Stop this line of questioning and applying immorality to Christians that do not belong to your particular brand of Christianity. You are getting very close to earning yourself a timeout.
Sherman, Dispensationalists are able to sprinkle their Dispensationalism all over the place here, am I limited to sprinkle Catholicism only in cordoned off Catholic only threads? Or can you specify or just point out something brief that can help me calibrate appropriately? I have multiple threads going that I'm active in, maybe not as active as some, but I make appearances, how can I very quickly remind myself of the limit, to not exceed it? I just see Dispensationalists able to make bald assertions all the time that simply beg the question that Dispensationalism is the right biblical theology, and I know enough to not do that in threads that aren't specifically concerning Catholicism, but in this thread that's not what I'm doing. Me and RD got into a scuffle over me using a biblical term to describe something that is used in the Bible to describe that same thing. Can't I engage him in a philosophical and theological dispute (all within the thread's topic) without exceeding a limit that as far as I'm concerned, Dispensationalists exceed all the time? Or what is the deal here? What am I doing wrong?
You are missing the point of my post. Don't push sexual immoral labels on all non-Catholic Christians by making blanket statements about them. They are plenty of Christians outside the Catholic church that find fornication in all its forms and masterbation destestable.
Weird and extremely vague question.
Sherman, I'm relentlessly accused of being a pagan on TOL. Is not idolatry immoral behavior?
This is not a Catholic website. Trying to push sexual immorality onto all non-catholics will lead to a permaban. We are done here.
I did not do that, and I will not either.
I think 'perversion' is a good word here. It is a better translation of the Greek 'porneia'. Paul distinguishes between natural and unnatural perversion (homosexual offense, for example), but he also has another category that is even beyond unnatural, in 1st Corinthians 5:1
But Paul wasn't aware of bonobos. And why would he be, and furthermore, why would his audience be? Bonobos live in just one area, right in the middle of Africa.
Atheist evolutionists claim homosexual tendencies are inherited from animal ancestors. Humans do not have animal ancestors in spite of what the deluded think. Human homosexuality is a direct result of the inherited sin nature from Adam.I think 'perversion' is a good word here. It is a better translation of the Greek 'porneia'. Paul distinguishes between natural and unnatural perversion (homosexual offense, for example), but he also has another category that is even beyond unnatural, in 1st Corinthians 5:1
But Paul wasn't aware of bonobos. And why would he be, and furthermore, why would his audience be? Bonobos live in just one area, right in the middle of Africa.
Bonobo - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There is no such thing as "natural perversion". You come up with the most insane ideas.I think 'perversion' is a good word here. It is a better translation of the Greek 'porneia'. Paul distinguishes between natural and unnatural perversion (homosexual offense, for example), but he also has another category that is even beyond unnatural, in 1st Corinthians 5:1
But Paul wasn't aware of bonobos. And why would he be, and furthermore, why would his audience be? Bonobos live in just one area, right in the middle of Africa.
Bonobo - Wikipedia
Are they all against that which is natural?
1st Corinthians 5:1 seems to have found some bonobos living among the Corinthians.
I must say that you are a complete idiot.
Just because atheistic sex perverts think they descended from black homosexual bonobos does not mean they descended from filthy animals.
You 'must' say it? I'm not sure how seriously you take it that words mean things.
I think you just proved that you're not to be taken too seriously when you start instructing us about grammar and interpretation. You don't use words as if they mean what they mean, you regularly exaggerate instead. Hyperbole.
I was more thinking that they're possessed by demons. Paul calls what the bonobos do unnatural, even though they are an example of nature. So it must be demons.
Nature was corrupted by the fall.
I doubt barbarians believe they are possessed by demons, but the evolutionist rubes among them believe they descended from dumb animals through Darwin's evolution.
And? So what? Why don't all the species act like bonobos then. They are unique. They engage in things that Paul says is "not so much as named among the Gentiles".