and Roman traditions that also stressed a similar value for family and marital vows.

If sex were okay then monks wouldn't fear it like the plague — Heister Eggcart

The monks fear it like plague because sex outside of marriage is a grave sin - obviously. Also being a monk is incompatible with being married - thus for them, in all circumstances sex is a grave sin.

Paul wasn't a dummy, he realized that most people are sexually obsessed lunatics, so he wrought the idea of marriage chastity in with both the Jewish and Roman traditions that also stressed a similar value for family and marital vows. — Heister Eggcart

And? Christianity isn't also Jewish? How can Christianity be against Judaism and its values? The Jews are God's Chosen people. Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Remember that.

God is love, ergo, to love is to know God.
Sex is a form of love.
Therefore sex allows one to know God.

It seems Heister and Agustino disagree on the second premise. Is sex a form of love? I say no. It's neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for love.

God is love, ergo, to love is to know God. — Thorongil

If God is love then to know love is to know God – to actually love is to actually God.

Sex is a form of love.

If God is love and if sex is a form of love then sex is a form of God.

So, this whole "God is love" thing seems grammatically incorrect. Either that or there's equivocation at play here.

Yeah, that's another way of putting it, one that ends up sounding distinctly more like the doctrine of theosis, so Agustino might like it.

And? Christianity isn't also Jewish? How can Christianity be against Judaism and its values? The Jews are God's Chosen people. Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Remember that. — Agustino

Man, you go from 0 to 100 with the religious lingo, I tell ya. I also never said Christianity is against Jewish values. I actually said the opposite, but, you know, English is hard.

I don't even entirely agree with the first premise, shit.

If God is love and if sex is a form of love then sex is a form of God. — Michael

Actually, that's not exactly what Comrade Lenin told me... >:O

If God is love and if sex is a form of love then sex is a form of God. — Michael

And promiscuity is sharing God with the world.

So, this whole "God is love" thing seems grammatically incorrect. Either that or there's equivocation at play here. — Michael

It's a rather vague phrase, certainly. It's from 1 John 4:8. Here's the full verse, which explains why I phrased it the way I did: "He who does not love does not know God; for God is love."

God is love, ergo, to love is to know God.
Sex is a form of love.
Therefore sex allows one to know God. — Thorongil

I disagree with the second premise. Sex is a part of a form of love. The form of love - which includes but is not limited to, nor necessarily must include sex - allows an imperfect, or better said incomplete knowledge of God, for it still remains within the realm of the created. The love of Adam and Eve for example doesn't just include sex - that's not all that exists in the love among them. Sex, however, can also be one of the components. When it is, the act represents a smaller completion of the human being. Adam gets back Eve, which is really a part of him - they are of one body - even literarily in the story. But there is a greater completion, and that occurs when the two are submerged into God.

In other words the human being is completed sub specie durationis through love between a man and a woman (which again doesn't necessarily include sex), and sub specie aeternitatis through communion and union with the divine. And love between a man and a woman is the completion of love of neighbour - for it presupposes and builds on it. One is first of all my neighbour, and only secondly my wife.

The monks sacrifice the good sub specie durationis, for the greater good sub specie aeternitatis. In that hierarchical relationship it makes sense to sacrifice one good for another greater good.

One should also add that no stool ever sits on two legs. Three are needed to stand. Think of the similarity with the Trinity - the community of 3. Man, wife, and God. They (the man and wife) are glued together by a common purpose and desire, which binds better than any other glue - God. Because they submit first to God, they have each other for eternity. As Kierkegaard says, the lovers have to swear by the eternal - by the uncreated, for they cannot swear their love by each other - that's perishable. The divorce rate is 50%+ because each submits himself or herself only to their own self in the modern world. They each have separate, and different purposes and desires. And thus their arrangements are inherently unstable. It's called built to fail really.

Man, you go from 0 to 100 with the religious lingo, I tell ya. I also never said Christianity is against Jewish values. I actually said the opposite, but, you know, English is hard. — Heister Eggcart

Paul wasn't a dummy, he realized that most people are sexually obsessed lunatics, so he wrought the idea of marriage chastity in with both the Jewish and Roman traditions that also stressed a similar value for family and marital vows. — Heister Eggcart

So St. Paul put together the idea of chastity with the idea of marriage because folks are sexually obsessed lunatics. And yet, the idea of marriage and chastity existed already in Jewish culture. Marriage was an institution ordained by God, including the idea of chastity before but not IN marriage. Why then is sex in marriage always evil?

Remember that Paul went west, literally, and preached to the Roman provincials in Turkey and Greece, and not so much the Jews. The Romans of largely equestrian status that Paul mostly taught to came from a different set of marriage principles, although these were similar to Jewish ones. This is one reason why Christianity grew in membership, because people like Paul and John effectively related existing norms which people weren't of a mind to relinquish with those that Christianity held to be doctrinally important.

Why then is sex in marriage always evil? — Agustino

I must admit to getting fatigued by the religious terminology, like evil, with regard to morality. Plus, this all is getting off topic, now, so...

Back to the subject of gruesomely knifed fetus bits, yeah! (L)