Judged by my Body Parts, Part 2

[heavenseeker]

well then we broke the rule

[Guest Rick777]

Hmmm......If a relationship is based on "looks" than it's a vain superficial relationship that doesn't hold much meaning although it can grow into a meaningful one.

[heavenseeker]

are you tring to get this back on topic?

[missionseeker]

sounds like it.

[heavenseeker]

thats dissapointing

[Guest Rick777]

I just thought I would say something.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ChrisZewe' post='994031' date='May 31 2006, 10:02 PM']
I could find you the exact quote, I suppose, but then I'd feel like one of you people, just quoting and not backing it at all x.x So go whip out a copy of Revelation and read the part where the 144000 have Jehovah on their foreheads.

The rest of the faithful aren't damned, by the way.
[/quote]
[font="Courier New"]symbolism in the bible:In all this the mystical interpretation of numbers holds a great place. There are twelve consecration crosses, and this, besides a reference to the Twelve Apostles (in not a few instances each consecration cross is marked upon a shield borne by one of the Apostles), symbolizes the spiritualizing human nature and of the world by faith, or, as others put it, it betokens the universal Church. The reason is that three, the number of the Blessed Trinity, figures the Divine nature, and four, the number of the elements, typifies the number of the material world. Twelve is the product of three and four, and it consequently betokens the penetration of matter with spirit. So again eight denotes perfection and completion, for the visible world was made in seven days and the invisible kingdom of grace follows upon that. In this way the octagonal shape was judged specially appropriate for the baptistery or for the font, on the ground that this initiation into the supernatural order of grace completed the work of creation. Naturally five recalls the wounds of Christ, and five grains of incense are inserted cross-wise in the Paschal Candle, while ten, the number of the Commandments, is typical of the Old Law. Seven again has its own very special attraction as the number of the sacraments, of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, of the virtues and vices, and many other things. There can be little doubt that much of this symbolism of numbers is to be traced back to Egypt and Assyria, where the movements of the seven planets, as men then counted them, were continuously studied and where the elements of three and four into which seven was divided lent themselves to other combinations also regarded as peculiarly sacred, for example the number sixty, the product of three, four, and five.[/font]
144,000 means the fullness of the 12 tribes of Israel.

[Luthien]

The sentiment I see running rampant in this thread is soul good/body bad.

That my friends, is Manechism, seperation of body and soul. The Church condemns this school of thought. The body and soul are connected, because God gave us physical bodies so that we may do His will here on Earth. Whether it be makin' babies, or helping others.

And I must address the thought that if you love someone, looks don't matter. As someone said earlier, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
With this point in mind, ones own definition of what is attractive might not be attractive to someone else. Now even though someone else might not find this "other" attractive, you still do right? My point is, there IS someone for everybody, and attraction is an important component. There is a reason we were made sexual beings, to ignore this fact would be to deny a part of us that God created to be good. Its one thing to deny this part of ourselves for the glory of God, but to be with someone you are not even attracted to in the least would be unfair to that other person. How would you feel if you were with someone who didnt find you attractive? You say you'd be alright with it, but I cannot believe what you say unless you have really been through a situation like that.

/end rant.

[heavenseeker]

im running out of stuff t osay thats even half way on topic

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Luthien' post='999527' date='Jun 7 2006, 07:51 AM']
The sentiment I see running rampant in this thread is soul good/body bad.

That my friends, is Manechism, seperation of body and soul. The Church condemns this school of thought. The body and soul are connected, because God gave us physical bodies so that we may do His will here on Earth. Whether it be makin' babies, or helping others.

And I must address the thought that if you love someone, looks don't matter. As someone said earlier, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
With this point in mind, ones own definition of what is attractive might not be attractive to someone else. Now even though someone else might not find this "other" attractive, you still do right? My point is, there IS someone for everybody, and attraction is an important component. There is a reason we were made sexual beings, to ignore this fact would be to deny a part of us that God created to be good. Its one thing to deny this part of ourselves for the glory of God, but to be with someone you are not even attracted to in the least would be unfair to that other person. How would you feel if you were with someone who didnt find you attractive? You say you'd be alright with it, but I cannot believe what you say unless you have really been through a situation like that.

/end rant.
[/quote]

Good rant and very true.

[Lil Red]

luthien, nice rant...i must add a little something from a book i'm reading ([u]Letters to a Young Catholic[/u] by George Weigel):

[quote]John Paul has proposed that sexual love within the bond of faithful and fruitful marriage is nothing less than an icon of the interior life of God himself. .... Which is another way of saying that sex, rightly understood, helps teach us about God, even as it teaches us about ourselves.
...
So the Adam and Eve stories in Genesis teach a fundamental moral and spiritual lesson about our lives and our loves: human happiness depends on self-giving, not self-assertion.

Remember that "original sin" is a corruption of something good: self-giving gets corrupted when it becomes self-assertion. That's what lust does. Lust and desire are two different things. If I'm truly attracted to someone, I want to make a gift of myself to that person for [i]his[/i] good or [i]her[/i] good, not just [i]my[/i] good. Lust is the opposite of that self-giving; lust is the itch for transitory pleasure through the [i]use[/i] of someone else, even the abuse of someone else.
...
The Catholic sexual ethic, John Paul proposes, redeems sexual love from the quicksand of lust. The usual charge is that Catholicism is nervous, even paranoid, about the erotic. [b]The truth of the matter is that [i]the Catholic sexual ethic liberates the erotic by transforming longing into self-giving[/i], which leads to the kind of relationships that affirm the human dignity of both partners.[/b] Does Catholicism blunt desire? On the contrary, [i]the Catholic sexual ethic channels our desires "from the heart," so that desire leads to a true communion of persons, a true giving-and-receiving[/i].

Catholicism isn't about "self-control," which is a psychological category. [b]The Catholic sexual ethic is a matter of growing into [i]self-mastery[/i], which is a spiritual and moral category: the mastery of desire that lets us give ourselves to others intimately in a way that affirms the "other" in his or her giving and receiving[/b].

The beauty of the body, mirroring the beauty of God, awakens in us that latent thirst for ecstasy which is our thirst for communion with others and with God. ... And don't think you can satisfy that thirst by treating sex as another contact sport, which is what the sexual revolution has come down to. ... [b]You've been made for love, for a love freely offered and received, a love that includes permanent commitment.[/b] True sexual love is a matter of putting my emotional center in the care of another. ... The Catholic context for thinking about sex is freedom, not prohibition. Loving, not using - that's the deeply humane challenge the Catholic Church poses to the sexual revolution.[/quote]

Edited June 7, 2006 by Lil Red

[heavenseeker]

i read a book about how to live chastly. it was really good.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1][color="330000"]Thats cool

Jason Evret came to my school once.
[/color][/size]

[heavenseeker]

the name sounds familular i think i heard him speak too

[CrossCuT]

[size=1][color="330000"]He is really cool.
I liked him alot!
[/color][/size]