/lit/ - Literature

>>15009595
Stoicism lacks a foundation, and lacks God, it has some superficial advise and ethics I suppose. But it's all trivial and meaningless aphorisms in the end.

>>10221848
depends if an angel did talk to you or not.
pretending something happened if it did not would be delusional.

>>10221846
genetic transcription errors can cause braindamage, like downsyndrome. The anus can not be impregnated. Getting poop on your penis is not love, nor is it healthy or what the penis was designed for. So anal sex is a bizarre, unnatural and egotistic fetish. How people begin to suffer from such desires probably has multiple causes, not just one.
I wouldn't rule out demonic influence though.

------
>>10220789
This is correct and to add to it we should look at history. Scripture is abundantly clear that homosexuality is a perversion against nature, a sin and was punishable by death in the OT.
But what was the early Christian position towards it? Much the same desu.
If we read Emperor Justinians Code of Laws we see that he recommended "severe punishment" and/or "death" for homosexuals who do not repent and turn away from their sins, "we order the most illustrious Prefect of the Capital to arrest those who persist in the aforesaid illicit and impious acts (homosex) ... and to inflict upon them the most severe punishments,"
This was in the 5th century and Emperor Justinian was also a Saint. At the time the Prefect of the Assembly was a cappadocian saint and he recommended death by immolation.
All apostolic Church's view homosexuality as a sin, their position has never changed, the nature of the punishment has though.

The ancient jews and early christians viewed homosexuality similarly, and thought it was right to be punished if the subject declined to turn from his sin. It's only very recently, in the 19th century that the most liberal and heretical protestants (crypto atheist/pantheists/agnostics) try to ignore history and ignore scripture and ignore reason, and try to justify homosexuality to fit their political and secular humanist agenda. Their hermeneutic is nonsense. Their minds are darkened.

If they can't interpret such clear lines what chance do they have of interpreting anything slightly complicated, metaphorical or nuanced?