>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
How exactly do you give up relations with women if you have never had one or have no feelings towards women? That line seems to apply to men who are attracted to women and somehow give them up for women...
Never made any sense to me.
>>71775289
How is this politics?
>>71775289
some men """"""never""""" had feelings toward women because they were corrupted at such an early age.
The charge is that men abandoned the natural law, under which their sexual relationships were exclusively with women, not that men who had previously had sex with women stopped doing so and instead had such relations with men.
I'd wager that there are plenty of virgins here who expressed a natural attraction to women and, upon increasing use of pornography, fell into unnatural attractions. Men, transvestites, cartoons. They have also abandoned the natural law even though they may have never known a woman in truth.
>>71775702
How is that giving up feelings though if you never had them? I know I never had feelings towards women. I tried to force myself to have feelings in place of those I had for men but it didn't work.
>>71775870
You did not address those to whom have never had sexual attractions to women.
I kissed a girl but did not like it and did other things but I felt no romance, no sexuality whatsoever.
>>71776103
Homosexuals? What about them?
That you've never had an attraction to a woman is not in itself a sin. It is disordered - that is to say, unnatural - but it is not a sin. The sin begins when you act upon your attraction to men. This is your cross to bear, and you must bear it with chastity. If you fail, as we all do, then you must confess and be absolved of your sins, and pick up your cross again.
>>71775870
>natural law
That is possibly the dumbest "philosophy" of man.
Social Contract theory is the only reasonable premise to morality there is. Social Contracts create all illusions of morality in order to advance society. There is no such thing as natural law and moral and immoral only order and disorder.
Things that promote order are instead wrongly called moral and things that create disorder are called immoral.
>>71775870
Yea since queers started with the advent of the internet...
I swear some of you maple syrup suckers are so stupid.
>>71776420
Detecting massive quantities of pious bullshit from your sector.
So alter boys are apparently exempt? Well to be fair, that goes back to ancient Greece.
>>71776439
This is not a "philosophy of man". Natural law refers to our (man's) participation in the eternal law of God, or God's will. We are not talking about secularist worldviews, here. OP posted a verse from Sacred Scripture by which he is evidently troubled. Approaching this verse with secularist morality is not only useless but utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>>71776897
If you're referring to clerical sex abuse, then they are absolutely not exempt from the natural law and there will be an accounting for their sins.
>>71775289
>paying attention to paul
He was a gnostic sack of shit. Ignore his ramblings.
>>71776103
You are a degenerate and should remove yourself from society.
>>71776959
Interpreting any religious scripture literally and following it to its "logical" conclusion is idiotic and irresponsible.
>Deuteronomy 21:18-21
>If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Do you really think it is moral or reasonable to hypothetically stone a disobedient child to death?
Sounds like the reasoning of an irresponsible and lazy parent in the ghetto.
>>71777388
>Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
>All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
>Israel
Only the Jews would think up something so barbaric and horrific.
>>71775289
Society is just weird like that. Same thing as saying some dude who gets raped in prison is gay.
The real question is why do members of society like to rape men.
>>71777388
Who said anything about Biblical literalism?
>Do you really think it is moral or reasonable to hypothetically stone a disobedient child to death?
Of course not, and we can all be glad that we are no longer under the yoke of Mosaic Law, which has been fulfilled and brought to its highest character in Jesus Christ, who specifically commanded against the casting of stones (literal and symbolic).
But as to the moral law, this still stands and, indeed, has been likewise brought to its highest character. Homosexuality has always been an offense to God and continues to be.
>>71777693
Your logic then is that at one point in time before Jesus came such a law was reasonable...
How would such a law ever be reasonable or concealable to anyone but an animal?
>>71777693
>But as to the moral law, this still stands and, indeed, has been likewise brought to its highest character.
Children are just that... children they lack understanding and comprehension and are highly susceptible to fantasy and whimsy.
This is simply antiquated logic by some Jew who didn't understand child psychology and thought it more profitable in the long run to just ride themselves of the child.
That is not a moral law or edict that is what we call an excuse for deadbeat parents to blame someone else for their bad parenting skills.
>>71778030
>Your logic then is that at one point in time before Jesus came such a law was reasonable...
That is not only my logic, but the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Your question is essentially equivalent to the often-asked "Why is the God of the OT so different from Jesus?" Let me put it this way:
The Israel of the Old Testament was like a child. God had to teach them, to allow him to grow and to make errors, and when he did so to face the consequences of those errors with just punishment. And indeed, the law IS just. The wages for sin is death.
But the Israel of the New Testament is Jesus Christ, and those who rest in him through his Church. Those lessons Israel learned as a child are still applied to our daily lives as Christians, and the law remains as just today as it was millennia ago. The wages of sin is still death, but now an even greater death - spiritual, eternal death death.
All of this is to say that the moral law is and always was reasonable, for it is the will of our maker. Does a hammer turn to its manufacturer and say: "It is not reasonable that I must hammer things. I will go and be like a fork." We do the will of Him who made us, and if we refuse to then we suffer the consequences of our own actions. That this rankles some people's modernist sensibilities is simply too bad.
>>71778993
>That is not only my logic, but the teaching of the Catholic Church
Ah, yes, the good ol' Catholic Church, where it's okay to touch little boys as long as you confess your sins while standing in a box.
