Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 22 23 24 25 26 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
Oh, you don't want to get me started on Santa Claus.
Only because I don't wish to be party to a threadjack. I'm sure you'd have some interesting stuff to say, closer to the 'season', perhaps.
-
Tess, how's the Atheist Inquistion treating you?
I'm no theologian and I disagree with a few issues the Church Teaches. For me the value of religion is in communion and the teachings of the gospels, social justice etc.
Catholicism refecting the society of its day, being Arostocratic in its design, doesn't fit well with me. Kind of like the Sallys and their Army structure doesn't either. I am however very happy in the republican/egalitarian Irish Catholic Tradition I grew up in. Quite happy with the work of JPII & Leo Tolstoy wrote a nice book or two as well.
Benny seems to be pretty keen to get the Mel Gibson lot back into the fold and doesn't build bridges as well as JPII did.
-
Do you accept people having any form of sincere belief in the Divine?
You can have any number of sincere beliefs you like. That doesn't make the content of the belief true. It's just a belief. By analogy, many children have a sincere belief in Santa Claus. That doesn't make Santa Claus true.
That's a very straightforward, epistemological point. The sincerity with which a belief is held is no indicator of the truth.
-
And you all seem to think that Catholics can't space their family or choose the number of children they want - they can.
That's because most of them use 'artificial' contraception. (Most US Catholics do, anyway. Something like 70%, I think.)
I'm no stranger to working out my own cycle, actually, so I'm sure your method works fine if you dedicate some time to it. But saying it's not contraception is just doubletalk, IMO.
-
The sincerity with which a belief is held is no indicator of the truth.
Sure. I agree with that. There are young earth creationists who are totally sincere, but I think they are wrong as well.
My point was whether or not Idiot allowed for any sincerity in religious belief, or whether Idiot saw it as all a great meme for getting the peasants to do as their told. Idiot analyses religion from a utilitarian perspective - what does belief achieve? But that misses out on people actually belonging to a religion and following its teachings because they simply believe it to be true.
-
Tess, how's the Atheist Inquistion treating you?
:) Fine, thanks for asking. So far my comfy chair has been tolerable.
I'm no theologian and I disagree with a few issues the Church Teaches. For me the value of religion is in communion and the teachings of the gospels, social justice etc.
I agree with you about social justice. I'm always amazed at some American Catholics who are happy with the poor being unable to access health care, or basic welfare. Or the torture apologists - ugh :( As though waterboarding was not torture.
I'm a big fan of Tolstoy, especially his short story "Where love is, God is". In fact I'm a fan of all Russian literature.
-
That's because most of them use 'artificial' contraception. (Most US Catholics do, anyway. Something like 70%, I think.)
I'm no stranger to working out my own cycle, actually, so I'm sure your method works fine if you dedicate some time to it. But saying it's not contraception is just doubletalk, IMO.
Most Catholics do use contraception, yes. But I do think they are selling themselves short by doing so. As for how much time BOM takes, not much at all once you learn the method. It's just a matter of observing sensations and anything I see. And it costs nothing, which is handy. I have non-Catholic friends who use it because of the practical reasons - no side effects from drugs for example.
But it really isn't contraception, because I'm doing nothing to cause myself to be infertile or using a barrier.
-
Masturbation is a no no, for the same reasons I expressed above about the sexual act.
-
And how do you explain Catholicism/Christianity prior to feudalism?
I'm not trying to explain - I'm offering an example of actual medieval Catholic belief, as espoused by the all-pervasive church.
The fact that they were themselves a feudal landholder I'm sure had absolutely nothing to do with it (and ditto their beliefs on the manumission of serfdom).
-
You can have any number of sincere beliefs you like. That doesn't make the content of the belief true.
Or any less monstrous.
-
Tess, I get that you're sincere in your beliefs and that you are motivated by what you describe as conscience.
From what you say you are actively seeking to prevent conception by timing of intercourse. That sounds awfully like contra-ception to me, and I'm sure there are other church teachings about the moral similarity of actively and passively committing sin, particularly from the social justice strands of your faith. Standing by and allowing harm where you could prevent it by intervening, that kind of thing.
Masturbation is a no no, for the same reasons I expressed above about the sexual act.
So there needs to be a risk of procreation? Some questions occur to me. Is sex about ejaculation rather than orgasm in Catholic theology? How does that apply to women as well?
-
Steven: since we're sliding into some rather personal stuff I'll say this. The Church teaches that "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose."
That's from the Catechism, number 2352 which is all about masturbation.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM
Read for yourself what the Church says about it.
-
From what you say you are actively seeking to prevent conception by timing of intercourse. That sounds awfully like contra-ception to me, and I'm sure there are other church teachings about the moral similarity of actively and passively committing sin,
Did you read the link I gave? Here's a quote from it.
"There is a real difference between preventing something from being and choosing not to cause something to be. In the legitimate use (unselfish use) of NFP, the couple chooses not to cause a baby to be. The contracepting couple chooses to prevent a possible person from coming to be. These two relationships, with respect to human life, are morally different.
-
Yet those ideas about life would have been mainstream until recently. In Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, one of the ways that Tolstoy uses to show Anna's fall from the values of society is that she uses contraception when she makes love with Vronsky.
Homosexual sex, masturbation, contraception, abortion have all been things traditionally disagreed with. Gandhi was very much opposed to contraception, as was Martin Luther and John Calvin.
-
Tess, I know there are much deeper theological discussions which I do not plan on exposing myself to. However, that link uses contradictory leaps of logic and moral sleight of hand to support what it wants to: that sex has to involve procreation, that human life starts at conception rather than viability or birth, that contraception is murder - and that there is a real difference between choosing two courses of action which have the same intent at a day-to-day human level - having sex without pregnancy as part of a loving relationship.
Finally, I would argue further that there is more to contraception than its contra-life character. The sex act embraces in itself two intelligible human goods: the unitive and the procreative. These two goods constitute the human good of marriage. Thus, there is a nuptial or conjugal meaning to the sex act. The unitive and procreative goods together form a whole, and the attack on one is an attack on the other, which in the end amounts to an attack on marriage. By intentionally rendering the marriage act sterile, the two actually intend to limit their mutual self-giving (the unitive good); for their self-giving is completed in the conception of new human life. The NFP couple only accepts the limitation of their mutual self-giving; they do not intend it.
Surely you can see why many would find it both absurd and offensive to imply that sex in a loving relationship is only legitimate if it involves having babies (or choosing to allow the risk of that).
You carry on believing it if you like - and thanks for taking the time to discuss with us here - but please do not be surprised when others are not keen to subsidise your church's work through tax breaks, especially when the persistent conduct of some of its leaders breaches both morality and law.
There are historical, social and political arrangements at play here, not merely a matter of independent individuals choosing whether or not to act in certain ways.
-
Yet those ideas about life would have been mainstream until recently.
Along with the mistreatment of women and children, slavery, war... viva la traditional values! But, to reiterate, nobody begrudges you your superstition or your obscurantism, Tess. It's your insistence that they should apply to the rest of society that makes you bigoted. Catholics are against divorce amongst non Catholics, or civil marriages amongst gays and that deserves ridicule at the very least.
Only because I don't wish to be party to a threadjack. I'm sure you'd have some interesting stuff to say, closer to the 'season', perhaps.
Season-wise, I think it'd be lovely to restore a winter holiday, ditch the Christ- bit and properly celebrate Matariki. Santa-wise, I don't really have much except a certain amount of interest in how quickly the Coca-Cola version took over and erased some traditions of very long standing. In Italy for instance when I was a kid we had baby Jesus bringing the presents in some regions, Santa Lucia (13th of December) in others, the Befana (6th of January) in others still. Now it's Christmas or nothing, and the speed with which it happened was quite something.
-
Sacha, I'm not surprised. I'm aware and I accept that many people hate the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons. I hate things that people within the Church have done.
The definition of marriage that Catholicism subscribes too is about the meaning of heterosexual sex within conjugal bonds. It isn't physically possible for two men or two women to be married, using the Catholic definition.
All sexuality outside of that definition is considered wrong, gay, straight, masturbation, everything. The contracepting heterosexual couple is just as disagreed with as the homosexual couple.
So people can debate it, even legalise it, you can call rocks "fish", or call trees "sky", but it doesn't make it so.
-
It's your insistence that they should apply to the rest of society that makes you bigoted.
But I HAVEN"T insisted that. I have said, over and over and over again that people must be free to do what they will in this regards.
I mean seriously, do I need to make you a t-shit that says "feel free to disagree with Tess" and make you wear the damn thing until the point hits home? Sheesh.
Do what you want, have sex with whom you want, believe what you want. I mean I haven't even hassled you over your rather psychopathic desire to stake the heads of people from the Vatican into pikes. And btw, we all knew what you meant by the word "pike" being big pointy stick, rather than the fish.
But noooo, I'm the nasty, hating bigot because I think marriage is also about putting a penis in a vagina to occasionally make a baby, which when you consider it, is the bloody function of the things.
I think, all things considered, we have reached a point where I can say no more. This conversation can now serve no useful purpose.
-
So people can debate it, even legalise it, you can call rocks "fish", or call trees "sky", but it doesn't make it so.
Until such time as a future Vatican decree might endorse the consumption of rocks on Friday (stranger things have happened). Then the obsequious and grovelling 'faithful' will, as always, comply.
-
Oh probably. Do fill me in.
-
Until such time as a future Vatican decree might endorse the consumption of rocks on Friday (stranger things have happened). Then the obsequious and grovelling 'faithful' will, as always, comply.
Well, that's not really your problem, is it.
-
I mean seriously, do I need to make you a t-shit that says "feel free to disagree with Tess" and make you wear the damn thing until the point hits home?
In your dreams. Shouldn't you rather be knocking up a hairy undergarment and mortifying yourself through prayer and fasting for the sake of steven's misguided soul? Really, you wannabee carmelites are going soft.
-
All please excuse me, I haven't licked my picture of the Pope today, so I'm a bit snippy. I'm sure after my evening obsequiousness I'll feel far better.
-
Shouldn't you rather be knocking up a hairy undergarment and mortifying yourself through prayer and fasting for the sake of steven's misguided soul?
We're not into hair shirts, we do bare feet, we are the Discaled Carmelites after all, and you need to call Opus Dei if you want to get a really good self-flagellation.
-
Although they are all out of albino monks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.