It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

is fornication or "sex for the sake of sex" an evil thing or did the "church" make this up?...

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
You are free to decide for yourself what is "right" and "wrong". You are only bound to the commands of thousands-of-years-old books of mythology if you choose to be.


Or so speak those of the selfish generation who rule our day, as their excuse for exploiting the rest of us. Hitler thought the same. It's all just a question of the powerful imposing values convenient to them on us.

Myself, I prefer to believe that when a poor man is oppressed by a powerful man, and cries for justice, that his cry has objective meaning and demands a response.

All the best,

Roger Pearse




posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
smadewell


You got my way about vote for this month.

When talking about the original sin, we have to understand when and how became so important in the church teachings.

Very good post, we need to thank all the "constantinos's" men when they gathered together to form what today is the doctrines and teachings of the modern church. After all politics even then was embedded in the Church.

Good post.

Then you most ask why later on people started to deviate from the original Church teaching on how to understand the teachings of the bible, and new denominations of the Church started to sprout all over until now, with new interpretations.

If we are to follow what the original church was teaching we will be in the dark ages again and the age of reason will be gone.:shk:



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Smadewell, I know there are a lot of books out there but i was mainly talking about ones actually written in the time of Jesus. I know of the Gnostic texts but they are so radically different from the composed canon and some say they were forgies, etc, so i don't know, it's confusing. As far as Augistine and Gregory , i know all about them and what you are saying but like Intrepid said the gospels were already written and they said that the sexually immoral would not see the Kingdom of God, etc. Same for Constintine, he may have had the official canon made up but the indivdual books were all ready written. Which means this all comes down to my original question again in that how can you and others make these claims unless you are saying that the tests did not mention the sexually immoral and/or fornicators were bad sinners and that the Roman church added these things to the original texts when they put the canon together. This what i mean, i doubt there is any proof for that.
Croatman, Jesus did not for a "catholic" church, he formed his own way of teaching which was called Christian. The Roman church formed the "catholic" church. No where in the Bible is the word "catholic" mentioned. If i am wrong , please let me know where...
I thank everyone for their input on this thread. I am in no way trying to be argumentive, so i hope it is not perceived that way...



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Croatman, Jesus did not for a "catholic" church, he formed his own way of teaching which was called Christian. The Roman church formed the "catholic" church. No where in the Bible is the word "catholic" mentioned. If i am wrong , please let me know where...
I thank everyone for their input on this thread. I am in no way trying to be argumentive, so i hope it is not perceived that way...


lol croatman, never been called that b4
Anyway this should answer your question.

Well back to the topic: Sex is supposed to be between two married ppl who love each other.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Croat, that link you sent proved my point though. It was not Christ who made the name "Catholic" up. It was a forefather of the Roman church. Thing is there were others during the same time that believed in Christ but did not use the name Catholic. So it was the a fore father of the Roman Church that made that name, hence the "Roman Catholic Church"... also it was that same fore father and his followers who said that the Gnostic's and Judaic's were in "error" so he made up the name "Catholic". Hence it was the Roman church that said the other were in error. Christ himself did not say this, so how do we know for sure they were in error. I don't know who was in error about what because i was not there nor did Christ walk and talk with me...this is a matter of a fore father of the Roman church saying that all other were wrong in what they were saying but who exactly gave him the all knowing knowledge of this. As far as the early Roman Church they also killed and tortured those they thought were in "error" and now a days they make a lot of their own "rules" up it seems. I am not saying "you" are other catholics are like this (my Dad is a devot Catholic and a good man), but the early church seemed to be very corrupt and even "evil"...



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   


2. When did the Church established by Christ get the name Catholic ?

Christ left the adoption of a name for His Church to those whom He commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He established, "My Church" (Mt. xvi, 18), "the Church" (Mt. xviii, 17). In order to make a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St. Ignatius (50-107 A.D.) using the Greek word "Katholicos" (universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. St. Ignatius was ap­pointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. St. Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings.



5. Cannot the Congregationalist make out an equally strong case for a universal Spiritual Brotherhood, but with local independence of churches ?

There is no evidence of independent local churches in Scripture, nor in primitive documents. There is evidence that there were distinct groups of Christians in various places, just as there are Catholics in New York under one Bishop, and Catholics in London un­der another. All true Christians certainly formed a universal spiritual brotherhood, as Catholics do today; but local autonomy existed only in the sense that there were Bishops in charge of various localities, the Bishops themselves being subject to St. Peter, and after his death, to the successor of St. Peter.


So no there were no others. Jesus founded the catholic church. He left it up to us to pick a name. Katholicos meaning universal. They chose it because the church is for every1.

We do not just make up our own rules. God made these rules. It evan sais in the bible that not all of Jesus's teachings are in the bible for there is no way you could fit it all in 1 book. The catholic church never killed any1 for not believing.

[edit on 6/6/2005 by Croat56]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Croat, i think what you are missing here is that it does not say in the bible that Christ left it up to his followers to name his church. It only says it in this link you have posted which was written by a catholic, not Christ. Now it does say that St. Ignatius came up with the name, not Christ. Thing is Ignatius did not walk with Christ so he can not claim that Christ said it was cool for him to call his church "Catholic". Unless you have documentation that Ignatius walked with Christ and was told this. Now, it does say that Ignatius was appointed a Bishop by St. Peter who did walk with Christ and that Peter was a bishop of Rome, but was Peter alive when Ignatius came up with the name Catholic for Christ's church and did Peter approve that...it does not say. Also was Bishop Peter in fact the same Peter that walked with Christ , I am assuming by the link you sent he was. i think if Christ really wanted to name his church he would have done it himself if it was that important, don't you? This is the big problem i have with the Roman Catholic church and their power trip in thinking they are the true church and the authority here on earth for Christ/God. If someone says they are a Christian and do their best to follow what Christ actually taught, then it does not matter what the "name" of you church is. Do you really think Christ himself would be proud of all the killing and torture the Roman church did in it's earlier days?. Again this is not to say you or other Catholics are for what the church did and that you yourself or other Catholics are not good people. What i am saying is that the Catholic church has a seriouly corrupt and violent past and even in this days has a lot of issues going, you know?...



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
We do not just make up our own rules. God made these rules. It evan sais in the bible that not all of Jesus's teachings are in the bible for there is no way you could fit it all in 1 book. The catholic church never killed any1 for not believing.

[edit on 6/6/2005 by Croat56]


Hum . . . let's not forget the "dark ages" now Croat and let's not forget the infamous "inquisition" remember they persecuted "heretics" and the brand new pope in the vatican his previous position used to be the once infamous "office of the inquisition"

The Catholic sovereigns were determined to have a united country, and they did not believe this ambition could be achieved unless all their subjects accepted one religion. This they were determined to bring about through persuasion, if possible, and if not, by force. Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand was ripe for the Inquisition; that was why the cruel institution was embraced so heartily and continued to survive until the nineteenth century (J. Plaidy, The Spanish Inquisition, 1967, p.86).

The inquisition originated in the vatican.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Croat, do you not know about the inquistion and the crusades? You really need to look up the history of the Roman Church...

[edit on 6-6-2005 by humbled_one]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_one
Croat, do you not know about the inquistion and the crusades? You really need to look up the history of the Roman Church...

[edit on 6-6-2005 by humbled_one]


Croat is very well informe on this issue I have no doubt about it, perhaps he just forgot about that, many in the Chatolic church see these times of the iquisitions as a dark time of the history of the Church.

I don't think Croat is Chatolic, but I may be mistaken.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
The Church was formed at Pentacost.....when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit.
This Church is called..
One,
Holy,
Apostolic,
Catholic,(here the word 'Catholic ' is misunderstood by many to mean the Roman Catholic church,it is noit so.)
Church.
What does One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church Mean???
quote//
www.orthodox.clara.net...

Christ was never DIVIDED, and never will be.

"Tradition" or in Greek paradosis, is used very often in the New Testament both as a verb and a noun. (See I Corinthians 11:23,
where literally translating the original Greek, Paul says "for I received of the Lord that which I also have traditioned to you . . . ." See also I Corinthians 11:2, and II Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6.)

The Christian Church learned to worship in the Jewish Temple and in the Synagogues.
Again and again the New Testament tells us that Jesus, Paul and the others worshipped regularly in Jewish houses of worship. (See for instance Luke 4:16; Acts 3:1; Acts 17:1-2.)
We know from archaeology, and from modern Jewish practice, that Synagogue worship was and is highly liturgical, i.e., communal, organized, ceremonial, and done decently and in order (I Corinthians 14:40).

The Church always has held the teachings of Christ......whether it be tradition or as it is written in the Bible....no new teachings have gone in.

In order to understand what the church is, one must live the church.....be part of the church as a whole ....be part of the liturgy ..
One cannot simply understand the meaning of the church if one has not lived it...and if one has not lived it, then one should not assume that 'this and that' has been made ......for the Apostles did not understand alot of things that Christ did and said , and that is why Christ spoke more simply to some and in parrables to others.
The Apostles learnt what they did from Christ, and were taught from Christ to what they should do......Christ also told them that they would better understand this, when the Holy Spirit comes to them.....

First council at Jerusalem...Act 15.
James presides as Bishop.

The Original sin of Adam and Eve is their sin....it is the 'spiritual death' that each and every one of us that has been passed on.....that each and every one of us MUST DIE and be buried....NO ONE CAN ESCAPE THIS ....but the inclination to sin is UP TO US!
Christ destroyed the spiritual death by His Crucifiction,,,He RESURRECTED from the dead to show us that we too will resurrect from the dead ......so SIN is destroyed at the Resurrection because each of us will be given to us according to what each deserves.
As Christians we have 'free will'' to follow in Christ's footsteps.....pick up our CROSS and follow Him....which means that we cannot assume that life will be all that great,we will experince suffering along the way .....as Christ suffered so that we may see that we will too.
"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Timothy 3:12).

ill finish later .....
IX
helen.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Or so speak those of the selfish generation who rule our day, as their excuse for exploiting the rest of us. Hitler thought the same.


How long did Hitler survive once he began his campaign of exploitation? Based on that answer, were his ethics wise or stupid?

You don't need ancient goat herders to tell you what's going to get you snuffed, you just need common sense. Power hungry madmen who care not for others don't last long.

In case you didn't know, Hitler was Christian. Of course, he probably was actually physically insane from neurological damage, so I'm not sure he's the best case study on ethics.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043Then you most ask why later on people started to deviate from the original Church teaching on how to understand the teachings of the bible, and new denominations of the Church started to sprout all over until now, with new interpretations.

If we are to follow what the original church was teaching we will be in the dark ages again and the age of reason will be gone.


Well, this has been the bane (woe) of my existence.... You bring up several valid points. Let's say we went back beyond Protestantism and back beyond the various Catholic and Orthodox Churches to a Ante-Nicene Era (i.e., before the Council of Nicaea, 325 C.E.), wherein the Early Church Fathers were waging their ecclesiastical war of words against the Gnostics and penning their apologetics to the Pagan authorities.

Then, let's say we went back beyond this period to a time when the Apostle Paul, who, serving as a Shaliach (Emissary) of the Kingdom-Repentance Movement of Yeshua (Jesus) among the Gentiles and Jews living in the Diaspora, time and again had to write corrective epistles in order to counter the errors being taught by the various proto-Gnostics who opposed him and who sought to corrupt his work.

Then, let's say we went back beyond the years immediately following the Ascension, when the early Jewish followers of Yeshua (Jesus) had adopted a more or less communalistic body, under the leadership of his brother, Ya'akov Ha-Tzadiq (James the Just), through which they sought to further advance the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership of G-d), while awaiting - what they knew would be - the imminent tribulation that would be heralded by a comet and which would result in the destruction of the Temple.

At last, we arrive at a period when Yeshua (Jesus) himself called the Secular and not-so-Torah observant Jews living in the Holy Land to repentance and, not unlike the Separatists (Pharisees) and Chasidim (Pious Ones) of his day and age, sought to establish the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership of G-d) in the hearts and minds of his countrymen.

Having arrived at this point in history ... where are we? Well, we're nearly 2,000 years in the past; looking at a cultural milieu that is so far removed from our modern 21st century Occidentalism that it boggles the mind!

Further, no matter how many times one has watched the movie "Ben Hur" or attempted to follow Mel Gibson's "Passion of Christ" without the benefit of subtitles or how well one is versed in the "New Testament" ... one is going to be presented with an intellectual and cultural terrain so alien and foreign that landing on Mars would probably be less of a shock.

And no matter how much one dissects and studies this nascent period that would eventually give birth to the multi-headed Hydra that is modern Christendom ... the questions remain:

(1) How in this world do I take this knowledge and effectively apply it in my own life?

(2) How in this world can I become an effect Servant, Co-Worker and Son of G-d and actualize the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership of G-d) in my own life and thereby serve as a conduit for the Love of G-d in all my dealings with others?

(Rev. 19:7) - "... and his wife hath made herself ready" ... ? :shk:

[edit on 6-6-2005 by smadewell]



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_oneWhich means this all comes down to my original question again in that how can you and others make these claims unless you are saying that the texts did not mention the sexually immoral and/or fornicators were bad sinners....


I'm having a difficult time understanding you on this one. I hope I can explain myself better.

First, ... I'm not Catholic, so their "official line of thought" about what consitutes "sexual immorality" and who is considered a "sinner" doesn't really matter to me. All I did was give a little background on who developed the Catholic Church's POV regarding sexual immorality.

Secondly, ... I maintain that when one wishes to understand what the historical man, Yeshua ben Yosef, had to say about "sex" and/or "sin", the best sources available to us are the Synoptic Gospels and even then ... these need to be examined critically and placed back into their proper historical, linguistic and cultural context.

Thirdly, with regard to my personal take on what the Gospels have to say about fornicators, all I've said is that the word "porneia" in the Greek Text comes from the Greek root word "pornos" which means "to sell sex" and specifically it's used to allude to "prostitution" (be it male or female prostitution). Further, "porneia", in a metaphorical sense, means "to whore after another god; idolatry".

Further, with regard to the five times "fornication" (porneia) is linked to the sayings of Yeshua (Jesus) - in the context of those verses - the meaning is "prostitution" (and/or "idolatry") and NOT the expanded meaning that Christendom has assigned to the word "fornication". In short, Yeshua (Jesus) doesn't use the word "fornication" in the sense of "pre-marital sex" or "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other."

Lastly, ... are you asking me is "pre-marital sex" wrong? That's not for me to say! What do I think Yeshua (Jesus) would have to say about "pre-marital sex"? Well, ... that can be answered by looking back to the Jewish Law of his day and age and what one finds written in the Sacred Text. How can I say that? Well, … Yeshua (Jesus) wasn’t born in a cultural vacuum.

I don't know how I can make myself any clearer on these points.


[edit on 7-6-2005 by smadewell]



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
HELEN, again, where in the Bible does it say the name of the church is to be called "Catholic"? Do you really feel that the Roman Catholic church and the way they went about their business of killing and torture is something Jesus would approve of?
SMADEWELL, thanks for your info. , you seem well informed. But what i am saying is forget about the word prostitution or fornication. Jesus may not have used the words "sexual immorality" but the words are used else where in the New Testament saying that it is sin and the books of the New Testament were written before the Roman church made the canon.
So are you saying that the other parts of the New Testament that say sexual immorality is a sin were made up by the church for control? If you are saying this, then can you send me the libnks on who says this and why/what proof? This is my main /original question...thanks for your help...

[edit on 7-6-2005 by humbled_one]



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Also, I tend to think that most cases of sex are "sin". I am not talking about 2 people who are indeed in love (maybe that is sin to), but i am mainly talking about people just hooking up for sex, etc. It really is a selfish act and it does not really progress someone spiritually. Again, it really is not that much different then all the scenes of porno on the net, there really is nothing spiritual about it, so i feel that that would make it "sin", you know? A lot of it also has to do with the ideas you are having while you are having sex, how many people who are just hooking up for sex are thinking about any kind of love? What most are doing is just using each other or one is using the other. That seems sinful in itself, does'nt it? I think a good way to define sin is "selfishness" which is really actually just being of this world, so it really is not spiritual just to have sex for the sake of having sex...



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Humbled one/
I did not say that in the New Testament or the Old Testament there is the word,
''Catholic''.

The word itself means universal.....this is to describe the teachings of Christ.

The use of the word is valid because it gives us a meaning of what the Church is about....Christ told the Apostles to go out into the world .......etc

Many today not knowing the word''Catholic'' assume straight away that itself the word stands for the Roman Catholic Church....this is misunderstood......

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church means that it is One ......as in Christ was one Body.
Holy...Christ being Holy.....
Catholic......being universal
Apostolic......teachings from the Apostles
Church.......What Christ said......

The Sacred Scripture is rich in expressive images of the Church. ......
QUOTE////
a) The image of the grapevine and its branches (John 15:1-8).
I am the true vine and My Father is the Husbandman.
Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit... Abide in Me, and I in you.
As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in Me, I am the Vine, ye are the branches.
He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without Me ye can do nothing.
If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned... Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be My disciples.

b) The image of the shepherd and the flock (John 10:1-16).
Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But be that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep...... Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep... I am the door by Me if any man enter in, be shall be saved, and shall go in and go out, and find pasture ... I am the good shepherd.
The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep ... I am the good shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of mine ... and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

c) The image of the head and the body (Eph. 1:22-23, and other places).
The Father hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is His Body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.

d) The image of a building under construction (Eph. 2:19-22).
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone—in Whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord; in Whom ye also are builded for a habitation of God through the Spirit.

e) The image of a house or family: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth (I Tim. 3:15). Christ as a Son over His own house, Whose house are we (Heb 3:6).

To this same thing refer likewise other images from the Gospel: the fishing net, the field which has been sown, the vineyard of God.

In the Fathers of the Church one often finds a comparison of the Church in the world with a ship on the sea.

The Apostle Paul, comparing the life of the Church of Christ with a marriage, or with the relationship between man and wife, concludes his thoughts with these words: This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32).
The life of the Church in its essence is mystical; the course of its life cannot be entirely included in any "history." The Church is completely distinct from any kind whatever of organized society on earth.

Being "the body of Christ," the Church increaseth with the increase of God (Col. 2:19).
Comparing the Church with a building, the Apostle teaches that its building is not completed, it continues: All the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord (Eph. 2:21).
This growth is not only in the sense of the visible, quantitative increase of the Church on earth; in even greater degree, this is a spiritual growth, the perfection of the saints, the filling up of the heavenly-earthly world through sanctity.
Through the Church is accomplished the dispensation of the fulness of times foreordained by the Father, so that He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth (Eph. 1:10)

www.orthodoxinfo.com...


Thus, both for reasons of an historical character and for reasons of an inward character, the Apostles are the foundations of the Church.

Therefore it is said of the Church: It is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).

The naming of the Church as "apostolic" indicates that it is established not on a single Apostle (as the Roman Church later taught), but upon all twelve; otherwise it would have to bear the name of Peter, or John, or some other. The Church as it were ahead of time warned us against thinking according to a "fleshly" principle (I Cor. 3:4): "I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas." In the Apocalypse, concerning the city coming down from heaven it is said: And the wall of the city bad twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb (Apoc. 21:14).

The Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth (I Tim. 3:15).

IX
helen...

So I guess the actual sin in itself being ''satisfaction of bodily needs'' as in SEX
is an actual FLESH WANTING SATISFACTION .....and not thinking that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23).

"Man shall not live by bread alone."

QUOTE//make "provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof." Of them the Psalms say, "They mingled with the nations (heathen) and learned their works"; and the Holy Apostle says, "They have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof."

The primary purpose for fasting from foods and iniquities is that of continence and chastity (moderation among those married).
More important fasting means abnormal and perverted carnal pleasures are to be eliminated entirely as a deadly sin. Apostle Paul admonishes the Romans on this subject, saying,

"God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie ... For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly ... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:24-27,32).

www.goarch.org...

helen

[edit on 6/7/2005 by helen670]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_one
but i am mainly talking about people just hooking up for sex, etc. It really is a selfish act and it does not really progress someone spiritually.


Eating is a purely selfish act. So is sleeping. I can't see how either progresses someone "spiritually". Are they sins as well then?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
SPAMANDHAM, eating and sleeping are not "selfish" acts, you would dies if you did not do either one, you will not die however if you do not have sex (you are comparing apples and oranges here). Now, they are however considered sins if they are "abused". Like eating to much all the time for the sake of it or sleeping to much all the time for the sake of it - Slothfulness and Gluttony...
HELEN, what you say now, clears it up a bit more for me now...

[edit on 8-6-2005 by humbled_one]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Sorry Ive been busy llatey, since this is about fornication and not the catholic church just go to the link in my sig and ill answer any questions.

Oh and uh ya fornication is bad




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join