What we have learned about the human body since then( and the entire universe) has grown dramatically in the last couple of decades.
That depends upon your concept of “dramatically”, I suspect. Having read a number of your posts, I have noticed that you seem to have a predilection for embellishment. Oh, and for misinformation and disinformation.
As an example, most of the experiements done on the human brain, were done on the “male” brain because the female brains’ behaviour fluctuated due to hormones so greatly this caused a distrubance in the data. Since the male brain was more hormonally stable, it has been the primary gender for brain research, up until the mid to late 90’s.
While your statement that most of the research on the human brain may well have been done of male subjects is possibly correct, your cause-effect scenario seems quite deficient.
This means all “reasearch” into human behaviour that your pope understand about the study of the brain…has historically come from the male brain.
Another bone-head conclusion jumped to: in other words, you’re admitting that there’s such a cavernous difference between the male and female brains that science cannot reasonably determine any meaningful conclusions about the female brain, from the study of the male brain, or, vice-versa?
You must have been affecting the (Dame Edna) male side of you on this day.
The study of the female brain, is very very new. It is hard to do…because our hormones shrink the brain every cycle, causing experimental data to fluctuate. Our brain also regrows every month. PMS is not something we just do. It’s something our brain does, when it realizes a baby is not made. It puts us back where we were before…ready to begin again.
Among other, perhaps more notable, consequences.
The study of the female brain is not “very, very new”. Only the book you seem to be compelled to be an adherant of, by Louann Brizendine. Much of her assertions are at great odds throughout the scientific community - including its women!
Mark Liberman calls most of her assertions “Urban Legends”. But, of course, he’s just a man.
During the last stages of pregnancy the female brain shrinks to 80% and then “regrows” in a completely different way as a result of her biological drive to take care of her infant.
Here, folks, is a clear example of mis- and dis- information: the percentage quoted by Louann Brizendine is a “possible” shrinkage of 8%, not 20%.
itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004370.html
This is new information, not something that was made available during this particular theology. So yes…the studies done, during the Theology of the body, were done in ignorance. This theology wasn’t an attempt at cruelty it was based on the best knowlege at /the time. But to follow it today, is in fact rather cruel and ignorant
Interesting that in its first iterations, this book had a cover that was “oddly 1970-ish”. -
Language Log, by Mark Liberman
I have one request of you: “Document or retract.”
As the human world changes, so will your religion. The world will however…change a lot faster. Religion will follow. It alway’s does.
Document or retract. PLEASE!
A new ‘theology of the body" will be created by a pope, who is right now…just a little boy. We wont’ know him…but he will create a new way in accordance with new understandings
I am on the side of those who don’t hold out much hope for your predictions coming true, especially since your “proofs” have absolutely no
gravitas.
Sex IS unitive which is actually the “primary” mechanism for a males desire for sex.
Unbelievable!
The primary reason men want to have sex is
PLEASURE! If God had not made it “pleasurable”, at least for us humans, men wouldn’t do it! Think about it. No one would - except some lunatic scientist who, despite perhaps not arriving at the intended conclusion, would have to ponder how our race has thus far survived.
He doesn’t want to have sex to make babies all the time.
Perhaps not, but, this is irrelevant
No…men do not desire to have sex to spread their seed. Neither do females. This view is based on ignorance of human biology.
“Desire” has nothing to do with this concept. That is your confusion.
Their natural desire for sex, has very little to do with baby making at all. Baby making, is an end result. Nature…does not support this belief at all. It completely and utterly negates it.IE…humans do not “primarly” have sex to make babies. They have sex, so that they bond together AS A COMMUNITY (ie with other sexual partners in their community) and will remain together(individuall) with the child MAY create. Your theology…as gotten it…completely backwards.
And, you continue to not shatter our hopes, aspirations, and illusions about you.
You may be surprised(and horrified) at what you find.
jd
That is just your opinion. Frankly, having actually read Theology of the Body and related works, I find that the Church’s teachings were and are *completely *accurate. Look at Paul VI’s predictions regarding the negative fruits of contraception… each and everyone has come true.