Sex and Catholicism

[Warriorbird]

Explanations go here. Convince me that I'm wrong. Convince me that Popes haven't said what they've said. Convince me that it is somehow okay to disobey the Pope certain times but not other times.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Miss X]

OMG yay. Thanks WB, beat me to creating the thread!

[Edited on 1-8-05 by Miss X]

Why? This seems like kind of a stupid thread. You arn't going to be convinced no matter what anyone says to you. It's such a red herring that it is ridiculous.

- Arkans

[Overlord]

I beleive you have different varietys of Catholics though. Same thing with most religions, the ones who dabble and take what they want from <insert religion here>. THis continues all the way up to thorough bred boot licker.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. I'm obeying policy. I've changed my mind about things based on stuff posted on the PC before. You could be suprised.

[CrystalTears]

That's worthy of discussing. Thanks for breaking it off from the other thread.

I as a catholic don't agree with everything stated by the church. Does that mean that I'm not really a catholic? Granted I'm not a practicing one since I don't go to church regularly, but I do consider myself catholic.

Are we not able to pick and choose what we believe when we follow a certain faith as we do when we pick a political stance? I'm probably a traitor to my faith when I say that I don't agree with certain aspects, certainly with the stance on abstaining and being against birth control, which I'm clearly not.

Edited to put a not where there should have been one.

[Edited on 8/1/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

That's what got to my friend Nick in the end. He couldn't reconcile declarations of full belief in a faith with the behavior of many that went contradictory to the basic tenets of the faith/Pope's statements.

[Overlord]

Thats my gathering on religion in general CrystalTears. Hell I don't think that Christ would have said "Get the hell off your ass and worship me in MY house" because quite frankly, if I was <insert creed here>, wouldn't MY house be a house of god.

Ah theres so much controversy yet to come...I LOVE IT!!!

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Overlord]

[CrystalTears]

I suppose that's my question. Do you need to have FULL belief in everything a religion stands for? I agree with certain aspects of several religions, I just grew up with catholicism and agree with most of it, just not all of it.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I've changed my mind about things based on stuff posted on the PC before. You could be suprised. Same.

I'm really curious to know though how many Catholics agree with the Church's stance on birth control. How many actually follow it themselves.

Isn't pre-marital sex a sin no matter what?

[Warriorbird]

Most religions certainly ask you to. I doubt the "true believer" rate is that high though, for any religion out there... despite popular perceptions.

[DeV]

Well, I think that question I asked goes without saying, but I think I was just digging. Considering sexual abuse of children is considered a mortal sin which was being covered up directly from within! And every other religion out there adopts a similiar edict but as far as birth control alot make great exceptions, however, Catholicism does not.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DeV
What exactly does Catholicism say regarding birth control then? I always heard it to be sort of the way WB described.

It says that the fertilized eggs are something of value.

It says nothing about saving single sperm cells.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Hulkein]

[CrystalTears]

Okay the sacred sperm thing is from Monty Python, ergo, a joke. You do need to lighten up just a tad. I may not be WB's greatest fan, or even him of me, but at least know when he's making a joke.

[Warriorbird]

What about the notions of self-abuse? And indeed, considering some folks' ideas of joke around here, the sensitivity is puzzling.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Hulkein]

As for the other discussion here, how Catholics feel about the Pope's stance on birth control/pre-marital sex.

Let me start by saying I agree with Overlord in that I don't think you have to be of a certain religion to be considered a good person who could reach a better place when you die.

As for pre-marital sex... I don't think it's wrong if you know the person and have been seeing them, etc, and have real feelings for them.

The Church is against birth control because they are for abstaining until marriage. You can't be for one and against the other, it's a mixed message. They're an institution and need to be as consistent as they can be.

It's really not a bad thing to be pulling for people to know each other well before having sex (I take their definition a little figuratively, I guess. Marriage nowadays isn't always something you do within the first year or two of knowing someone like it was in the past, and let's face it, you can be really close to someone without being married).

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Hulkein]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Okay the sacred sperm thing is from Monty Python, ergo, a joke. You do need to lighten up just a tad. I may not be WB's greatest fan, or even him of me, but at least know when he's making a joke.

I've never seen the movie, how would I know it's a joke before he said so?

It's obviously not just a joke if other people think that's what the Church preaches, though.

[CrystalTears]

The thing is that I have a problem with people who take the bible literally. I see it more as thoughts, guides, and songs with ideas but never thought that it should be used and done verbatim.

I live more by the ten commandments. Anything other that is just gravy and extras that you can live by but don't need to. :shrug:

As with WB's quote, the :sing: in the beginning kinda gave it away that it wasn't to be taken so seriously. Although people feeling that way is obviously why it was made into a little joking song, right?

[Edited on 8/1/2005 by CrystalTears]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by DeV
What exactly does Catholicism say regarding birth control then? I always heard it to be sort of the way WB described.

It says that the fertilized eggs are something of value.

It says nothing about saving single sperm cells.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Hulkein] I, clearly am not Catholic, but I got hints of WB's initial response being a joke.

Also, I am not asking for personal opinions or about sperm cells and the like, I am asking for the Church's clear cut stance on birth-control and the act of sex, fucking, making love out of wedlock, and including the act of self love, dry humping, and what have you.

They can't be for one and against the other, granted. However, what does that say for those who take the bible literally on other subjects defined as sins but actively skirt the regulations and guidelines and participate in clearly definied sins as they feel appropriate.

[Warriorbird]

The Commandments are pretty reasonable rules to live by. (Shocking, no? I think they are.)

I think the other inspirations for that Monty Python quote (the movie mocks Protestants as much as Catholics, suggesting that Protestants never have any after they get married) are the church's injunctions against self abuse and against non-procreative sex.

[Hulkein]

<< I am not asking for personal opinions or about sperm cells and the like, I am asking for the Church's clear cut stance on birth-control and the act of sex, fucking, making love out of wedlock, and including the act of self love, dry humping, and what have you. >>

Well, considering I wasn't discussing that in the other thread, I told you the clear cut stance on the difference between sperm cells and fertilized eggs, the post that spurred this thread.

I'm not a priest, theologian, altar boy. I go to Church once a month. I can't really help you out much more.

<< As with WB's quote, the :sing: in the beginning kinda gave it away that it wasn't to be taken so seriously. Although people feeling that way is obviously why it was made into a little joking song, right? >>

I didn't know :sing: meant it was a joke.

:sing: WB is a two-bit piece of shit :sing: LOLOLOMG LIEK MY JOKE????/

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Hulkein]

[CrystalTears]

This is probably why I'm not a practicing Catholic. The bible stating scriptures and the church stating things like being against pornography, sex before marriage, birth control, masturbation and homosexuals, not being able to move with the times and realize that the world and its people changes, and not conforming to them, makes me a wee bit uncomfortable.

And then of course, to add insult to injury, to see my aunt forward me email about signing a petition for people against homosexuals engaging in marriages as well. I nearly fell out of my chair that my own family is actually advocating that I join in their forces to be against homosexuals.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Well, considering I wasn't discussing that in the other thread, I told you the clear cut stance on the difference between sperm cells and fertilized eggs, the post that spurred this thread.Well gee, thanks.


I'm not a priest, theologian, altar boy. I go to Church once a month. I can't really help you out much more.Cool, maybe someone who knows more will chime in.




I didn't know :sing: meant it was a joke.

:sing: WB is a two-bit piece of shit :sing: LOLOLOMG LIEK MY JOKE????/
The exaggerated use of words kind of gave it away for me, personally.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I didn't know :sing: meant it was a joke.

:sing: WB is a two-bit piece of shit :sing: LOLOLOMG LIEK MY JOKE????/


In retrospect, you have a point. Trying to seem like you're joking or be sarcastic about something when you're clearly serious shouldn't be taken lightly.

I shouldn't have been so quick to defend WB even though I recognized the joke. He's known to swoop in with his "sarcasm" and state his anti-conservative, anti-religious stance sometimes more than others do, even in areas where it wasn't even the issue at the time. Politics and religion seem to bring out the bear in many.

[Edited on 8/1/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Terminator X]

Just like what Overlord said, whatever your disposition is, it will probably be manifested in your behaviours, whether or whether not religion is the crux of it.

Just like there are, in fact, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera who may be deemed as, for a lack of a better word, "acceptable," not suprisingly, there are also Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera who may very well not be viewed in the same light as others of their supposed ethos.

[Warriorbird]

Rrr.

;)

I'm amused that my bearish self goes to church more than Hulkein does. Makes me curious as to Dave's numbers.

[Edaarin]

Someone make the requisite Catholic priest joke.

[Sean]

I've always found it interesting how people (in the general sense) find ways to use religion to justify there moral beliefs when it's convenient (death penalty, abortion, family structure, etc.) but when it's inconvenient they are simply allow themselves to let the inconvenient beliefs (premartial sex, birth control, etc.) fall to the wayside.

Basically to me if you can just pick and choses which beliefs you want from a religion it becomes just a tool for justification for issues that don't have a concrete answer. Which good or bad I guess is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I find it hard to put anymore stock in it than some guy screaming about being a prophet in washington square park... but I guess thats the skeptic in me.

[Hulkein]

The way people use religion doesn't take away from what the institution itself is trying to do, though. And this thread was started because I defended the Church's teaching in the other thread. I wasn't defending my personal opinion.

The Catholic Church is against abortion, against the death penalty, against pre-marital sex, against birth control, for charity, a proponant of the 'turn the other cheek' idea, against war (for the most part), etc.

Seems to all be in the same general theme there.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
This is probably why I'm not a practicing Catholic. The bible stating scriptures and the church stating things like being against pornography, sex before marriage, birth control, masturbation and homosexuals, not being able to move with the times and realize that the world and its people changes, and not conforming to them, makes me a wee bit uncomfortable.


I agree with WB's that the base commandments are good "rules" to live by, but most religions offer similar tenants. I also think CT hits a major point, but it needs to be expanded.

I could never ascribe to any religion that takes the dim view of women that christianity (and especially catholicism) does. I especially couldn't ascribe to one that does not let women hold high office within its ranks (catholicism).

I chose to leave catholicism at age 7. I understood the church's poor views on women, though I did not understand abortion nor did I particularly care about contraception. If a 7 year old can understand that excessive guilt has no place in faith, I don't see why the idea seems to be lost on the church (ie; why it keeps preaching the same old bs).

In cultures where equal rights are on the rise and every scourge of mankind being a woman's fault has lost its trendiness, you'd think the church might reconsider a few stances.

Oh well, less members for them.

-M

[SpunGirl]

Erm. If the Catholic Church is against birth control because it's against pre-marital sex, then how come the only method of birth control allowed within marriage is the ever-effective rythym method?

-K

[Brattt8525]

I was raised a Catholic, parents married in the Catholic church baptized in the same church sent to catholic school went to sunday school and went through the communion thing. Even in school we had to go to monthly confession where the priests were in the locker rooms!

My parents practiced the rhythm method which failed them resulting in the third child they hadn't planned <namely me :D>

They did live by what they believed in, not partly but completely and I respected that. I myself do not follow the same beliefs, once I graduated and moved away from home I decided what I could live by and what I couldn't. I could not be a practicing catholic because it goes against things that I do participate in according to what the church teaches. I don't think you should be able to say I will do 1, 3, and 4 but not 2, 5 etc.

[Terminator X]

My parents practiced the rhythm method which failed them resulting in the third child they hadn't planned

Knowing this information, how much has psychotherapy been costing you? :cold:

"Well, sweety, I thought you should know that your father and I used to grind our genitalia together at monthly intervals."

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Terminator X]

[Delirium]

I think there are some good points in this thread. If you arnt following all of what the bible says and looking down on others for what "rules" they break, who is to say whos opinion on what is important is correct? Like Siren, i was raised catholic but i quit when i was 16. Just wasnt for me.

However i dont think one needs a religion to be against things such as abortion or premarital sex. Everyone has their own moral compass that they live there life by. I doubt many here are the types standing on corners yelling "SINNERS!!" at people as they pass.

[CrystalTears]

Other than the fanatics, who actually believes and follows their religion to the letter? And then I'm of the belief that even they don't follow it to the letter either.

My family, whom are very much practicing Catholics, practiced pre-marital sex and birth control. So they're not really Catholics either then?

[Warriorbird]

"Erm. If the Catholic Church is against birth control because it's against pre-marital sex, then how come the only method of birth control allowed within marriage is the ever-effective rythym method? "

Marital sex is supposed to be procreative. To be strict about it, the rhythm method isn't even really appropriate.

[Delirium]

Im sure they are, but as for judging others soley based on religious morals they wouldnt be on steady ground as they pick and chose what was important to them. Just being religious tho, unless there is some rule in that particular religion saying you HAVE to believe everything, id assume they are in good standing with their church.

Actually its a lot easier to respect people who dont follow something word for word, be it religion, politics or whatever as they are thinking it out instead of being fed their opinion.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
My family, whom are very much practicing Catholics, practiced pre-marital sex and birth control. So they're not really Catholics either then?

I think they are, I just think it's a little silly of them (by them I mean your aunt, and I imagine you would agree with me) to go have premarital sex and use birth control against the wishes of the church (who says that's according to the word of God..) and then be like, "homosexuality r wrong because God hates it!!1!1!"

-K

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Other than the fanatics, who actually believes and follows their religion to the letter? And then I'm of the belief that even they don't follow it to the letter either.

My family, whom are very much practicing Catholics, practiced pre-marital sex and birth control. So they're not really Catholics either then?

HarmNone comes to mind, though I can't vouche for her every waking moment. She seems to follow most of the tenants of paganism (though the "remain silent" one may be at question depending on your interperitation of it).

"Do what you will but harm none," I believe is the major quote.

-M

[DeV]

Originally posted by SpunGirl

Originally posted by CrystalTears
My family, whom are very much practicing Catholics, practiced pre-marital sex and birth control. So they're not really Catholics either then?

I think they are, I just think it's a little silly of them (by them I mean your aunt, and I imagine you would agree with me) to go have premarital sex and use birth control against the wishes of the church (who says that's according to the word of God..) and then be like, "homosexuality r wrong because God hates it!!1!1!"

-K :yeahthat: And unfortunatly, people like that are why I am in total agreeance with the excellent points Tijay mentioned. I have family members that think and feel this way and I want to smash them over the head with their bible at times, figuratively of course.

[Skirmisher]

I also was raised catholic. Roman Catholic with mostly carmelite priests finding their way to be in our parishes.

Alter girl, in the choir, often two choirs at once, and parochial school for grammar school.

I helped for a great many years personally preparing and delivering food through our food pantry program for those in need both in our local community and then also driving into NYC with food and coffee and warm clothing during the winter months. I went to nursing homes and both attended and later helped organize and execute youth group meetings and day trips. I helped clean almost every square foot of the church, the convent and the rectory over that time.

I do not attend mass any longer as I found myself forced more and more to bite my tongue over the hypocrosy that comes from Rome.

I know all of the wonderful things that the church can and does provide for the community. I DID them, so I surely know that they exist.

I cannot however stomach the rightiousness and the rigidity that the vatican and through a natural trickle down effect it's cardinals and bishops spout toward it's flock.

We know that the church does not follow all of it's own rules. No one with a working brain and an ability to either listen to the news or to read would try to say they do. Yet when they wish to, they can be as hard as stone.

The priests involved in the sexual abuse scandal that has battered the church here in the US is merely a small part of the distaste that now exists for me now when i think of the leaders of the church.

I think most clergy are good people, trying to do the best they can, but they are hamstrung by Rome. I think the vow of abstinence is just one that should be done away with. I think that it along with the rules about pre marital sex are antiquated and no longer serve a purpose if in fact they ever did beyond that of control.

[JadeScarlet]

I'll mention a few stories that I've heard from friends.

Friend #1. From a Catholic family. Got pregnant when she was 20, not married. Family was delighted. Parents said "Hooray we're going to be grandparents!" They also decided that she shouldn't get married to her boyfriend, at least not officially, because as she was under 25 she was fully covered under her fathers health insurance and if she had married him, she would have lost that. The whole family took care of her. All the aunts uncles grandparents & great grandparents argued over who got to be the first baby sitter. She had a healthy lovely baby and everyone was delighted. She and her boyfriend live together and are great parents. I'm sure that they'll get married some day.

Friend #2. Catholic parents. Friend is non-religious. Friend got a boyfriend in college. They graduate. Parents say that if she even moves in with him that they will cut her off financially and never speak to her again. She marries him straight away so they can live together. In my opinion not the best reason to get married but they are still happy which is good.

Friend #3. Mother is Catholic. Was told that if his girlfriend got pregnant before they were married then his mother would never speak to him again.

So I see people who overlook some of the rules of their religon regarding sex and marraige and are perfectly happy. I see people who take those rules seriously and risk hurting/losing family members.

Personally, I was baptised in a Presbyterian Church, but grew up as a Quaker. When I was 15 we went to a Quaker conference to discuss teenage sexuality and were taught how to use condoms, the importance of birthcontrol, and people were invited to share their sexual experiences. Hearing other teenagers talk about having sex was enough to make me decide to do it until I was older.

We young Quakers also played lots of games that involved kissing and groping each other in addition to opening discussions to talk about sexuality and our bodies, and we were encouraged to try masturbation rather than sexual intercourse. One of the major principles of Quakerism is simplicity, and by this we are encouraged not to overindulge in worldly matters (drugs, alcohol, illicit sexual encounters) however I feel like my religious leaders growing up were very much aware of the real world and provided an open and accepting environment to all, no matter what vices they carried.

I'm so glad I grew up in a Quaker community.

[SpunGirl]

I think that sounds good, Jade. It's nice that sexuality was an open discussion rather than something to be hush-hushed and ashamed of.

However, in the case of the first family you cited, how would the parents feel if the girl told them she was gay? See, I think the reality of it is that there are people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality. Instead of admitting to their personal discomfort, they simply fall back on the argument that "God says it's wrong!"

I don't see how they can possibly condone one and not the other. If the only argument is that God doesn't like it, then I think it's just an excuse.

-K

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Rrr.

;)

I'm amused that my bearish self goes to church more than Hulkein does. Makes me curious as to Dave's numbers.

There are no churches of my faith near me. I have gone to a few normal Protestant churches in the area and am unable to stomach the light show and christian rock songs. I am more of a old school hymn book, suit and tie going to church type.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Dave]

[Warriorbird]

Admittedly, I am in Chapel Hill... probably the single most liberal point in North Carolina. I can understand your feelings on the subject. I behaved a lot differently in the middle of Wisconsin.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Overlord
Hell I don't think that Christ would have said "Get the hell off your ass and worship me in MY house"I live in a pretty rich area, and I don't know of any houses that could hold 4 services of 300 people each every Sunday. The Catholic church is very big on community worship.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Do you need to have FULL belief in everything a religion stands for?I don't think it makes sense to say "I'm a Catholic" if you don't believe in all the myriad positions the Catholic church supports, but it's not like they're going to kick you out. I generally say "I'm a Christian" and leave it at that when asked.
I live more by the ten commandments. Anything other that is just gravy and extras that you can live by but don't need to.That's more of a Jewish stance than a Christian, considering Jesus specifically gave a commandment that superceded 9 of the original 10.
Originally posted by DeV
Isn't pre-marital sex a sin no matter what?Yeah, bummer huh?
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I could never ascribe to any religion that takes the dim view of women that christianityYou're going to have a hard time finding anything Jesus said that supports this claim. I think I remember reading some in the Gospel of Thomas, but that doesn't count for obvious reasons.
Originally posted by Delirium
I doubt many here are the types standing on corners yelling "SINNERS!!" at people as they pass.The trick is to do it from a car with a bullhorn. Much better sinner to yell ratio. :saint:

And because it fits much better in this thread:
Originally posted by DeV
What exactly does Catholicism say regarding birth control then?Family planning is the name of it, I think. Figure out the woman's cycle, and have sex when she won't get pregnant. I would ask where Warriorbird gets his crazy notions, but then I remember:
Originally posted by Warriorbird
I am in Chapel Hill

[Warriorbird]

This one feller who was called tha Pope. Ya'everheardof'm?

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm


Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I could never ascribe to any religion that takes the dim view of women that christianityYou're going to have a hard time finding anything Jesus said that supports this claim. I think I remember reading some in the Gospel of Thomas, but that doesn't count for obvious reasons.

Jesus may not have, but the church does.

The church also turns a blind eye to it's own clergy breaking its own rules when it suits it, but wants to enforce all of them on the laymen?

I guess it's good to be the king.

[JadeScarlet]

To be honest, I have no idea how my friend and her family would react to homosexuality, although I'd like to believe that they are open about that too.

None of my gay friends grew up in Catholic families so I don't have any personal comment on it.

Most of my Catholic friends who are my age (20s) have no issues with homosexuality, and I think most would even support gay civil unions. Some of them have told me that their parents think differently.

My personal opinion on gay marriage is that marriage is part religion and part
paperwork. The religious part is based on personal beliefs such as being united under god, or whatever the person's faith is. The paperwork (marriage certificate) means that your spouse can inherit your stuff, share your health insurance, get better tax breaks, etc.

Because we have separation of church and state, two people getting a civil union outside of a church should be allowed whether they are gay or straight.

If two gay people want to get married in a church, its up to the church. However, my Quaker meeting has been marrying gay couples since 1993. There are many Christian and Jewish churches that also marry gay couples. So if God recognises that marriage then the government should too.

[Renian]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
This is probably why I'm not a practicing Catholic. The bible stating scriptures and the church stating things like being against pornography, sex before marriage, birth control, masturbation and homosexuals, not being able to move with the times and realize that the world and its people changes, and not conforming to them, makes me a wee bit uncomfortable.

And then of course, to add insult to injury, to see my aunt forward me email about signing a petition for people against homosexuals engaging in marriages as well. I nearly fell out of my chair that my own family is actually advocating that I join in their forces to be against homosexuals.

Churches are meant to be a counter-culture than the one we have today. They will not conform, and frankly, I don't want them to, considering they would become corrupt of they did.

As for the whole homosexual issue...Well, not only is there the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but...

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Oh, and the pr0n/masturbation issue...

Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


Just stating the scriptures, nothing more.

EDIT:


If two gay people want to get married in a church, its up to the church. However, my Quaker meeting has been marrying gay couples since 1993. There are many Christian and Jewish churches that also marry gay couples. So if God recognises that marriage then the government should too.


Heh, after what I just said, God doesn't recognize that kind of marriage. He couldn't.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Renian]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Family planning is the name of it, I think. Figure out the woman's cycle, and have sex when she won't get pregnant. Ah, full proof method there. lol
I would ask where Warriorbird gets his crazy notions, Monty Python and it looks like they weren't that far off.

Oh, and no, it is not a bummer. Maybe for you, but definitely not for me.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Jesus may not have, but the church does.That I agree with, which is why I didn't take any issue with "especially Catholicism".

3 pffts @ Leviticus passages. Nothing could be further from Christ's message.

[Renian]

3 pffts @ Leviticus passages. Nothing could be further from Christ's message.

John 10:30 - The Father and I are one. (Jesus' words)

Given the fact that Jesus was God from this verse, and the fact that God himself rained sulphur down on Sodom and Gomorrah to judge them because they were a town full of homosexuals, I'm pretty sure it's part of Christ's message.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Renian
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.Note how if I was to take this literally, both scriptures focus exclusively on one same sexed activity; male on male intercourse. It does not condemn female homosexuality, nor does it comdemn male-male sex aside from exactly what it says, intercourse. You'd have to quote Romans 1:26-27 to find any reference to lesbianism whatsoever, and that in itself is not clear. Unnatural relations could mean many things, according to the times in which the scriptures were written. But again, it is not clear and open to mass interpretation.

I just fail to see people making the same types of cursades against homosexuality as they make against say, women who have sex while menstruating, or people who masturbate, or those who covet their neighbors wife, and so on. That aspect of it is what bothers me the most.

People regularly sin in order to enforce the punishment of those who they feel are living in sin, thus giving themselves the right to judge which sin is allowable and which is an abomination.

[GSLady17]

In Gods eyes, arn't all sins equal?

Disrespect your parents, be gay.

You are sinning both ways.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Renian
Given the fact that Jesus was God from this verse, and the fact that God himself rained sulphur down on Sodom and Gomorrah to judge them because they were a town full of homosexuals, Oh really now. Lot was not a homosexual, just in case you weren't aware. Neither was his wife or daughters.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people had become evil and subsequently turned away from God. They had forsaken Him completely. Not because it was a town full of homosexuals.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Renian
John 10:30 - The Father and I are one. (Jesus' words)Matthew 19:8 - He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Strikes me as more likely that the Jews muffed something else (given their humanity) than God changed his mind.

[Renian]

Lot was not a homosexual, just in case you weren't aware. Neither was his wife or daughters.

I was aware of that. God got Lot out of there.

EDIT: I should probably add, however, that his daughters were guilty of incest later. They got Lot drunk and had sex with him. O.o

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Renian]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by GSLady17
In Gods eyes, arn't all sins equal?

Disrespect your parents, be gay.

You are sinning both ways.

Are you asking a question or making a statement?

[Artha]

EDIT: I should probably add, however, that his daughters were guilty of incest later. They got Lot drunk and had sex with him. O.o
And thus West Virginia was begat.

[DeV]

lol

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I don't think it makes sense to say "I'm a Catholic" if you don't believe in all the myriad positions the Catholic church supports, but it's not like they're going to kick you out.

And to others who have said various things:

I am Catholic, and I'll tell anyone who asks. Do I actually agree with every tenet of the church? No. Do I strive to understand and get spiritual guidance in the areas that I have trouble agreeing? Yes.

Do I think that I would have trouble finding any faith that I agreed 100% on the principles and teaching? Yes.

Faith is an ongoing enriching process. I choose not to judge others or attempt to assess their level of piety or devotion. I concern myself only with my own journey and my own personal relationship with God. I don't see faith as black and white. I see it as lots of shades of gray that sometime become more black or white as I gain life experiences. Age sometimes brings clarity and acceptance of things that in the past were unreconcilable.

I hope that helps fill in some blanks.

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by GSLady17
In Gods eyes, arn't all sins equal?

Disrespect your parents, be gay.

You are sinning both ways.

Are you asking a question or making a statement?


A little of both. If you consider it a sin, everyone sins.

I understood that all sins were equal so I have a hard time understanding someone who will judge/look down on people which is a sin, yet think that just because they are heterosexual, are loved by God more then a homosexual is.

But then religion can have many different meanings from one person to the next.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Renian
Given the fact that Jesus was God from this verse, and the fact that God himself rained sulphur down on Sodom and Gomorrah to judge them because they were a town full of homosexuals, Oh really now. Lot was not a homosexual, just in case you weren't aware. Neither was his wife or daughters.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people had become evil and subsequently turned away from God. They had forsaken Him completely. Not because it was a town full of homosexuals.

Ezekiel 16:48-50


48 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Pride, gluttony, sloth, lack of charity. Funny how homosexuality isn't anywhere in that list. Not that the term even existed when the Bible was written but that's another debate that's been gone over many times.

Raven

[Warriorbird]

So do you follow the other Leviticus sections, Renian? Least Latrin has an out there.

[Renian]

So do you follow the other Leviticus sections, Renian? Least Latrin has an out there.

I try, if the New Testament restates the laws in Leviticus. Jesus pretty much annuled the old laws and made new ones, but since the homosexuality thing was restated in Romans I could use those two verses.


Funny how homosexuality isn't anywhere in that list.

Heh, first of all, where do you think the term sodomizing came from?

Secondly, just read the story in Genesis rather than using Ezekiel.

Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

The term 'know' is being used here as a sexual reference. Odd, but true. It is supported by Genesis 4:1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Now, considering that they wanted to 'know' these angels, whom they referred to as men, I would say that they were having homosexual tendancies.

[Artha]

I think that's pretty tenuous. IMO, unless you're reading through the aramaic or possibly hebrew bible and see something like that, it's pretty likely that it's just a translator's word choice.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Renian
but since the homosexuality thing was restated in Romans I could use those two verses.You should google up arsenokoitai before you state this again. :)

[Renian]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Re--er, ME
but since the homosexuality thing was restated in Romans I could use those two verses.You should google up arsenokoitai before you state this again. :)



But did Paul intend his readers to understand arsenokoitai in this manner -- i.e., to denote the entire breadth of homosexual feelings and actions?
Absolutely, argues De Young, stating that the apostle's use of arsenokoitai "suggests that Paul had in mind the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus." His reason? Arsenokoitai, which literally means "male [sexual] beds," is most likely an allusion by Paul to the Greek translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the latter of which is translated, "If there is a man [arsenos] who lies with [koiten] a man as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act."

Source: http://www.christianmusictv.com/_male__sexual__beds.htm

And?

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Family planning is the name of it, I think. Figure out the woman's cycle, and have sex when she won't get pregnant.

Haha. Ask my Grandmother how far this method got her, after seven kids in nine years. Ask my Dad, his brothers and sisters, how they liked growing up with (without?) a father who was NEVER HOME because he had to work three jobs to support the results of said method.

I guess the obvious choice would be to stop having sex, right? That's the only foolproof way to not have kids. Sure, take this couple, who was very much in love, and tell them that even the simple pleasure of sexual intimacy was going to be denied because PILLS AND CONDOMS ARE TEH SIN.

Yay religion.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Renian
And? If you truly couldn't find anything that disagreed with that, I don't know what to tell you. :shrug:
Originally posted by SpunGirl
Sure, take this couple, who was very much in love, and tell them that even the simple pleasure of sexual intimacy was going to be denied because PILLS AND CONDOMS ARE TEH SIN. If this thread's progenitor taught us anything, it is that vaginal intercourse is not the only way one could achieve the pleasure of sexual intimacy.

[Warriorbird]

Wow. I'm more impressive than I thought. I've got Latrin advocating head and anal.

[Latrinsorm]

See when you read what I actually post, it's a lot easier to know what my actual positions are. :)

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Wow. I'm more impressive than I thought. I've got Latrin advocating head and anal.

A man advocating blowjobs is impressive?

[Edaarin]

Wait wait wait...Matt Damon said that HE rained down sulphur.

Are you telling me Hollywood was LYING?

[Skirmisher]

Yes, follow that book to the letter. :barf:

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If this thread's progenitor taught us anything, it is that vaginal intercourse is not the only way one could achieve the pleasure of sexual intimacy.

And if Dear Abby taught us anything, it's that a woman can get pregnant without actually having had sex.

-K

[Renian]

Heh, I really should have replied to this earlier.



Sure, take this couple, who was very much in love, and tell them that even the simple pleasure of sexual intimacy was going to be denied because PILLS AND CONDOMS ARE TEH SIN.


They ain't. No where in the Bible does it say that using stuff to avoid reproduction while still having sex is a sin. If the Catholic church followers actually just up and believe that without checking the Bible, they trust man more than God's word.

Which is partially why I'm protestant. Baptist ftw.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Renian
Heh, I really should have replied to this earlier.



Sure, take this couple, who was very much in love, and tell them that even the simple pleasure of sexual intimacy was going to be denied because PILLS AND CONDOMS ARE TEH SIN.


They ain't. No where in the Bible does it say that using stuff to avoid reproduction while still having sex is a sin. If the Catholic church followers actually just up and believe that without checking the Bible, they trust man more than God's word.

Which is partially why I'm protestant. Baptist ftw.

I agree that they "ain't," but the topic of this thread is sex and Catholicism. What the Catholic church has done is take all the power that each individual human has to reach towards the divine (whatever you believe that may be) and settled it all squarely on the shoulders of some geriatric in a funny hat.

-K

[Tisket]

Originally posted by Renian


They ain't. No where in the Bible does it say that using stuff to avoid reproduction while still having sex is a sin. If the Catholic church followers actually just up and believe that without checking the Bible, they trust man more than God's word.

Which is partially why I'm protestant. Baptist ftw.

Don't try and tell me there are not baptists and methodists, etc that don't still believe that dancing and makeup are sins. The biblical support for those proscriptions are weaker than birth control.

Interestingly enough, from my understanding, Catholic dogma forbids sex for pleasure, whether married or not. So the sole reason for sex between married people would be reproduction. Am I just remembering incorrectly? Strong possibility I must admit.

Anyway, still riding the fence. Just on a posting spree today for some reason. Carry on.

[Renian]

Don't try and tell me there are not baptists and methodists, etc that don't still believe that dancing and makeup are sins. The biblical support for those proscriptions are weaker than birth control.


Heh, I won't. I know very well of their existance.


Interestingly enough, from my understanding, Catholic dogma forbids sex for pleasure, whether married or not.

That's not in the Bible, and that's all I got to say about that.


What the Catholic church has done is take all the power that each individual human has to reach towards the divine (whatever you believe that may be) and settled it all squarely on the shoulders of some geriatric in a funny hat.


Amen to that. What the hell is up with all the hats in the Catholic church anyway? It's like the bigger your hat is, the more important you are in it. I mean, the Cardinals have hats, the Pope has a huge freaking variety of HUGE hats... /Denis Leary

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Renian]

[Tisket]

<That's not in the Bible, and that's all I got to say about that. >

Well it's not all I have to say about it.

If the desire for legitimate offspring is, in fact, according to the Catholic Church, the only motive which can justify sexual intercourse does the church believe this motive always justifies it, even if it is accompanied by cruelty? That seems to be what this dogma (if indeed it is a dogma) implies. If the wife hates sexual intercourse, if she is likely to die of another pregnancy, if the child is likely to be diseased or insane, if there is not enough money to prevent the utmost extreme of misery, that does not prevent the man from being justified in insisting on his conjugal rights, provided only that he hopes to beget a child.

Ignoring for a moment that marital rape is recognized as a serious crime in most countries, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, in agreeing to marry, the wife permanently consents sexually so that spousal rape is a conceptual impossibility.

Edited to add: Latrinsorm, I have read quite a few posts by you and forgive me if you already stated the answer somewhere else but since I tend to scan and skim threads I must've missed it: what religion/church do you count yourself a member of?

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Tisket]

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
[quote] What the Catholic church has done is take all the power that each individual human has to reach towards the divine (whatever you believe that may be) and settled it all squarely on the shoulders of some geriatric in a funny hat.

-K

That has to be the best summation I ever read.

RD

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Other than the fanatics, who actually believes and follows their religion to the letter? And then I'm of the belief that even they don't follow it to the letter either.

My family, whom are very much practicing Catholics, practiced pre-marital sex and birth control. So they're not really Catholics either then?

HarmNone comes to mind, though I can't vouche for her every waking moment. She seems to follow most of the tenants of paganism (though the "remain silent" one may be at question depending on your interperitation of it).

"Do what you will but harm none," I believe is the major quote.

-M

Heh. The "remain silent" portion is more neo-pagan than pagan. Pagans were the questioners and seekers. They weren't known for keeping their mouths shut. ;)

"An' it harm none, do as thou wilt." Seems pretty sensible to me, but it isn't really pagan. It's wiccan. It's the Wiccan Rede. :)

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by HarmNone]

[Latrinsorm]

Re: Catholic dogma

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2333: "Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity." (so much for the "Catholicism hates sex!!!1" platform)
2334: "In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity. Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God." (so much for the "Catholicism hates women!!11" platform)
2362: "The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation." (so much for the "only procreation!!!!1" platform)
Originally posted by Tisket
that does not prevent the man from being justified in insisting on his conjugal rights, provided only that he hopes to beget a child.2378: "A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. ... In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents."" Dunno where the idea that women are property in the Catholic Church came from (well, probably Catholics) but it isn't a tenet of Catholicism.
what religion/church do you count yourself a member of? Christianity.

While the Catholic Church encourages community worship (where big hats rule), it is by no means the only method of communication with God. Ask any priest. Catholics are expected to be Catholic all week, not just on Sundays.

[Warriorbird]

:chuckles: Funny how that isn't the full breadth and depth of Catholicism. If it likes women so much why can't they be priests?

"Oh, they have a different role."



[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Blue and red are both equally good at being colors. That does not mean substituting blue for red in a picture is correct, nor does saying so mean I'm a blue-phobe.

That being said, I don't see any reason not to have women priests, and I reckon we will be seeing some in the next 100 years. Whether we see them in the American Catholic Church or we finally get interdicted, I dunno.

[Tisket]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Tisket
[quote]what religion/church do you count yourself a member of? Christianity.

Deflecting the question...how disingenuous...

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Blue and red are both equally good at being colors. That does not mean substituting blue for red in a picture is correct, nor does saying so mean I'm a blue-phobe.

So... Women and Men are both equally good at being people. That does not mean substituting women for men in religion is correct, nor does saying so mean I'm a woman-phobe?

Your analogy is lacking in my opinion because it doesn't actually address any issue. No one, atleast to my knowledge here on the boards, is advocating replacing men with women, they are however advocating that they be allowed to hold the same positions and with equal regard. There are very few instances in life as black and white as your analogy, and I'm sorry to say I don't feel religion is one of those instances.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tisket
Deflecting the question...how disingenuous... Christianity isn't a religion anymore? :?:
Originally posted by Tijay
No one, atleast to my knowledge here on the boards, is advocating replacing men with womenReplace isn't what I meant. I meant substitute, as in using Sweet 'n' Low in place of sugar. The analogy would be having a woman take a traditionally male position. The Catholic Church isn't saying that woman are inferior, they're saying that women aren't the same as men. I can't say I disagree with that, though I do disagree with the distinction preventing women from attaining the priesthood.

[SpunGirl]

OMG only 100 years away for the Catholic church to catch up!?!? WTG!

Also, please provide citations for the bit where Catholics aren't allowed to use birth control. I'm geninely curious about how it's phrased.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

2370 (the first part details the family planning thing I talked about before) ... Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

[Tisket]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
OMG only 100 years away for the Catholic church to catch up!?!? WTG!

Also, please provide citations for the bit where Catholics aren't allowed to use birth control. I'm geninely curious about how it's phrased.

-K

How bout the actual catechism and not Latrinsorm's take on it:

"* The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:


When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156"

PS Latrinsorm, let me dumb down my earlier question since you are so great at finding loopholes: Are you Roman Catholic?

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Tijay
No one, atleast to my knowledge here on the boards, is advocating replacing men with womenReplace isn't what I meant. I meant substitute, as in using Sweet 'n' Low in place of sugar. The analogy would be having a woman take a traditionally male position. The Catholic Church isn't saying that woman are inferior, they're saying that women aren't the same as men. I can't say I disagree with that, though I do disagree with the distinction preventing women from attaining the priesthood.

Boys have penises girls have vaginas.... Of course we aren't the same, but your analogy still doesn't work for me because the situation still isn't as clear cut. No where in your analogy is there a standard saying that you can't use red or sugar packets.

[Tisket]

Here is 2370 for Spun's reading pleasure:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159


Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
:chuckles: Funny how that isn't the full breadth and depth of Catholicism. If it likes women so much why can't they be priests?

"Oh, they have a different role."



[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Warriorbird]

WB have you see Million Dollar Baby? I think that you would get an extra chuckle out of a few scenes.

[Warriorbird]

Yep. Saw it a while back.

:)

[Latrinsorm]

Guess I missed that bit in 2366. :oops:
Originally posted by Tisket
Are you Roman Catholic?While I participate in a number of sacraments on a regular basis, I do not consider myself a Roman Catholic as I would find being one incompatible with my Christian beliefs.
Originally posted by Tijay
No where in your analogy is there a standard saying that you can't use red or sugar packets.I don't get the problem. Red and blue are different, neither is inferior. Women and men are different, neither is inferior. Apples aren't blue, priests aren't women. I'm not going into a dissertation about plant pigmentation or religious history, I'm just describing a situation and how the Catholic Church's position is not necessarily misogynous.

[Brattt8525]

The ending of Million Dollar Baby sucked.

On topic a woman should be Pope!

[ElanthianSiren]

Priests aren't women, okay. That'd actually be fine if nuns were permitted to head the church and deliver gospel as priestesses, but they are not. We can also ask, why has there never been a Papess, if women are so equal? Oh right, because the act of becoming a cardinal requires being a priest, and the act of becoming a priest requires being male.

You can try to say males and females are only different via label, but one holds a CF more power than the other, so the power dynamic in and of itself makes women inferior within the catholic church. Further, the permission and continuation of those differences equates to tolerance of them. And still further, if you permit and allow one group to be inferior to another based on sex, that's generally referred to sexism.

Scribes can quote any gospel they like, but the church's own current policies, with regard to the issue are what's in question here, not the intent of the individuals who wrote the Bible.

-M

[Skirmisher]

Latrinsorm you should just stop trying to defend the rc churches refusal to allow a woman to hold a position of power and respect equal to that of a man.

All the evading and bobbing and weaving only drags out the inevitable answer and that is that there is no defensible reason.

The problem is that it involves change that might allow people to question what else that a bunch of guys decided centuries ago to use as rules should be changed as well..

The church never was big on change as they are trying to maintain what shrinking power they have in an ever more modern world.

[Artha]

Men are just better.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Artha
Men are just better.

Have your own babies then.

I love the mental image.

-M

[Artha]

Believe me, I'm working on it!

[ElanthianSiren]

:lol: sweet, let us know how it goes, narritive style in the Picture Post it Up folder.

-M
edit: who knew lol was case sensitive?

[Edited on Wed, August rd, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Tisket]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Tisket
Are you Roman Catholic?While I participate in a number of sacraments on a regular basis, I do not consider myself a Roman Catholic as I would find being one incompatible with my Christian beliefs.

My question to you was prompted by a mild curiousity because you seem knowledgeable about Catholicism. Now that curiousity has been replaced by puzzlement. Why the mystery on what church you call your own? The only reason I can come up with is perhaps you think you will "pigeonhole" yourself. Do you fear losing your go-to-guy status on all things Christian?

So what is it? Greek Orthodox? Protestant? Methodist? Lutheran? Pentacostal? Presbyterian? Jehovahs Witness? It is such a simple question...where do you worship?

My reason for asking? Some of your posts would lead one to believe you have sort of taken bits and pieces from different religions and pieced them together into something entirely new and uniquely your own. Nothing wrong with that but at least own up to it. My original intent in asking the question was not to cause discomfort or start a dog fight (I also didnt start out thinking you were simple-minded but that opinion is undergoing rapid reevaluation). I find it simply odd that you continue to dodge the question.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Latrinsorm you should just stop trying to defend the rc churches refusal to allow a woman to hold a position of power and respect equal to that of a man.

All the evading and bobbing and weaving only drags out the inevitable answer and that is that there is no defensible reason.

The problem is that it involves change that might allow people to question what else that a bunch of guys decided centuries ago to use as rules should be changed as well..

The church never was big on change as they are trying to maintain what shrinking power they have in an ever more modern world.

It's a matter, also, of domination. God, according to the bible, created Adam to HIS image.

Then he created Eve out of ADAM to AMUSE him.

Many people from the bible had MORE than 1 wife, including the patriarch Abraham.

In ALMOSt every cultures of the world, women were toys to play with and most of the time men were able to have more than one.

You see RARELY women that has do something in the past worth remembering (before, let's say, the year 1000 AD).

Because, also, women are NEVER taken seriously for 2 reasons:

1) any sane man will always imagine, wonder how this or that woman is in a bed AND how she has an orgasm.

2) Any woman can become pregnant, thus crippling the compagny of her presence.

And so on.

p.s. See how most young men reacts in presence of women, in our time. You won't see much changes from before.

p.p.s. Blame the vagina!

[Warriorbird]

I pity your female companion.

[Edited on 8-3-2005 by Warriorbird]

[StrayRogue]

She won't marry him for some reason. And yeah, I pity her too.

[Xcalibur]

Eh, straygross, weren't you someone that NEVER lied?

You just lied right now, bro...

Wanna me to scan my marriage certificate, strayshit?

Independently of your answer, I won't, just stay on your speculation, you ugly thing.

p.s. there is always exceptions to generalisations.

[StrayRogue]

Sure fatboy. Post it. Then we can all laugh at your retarded name. And exactly how did I lie? It's funny because everytime I challenge you on this you can't actually fucking answer can you?

[Xcalibur]

You lied, I am married since 6 years, fat face.

That is my final answer and my name rocks!

[StrayRogue]

Oh, so all those posts of yours last year about your GF were just typo's. Gotcha fatboy.

[Xcalibur]

She's everything including my gf, you will never feel that since you're centered enterely on yourself, ugly you.

GF = wife = soulmate = et cetera.

You sux.:die:

[CrystalTears]

Get back on topic please.

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, the male having more than one partner but the female not thing is understandable if you understand human sexuality.

It's parental investment and does not reflect real dominance.

A man fathering 50 children with 60 woman can still be sure that he is the father of all 50 if each woman is faithful.

A woman mothering 20 children with 30 men, no man could feasibly know with complete certainty (up until a few years ago) which child was his.

People, in general, don't want to care for children that are not their own. The people who do, are definitely very special individuals.

I don't see how that argument relates to dominance though. I know I wouldn't want to care for some other woman's kid.

-M

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Actually, the male having more than one partner but the female not thing is understandable if you understand human sexuality.

It's parental investment and does not reflect real dominance.

A man fathering 50 children with 60 woman can still be sure that he is the father of all 50 if each woman is faithful.

A woman mothering 20 children with 30 men, no man could feasibly know with complete certainty (up until a few years ago) which child was his.

People, in general, don't want to care for children that are not their own. The people who do, are definitely very special individuals.

I don't see how that argument relates to dominance though. I know I wouldn't want to care for some other woman's kid.

-M

You just proved in your post that it's a matter of dominance. It's in any animals nature or so, to raise your OWN and to "remove" the others.

We aren't lions killing the sibbling of others yet we act as we are, intelligent animals.

We are what we are and that is our greatest achievement.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Are you gonna post your wedding certificate, or are you gonna pull a Tabor?

I will if you post your driving card with your name, edit whatever you want.

Fifth hint: To hurt

[StrayRogue]

I didn't say I would. You, like Tabor, did. So up with the card, or stfu.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
I didn't say I would. You, like Tabor, did. So up with the card, or stfu.

That is my condition, you prove first and I prove second.

I will if you do, so go ahead, mister master of gemstone.

Seventh hint: To wear a mask.

[StrayRogue]

I figured you wouldn't be able to. Like every other assertation you've ever made, you've never been able to back it up with form of evidence or proof.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
I figured you wouldn't be able to. Like every other assertation you've ever made, you've never been able to back it up with form of evidence or proof.

As you, never able to back you with real proof beside speculations.

You are a worse liar since you are bad at it.



[Edited on 8-3-2005 by HarmNone]

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Xcalibur

But this is my last day, that is for certain.

[HarmNone]

Back on topic. Continuing posts in this little battle will be removed.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Scribes can quote any gospel they like, but the church's own current policies, with regard to the issue are what's in question here, not the intent of the individuals who wrote the Bible.You're the one who brought up general Christianity hating on women, not me. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church is *not* the only issue here.

However, I would not disagree that men hold more power among the Church officials than women.
Originally posted by Tisket
Why the mystery on what church you call your own?I don't consider it mysterious, but I think I know where the problem is. When I said "I participate in a number of sacraments", I meant that I did so in a Roman Catholic Church. In retrospect, I can see how that isn't the only viable reading.
Do you fear losing your go-to-guy status on all things Christian?I don't think anyone here considers me a go-to-guy on anything.
My reason for asking?I never intended to lead one to believe anything of the sort. I have one religion: Christianity. Any tenet of another religion that I agree with is by coincidence (or perhaps divine plan) alone.
I also didnt start out thinking you were simple-minded but that opinion is undergoing rapid reevaluation:saint:

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
You're the one who brought up general Christianity hating on women, not me. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church is *not* the only issue here.


Actually, that's specifically why I said (especially catholicism) in my original post. Christianity and Judaism do share some very anti-female sentiments within their stories.

For instance: Original Sin:

I'm not sure that you can place the fall of humans from bliss solely on the shoulders of a woman, make her a tempteress who tainted her poor impressionable husband Adam, and claim that a religion is not anti-female.

Adam's first wife, Lilith, which I found interesting enough to do a loose plot segment for in UL.
http://www.lilitu.com/lilith/lil_alt-myth.html


You can argue that each of these examples is just a story, but research shows that what is more memorable to humans is a plot, not a dictation.

-M

[Goretawn]

OK, having grown up RC, going to sunday school, receiving my first comunion and being confirmed and all the rest of that religion force fed to me as a child has resulted in me not going to church but about a donzen times in the last 20 years. Force feeding a religion is not a way to develope followers.

I have seen a lot of quotes from the Bible. Nice book of historical fiction. Case in point, it was written 600-800 years after the man named Jesus actually lived. If you honestly believe most things in there are fact, then you are sadly mistaken. Another case in point, without looking at the initial posting, what was exactly said? It is just what a bunch of people thought was a moral right at the time of writing. Yes, being a student of archaeology, many aspects of the locations and some of the actions actually happened, but of historical significance only. What was actually said and specifically done are just a nice story.

If you believe in the divinity, that is all great grand and wonderful, but then you should also believe that "God" gave you an inherant right to make your own decisions. Your choices to have sex before, during, and after marriage (which is just another formality of two people who decide to be faithful to eachother and just want a ceremony). Your choices to have same sex relatoins is also your choice. Hey, free will, is it not wonderful.

The church is just trying to enforce standards set by a nice story book written over 1200 years ago. It has no bearing on the current world views and thus, everyone has their own right to choose as they will as it fits into their personal morals.

[DeV]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
For instance: Original Sin:

I'm not sure that you can place the fall of humans from bliss solely on the shoulders of a woman, make her a tempteress who tainted her poor impressionable husband Adam, and claim that a religion is not anti-female.

-M I agree, and in playing Devil's Advocate I would say that if the blame is placed solely on the shoulders of a woman, Eve, just imagine how much power she unknowingly bestowed at that point in time. This" lowly woman" was able to use her powers of persuasion to tempt her superior, Adam, to disobey Him, The Creator.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Goretawn
Case in point, it was written 600-800 years after the man named Jesus actually lived.That's 60-80 (though I've heard as early as 40 and as late as 120, I've never heard anything close to 600).
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I'm not sure that you can place the fall of humans from bliss solely on the shoulders of a womanI'm sure that I don't. Eve made her choice, Adam made his choice. They both knew it was wrong, they did it anyway. An indictment of humanity, to be sure, but not specifically of women, whether you take the story as history or allegory.
You can argue that each of these examples is just a story, but research shows that what is more memorable to humans is a plot, not a dictation.Ok. I don't get your point about people remembering plot. I've never tried to speak for the positions of the billions of Catholics that have existed throughout time. We're talking about Catholicism.
Actually, that's specifically why I said (especially catholicism) in my original post.All women, especially female murderers, kill people. The fact that I said "especially female murderers" doesn't mean I didn't say "all women kill people".

[ElanthianSiren]

The stories are indoctrinated with anti-female sentiment. People remember plot well, hence they also remember well the values expressed in those stories, much better than some obscure passages about how equal men and women are, which are not obviously held in much regard by the RCC.

-M