(Ron) Sex, lust, and the Catholic Church

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> >> HELEN:

> >> I did not ask you for the Catholic Church's opinion on sex. I asked

> you to

> >> reconcile the Catholic Church's opinion on sex with the opinion on

> sex

> >> expressed in the S of S, which would seem to state that sex is a joy

> and

> >> nothing else. My point being that the Catholic Church, and

> Christianity in

> >> general, tries to fit interpretations on a book that really is not

> about

> >> their religious beliefs and in some situations the fit is so bad it

> is just

> >> stupid. You ducked the issue. According to the Catholic church

> interpretation

> >> of the Bible is navel slurping also allowed only for the purpose of

> >> procreation or can one slurp a navel just for the fun of it?

> >> Helen

> >> hhiwater@bright.net

> >

> >

> >

> >

> RON

>   You are right about the forcing of interpretations (cultural/societal

> ones) onto the Bible. The Bible and God clearly consider sex to be

> natural and good. God created it for God's sake! The antipathy toward

> sex is the result of a mispalced dualism inherited from Hellenistic (no

> pun intended) thought.

>   The problem with the SoS interpretation is simply that the text says

> "navel". Anything else is simply in the mind of the reader. Can't you

> guys find enough verses in there that really DO talk about sex?

>

> ______________________________________________________

> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

• Previous message: Suetonius is evidence against historical Jesus was Re: Did a holy man named Jesus exist? [being part of the reply to RE: A repost for Matthew (long)]
• Next message: (Ron) Sex, lust, and the Catholic Church
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]