So then, what, exactly, is wrong with fornicating for the hell of it? Is it the pleasure involved that is a “sin”? Can’t have that can we? Fun = heresy! Never mind the fact that’s the reason most normal people have sex 90+% of the time. It’s called having a “healthy sex drive.” Imagine that.
Oh well, guess Catholics can masturbate instead. Oh wait…
What a ridiculously insane guilt trip.
Your solution, Happy Scrappy Hero Pup: ‘not to have sex at all’, is an idiotic one and you know it. These are married people. They’re not priests.
The church must educate them, instead of scaring the bejasses out of them.
If the people in Africa listen to the catholic church, the church ought to not only hand out condoms, but actually prescribe the birth-control pill.
If you, as a church, have that much power, you must make sure no further AIDS victims are born.
Or do you think a fornicator should be punished by getting a baby that lives for about a half year?
God punishes it’s children IN his children, right?
WRONG.
What about the baby’s for chrissakes?
You’re angry because someone is fucking around, Happy Scrappy Hero Pup, but you don’t mind if a child dies of a horrible disease because of it?
Maybe I didn’t make myself as clear as I’d have liked. By “condoning sin,” I meant issuing tacit approval of infidelity by encouraging cheating husbands by saying “if you’re going to cheat, use a condom.”
Condom use is not sinful in the prevention of disease. It is still sinful to prevent pregnancy, whether within marriage or not.
But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether it’s OK to blame the Church because you got AIDS- because you didn’t use a condom while engaging in infidelity.
I’m not sure what your argument is, holmes.
RedFury, this might be the Pit, but it’s not an outhouse. There’s decent debate going on here, so take your Catholic-bashing elsewhere.
Wow, that is some stone cold ignoring my point.
Yes, me, as well as an individuals own sense of what’s right, assuming they can separate it from the desire to keep there job.
They have, and I do anyway.
Oh Noes, someone disagrees with me! Oh, horror! Look I make plenty of blanket statements all the time, and I don’t see a problem with them for while I might be stubborn, I am not able to see any logical hole in my arguments, and I am being intellectually honest. If you ever deem to not use words best keep hear, I welcome you to witness my blanket statements at:
What things are like in my world. How about yours?, Why do I hafta kill Amalek? I don’t wanna!, Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. A question about Islam v. Christianity. andAt what point am I responsible for the behavior of groups I join? I ncidentally, looking over the past threads you have started, it looks like you never truly crawled out of the pit, but I welcome the challenge.
gum, you need to get past what the Church should do.
The Church is doing what it believes it should. Spirituality AND statistics are on its side. “People are gonna fuck?” Sure they are. And they’re gonna pay the consequences. Want to avoid the consequences? Don’t assume the risk.
You and Anaamika and the others who say the Church ought to do this and ought to do that are trying to impose your own morality on others as well, or has that little nugget escaped you?
And where have I come out against anything, gum? Do you remember what my opening point was? If not, go back and read the OP again.
What makes your sense of what’s right more acute than someone else’s?
Just because you can’t see them, pal, that does not mean that they aren’t there. You’ve been brought to heel more than a few times, and you will be again.
I don’t think you understand that you can’t decry the moral demands the Catholic Church puts on its adherents in the same sentence that you put moral demands on it.
I made a perfectly logical point concering sex, asswipe. Can’t say I am surpirsed you’ve failed to address it:
Spirituality AND statistics is not on its side. That would require a standard way of measuring that the spirituality of a Viking is any better than that of a catholic. Also, if you feel like pulling out statistics to support your side, than I am prepared to research the idea that priest have a higher rate of insanity than other groups due to their trying to integrate the ridiculous concept of three gods in one.
::Sigh:: Read it again.
Name more than one.
Yes, I can. I can say that it was wrong for the church to retain child abusing priests, in the same sentence that a priest says it is wrong for parents to leave their child alone, to give an example of a quite I read once.
It’s not ridiculous. You’re not smart enough to understand it.
No, you didn’t, asswipe. You asked what was wrong with fornication and called it “healthy” that a lot of people did it. Then you made some snide inquiries into why it’s sinful.
Then, in defense of this, you posted the opinion of someone else.
Smooth.
Then, along comes Scott_plaid, trying to inject the Vikings into a debate over whether Catholic or secular morality has better mechanisms to stop the spread of AIDS.
Scott, spirituality is on the Catholic Church’s side for the purposes of this argument because the Catholic life is much more successful at curtailing AIDS than the secular one.
Scott, statistics are on the Catholic Church’s side for the purposes of this argument because chastity is is more successful at curtailing AIDS than fornication.
And what do statistics on AIDS have to do with your theory that the concept of the Trinity makes priests go insane?
You’re an idiot. If you want to use something as a vehicle for rebellion, pick something less trendy than atheism. There are real atheists out there who can debate, who can engage in educated, civil discourse. There are real atheists out there who have a belief system of their own, rather than simply embracing blind, childish destruction and clamor. Get over yourself.
The defense of the church in this thread appears to be that they are allowed to do whatever so long as they really really believe in it, and no one else can call that evil or wrongheaded.
I don’t get it.
If an organization has and promotes Policy A, and disparages Policy B, when Policy A isn’t working and Policy B can and does, I’m right when I say that promoting Policy A is either stupid or evil. It is stupid when they don’t understand that it doesn’t work. It is evil when they know it doesn’t work and promote it anyway.
Saying Policy B is against church doctrine isn’t a defense of Policy A. Saying Policy A is what the church has always taught isn’t a defense of Policy A. The only defense possible for Policy A is whether it’s working. Is it working?
Well, for one thing, if you live in Africa, you stand a rather good chance of contracting AIDS.
Which I thought was the topic under discussion.
Yes, you could wear a condom, if you live in Africa and can afford one. This will reduce but not eliminate your chances of dying of AIDS. Or you can act chastely, as recommended by the Catholic church, and reduce your chances even further. With the added bonus that you won’t be patronizing prostitutes, raping or otherwise degrading women, infecting children, and doing the other things the Catholic church also defines as a “sin”.
Not “you” specifically, but still…
Regards,
Shodan
Not exactly, dirtbag. I said that most people engage in sex purely for fun – and yes, expressing one’s sexualty is most certainly healthy as any scientific study on the matter proves…regardless of what some old guy in a funny hat says.
Then again, you’d have to be able to think for yourself in order to realize as much.
Happy Scrappy Hero Pup, you call people asswipes, claim I need to be civil during a pitting, but you don’t have to, assume I am just an atheist, just to rebel to rebel, (which you pulled out of your ass, by the way), and you keep on repeating your points, without any cites, insisting that things are only the way you say they are, and get annoyed when people don’t agree with you. I repeat my points too, but at least I give a point for point answer and explanation to other peoples points, rather than refuse to answer because you don’t want to. What is it with you?
You’re an idiot. If you want to use something as a fuel for hatred, pick something less stale than religion. There are real christians out there who can debate, who can engage in educated, civil discourse. (Not that I am saying that they have to in the pit, unlike you) There are real christians out there who have a belief system of their own, rather than simply embracing blind, childish faith and clamor. Get over yourself.
No, you couldn’t – not if you’re a mindless drone that believes the crap emanating from the Vatican. That’s the topic I’m discussing.
See above.
Speak for yourself, pal. One can have plenty of sex without engaging in any of the above. As for the “sin” fearmongering bullshit…I have yet to hear what, exactly, is “sinful” about consenting adults adults engaging in intercourse. In fact, I maintain that it is perfectly natural and healthy behavior.
jgodess,
Well put. Succint and to the point.
Afraid your point will be lost of the mindless drones defending the murderous dogma promulgated by their “spiritual leaders.”
That does not excuse them for lying about the effectiveness of condoms and advocating people to not use life-saving protection. For all the effort this church expends on advocating against abortion and the so-called culture of death you would think they would do all they can to save lives. Instead they disseminated false information under the guise of aid to people that desperately need help. If the sole purpose of this chuch’s charity is to spread its moral code then it needs to stop claiming that it is protecting life.
After all of Jesus’s teachings about loving your neighbor and helping them regardless of their beliefs this is what happens? The largest christian orginization is more concerned about judging people and preaching down to them than saving their lifes? What a fucking shame.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I think you ought to be asking yourself that question. Disseminating false information that undoubtable killed people, not only protecting pedophiles in ministry but shuffling them around to different parishes so they can molest more children and thier bigoted and hateful message towards homosexuals. How many million deaths? How many thousand victims? How much harassment before you stop supporting this orginization?
Again I ask, what’s stopping other organizations that will educate and supply condoms to those who wish to fornicate for the sheer pleasure of it? Does anyone really believe that they can talk the Church into accepting this duty as well? It’s like trying to make a cat do a guard dog’s job. Ain’t gonna happen.
Nothing of course however the Catholic Church is the head of over 1-billion Catholics. That is 1/6th of the worlds population and a higher percentage of those able to give money. Certainly when the leaders of that orginization come out against so-called family planning aid that greatly reduces the amount going to these charities. To me its morally despicible to waste money on ineffective programs when there are alternatives that are proven effective. Its inexcusable for the church on top of that to spread misinformation about condoms and their effectiveness.
There are many reasons. One is that for the last forever or so, presidents of america have been christians, except for perhaps Abraham Lincoln, and that’s just baised on statements of his that could have gone either way. Anyway, they listen to the voice of “the churchgoers” and seeing as how the church goers are perceived to be against sex education, that’s what happens. No sex education. Here, or elsewhere that could use the U.S.'s aid in this matter.
There was one Catholic president, and he didn’t finish his term.
And, since many of you seem to be missing my point, go back and read the OP. Go back and read posts 14 and 23 where I spell out exactly what I’m pitting.
I am pitting people who want to assign culpability to the Church’s stance on condoms for giving them AIDS when they were perfectly happy to ignore the Church’s stance on adultery and fornication and forcible/coercive sex.
Of course, it’s quickly becoming an expose of people who think that the Catholic Church should act against its principles based on their say-so, as well as a fascinating insight into those who want to drag their own issues into the fight.
**
jsgoddess:** say what you mean. All this “A” and “B” is tiring, and, while you’re at it, go back and read the OP and tell me where I defend the Church.
treis: we’re talking about AIDS in Africa here. If you want to open up your own thread to trash my Church’s handling of its sinful members, why don’t you go do that? You may even find me agreeing with you.
RedFury: the debate isn’t over the sinfulness of fornication. The debate is over whether not fornicating reduces your risk of getting HIV or AIDS.
Scott_plaid: I never told you you needed to be civil; frankly, I think you are less capable of civility than you are of crafting a reasonable argument. I haven’t got time for you. Bring something to the table or get lost.
Let’s stay on point, people:
*
Place these in order of effectiveness in combating the spread of AIDS*: chastity, correct condom usage, incorrect condom usage.
*
Place these societies in order of likelihood of AIDS epidemic*: Catholic society, secular society.
Place these actions in order of likelihood that the Roman Catholic Church will take them: acting in a traditionally Catholic manner, condoning the breaking of its commandments, embracing secular mores.
(hint- the work’s already been done.)