P
Pete_1
Guest
Did you call me an idiot? I asked an honest question, I am not a troll.
- Status
S
Sair
Guest
I have no expectation that Catholics should turn from their faith. I used to be one, and the rest of my family still are Catholic. Just because I have renounced the Catholic faith, that isn’t a reason for me to expect that others will do so. By the same token, I wouldn’t be cast into despair if they did, because I don’t believe that renouncing the faith automatically results in living an immoral life and being eternally damned.
I would dispute that all of Catholic morality is powerful enough to bind everyone. It’s quite apparent, even from this thread alone, that some people - perhaps many people, if you take into account all the people who don’t read this forum - do not feel bound to obey the Church’s teaching. Also, you’ll find that many of the fundamental principles, such as love and honesty, are shared by Christians, Muslims, Pagans and Atheists alike. These principles were not invented by the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I don’t claim any knowledge or otherwise of souls, although I have done a good deal of speculating. I would certainly like to think that there is a spiritual aspect to existence, but if there is such a transcendental life force, I can’t believe that it is exclusive to humans. In any case, having a soul or otherwise does not change the fact that people can behave in a moral and civilised manner without reference to God. And sexual bonding between people can be a profoundly emotional - and spiritual, if you like - experience, without reference to Catholic teaching, and without resulting in procreation or being an aspect of marriage. In this I am speaking from my own experience, but I’d wager there’s a high probability that there are many others who have similar experiences. Just as I would also put money on people having had very negative experiences of sex, both within and without the context of marriage and procreation. As I’ve said many times now, everyone is different…
F
fix
Guest
There is plenty of information available that explains the teachings in these matters. Start with the CCC with references.
A
agangbern
Guest
That is true! For it is only God who can read the hearts of men. Only He knows surely why for example a person renounces his faith.
The ability to do (power) and the will to do (decision) are two different things. As to power, God is omnipotent, he can do it. But as to the decision to do it, God will not do it because it would violate man’s free will.
On the other hand, the system of morality that may be established without reference to God would have no real basis to speak even of free will. So too is true love, honesty, etc.,In the final analysis, these principles would find real meaning only if man recognizes their main source: GOD.
A
agangbern
Guest
Yes, you don’t have to believe what you do not want to believe. But while you were a Catholic before, you must have read Genesis. You knew how God created the animals. They were created by a mere word of command by God. For example: “Let the waters abound with life, and above the earth let winged creatures fly below the firmament of the heavens.”
But of man, God did not create him by a mere word of command. He particularly formed him, and then breathed into him a soul. God did not do it (breathing into) the animals but to man alone. Hence we have sufficient reason to believe that it was exclusive to man.
A
agangbern
Guest
Yes, they certainly can! But the question is: Would they? When man, for example hungers and thirsts for sex, what sufficient reason or force within him would stop him from raping innocent girls? None that I could see except basically love of God.
Yes, I agree with you as regards emotional bonding. But never as regards spiritual bonding apart from God.For spiritual bonding presupposes recognition of the existence of spirits. And God is one, and in fact the ultimate, spirit.
Sex is not always expected to result in procreation. What the Church disapproves is doing an act to assure that sex would not result to procreation. And one of such act is contraception. The Church does not prohibit sex. But we should remember that there is a time for everything under the heavens. A time to have sex, and a time not to have sex.
C
Charles_22
Guest
You do have a correct point that it isn’t only sex which could degenerate into abuse, but this thread is about sex afterall.
C
Charles_22
Guest
I don’t know how we did it, but we got on the subject of fidelity within marriage. I believe you made the statement that a husbands sex outisde of his marriage was healthy, did you not? If so, it’s only natural I would pursue that angle. In any case, while it is not the only form of extra-marital sex, it is the one most proving there’s no such thing as healthy sex outside of marriage. As far as the other form of extra-marital sex not being healthy is concerned, I have addressed that already as well, though doubtlessly you didn’t find it sufficient.
The betrayal of trust only occurred because of that “healthy sex” you keep telling us about. The sex itself was also the betrayal. Now, would you care to tell us just how healthy a form of sex is that would not only betray trust but also possibly risk one’s life, and in more likely current worldly terms, risk one’s finances, property and children as well? You’re living in a dream world, where there’s no consequances for your actions. I don’t see facing all those consequences, just speaking from the selfish perspective of what it does to the male, as all that healthy; quite the opposite.
And do remember, as I said on the prior post, this is a thread about sex, and it is you that are commenting that extra-marital sex is healthy, so don’t go pulling that “other forms of sin” garbage you keep drudging up.
C
Charles_22
Guest
agangbern:
A
agangbern
Guest
If you have nothing to prove or disprove, then better keep silent. Give chance to others. For even the dull and ignorant, they have a story to tell.
P
PJM
Guest
Dear friend of Christ?
I can certainly understand why you and so many others would like your opinion to be true.
BUT it’s not!
Who gave us the Commandments? Hmmm, a hint. A 3 letter word beginning with “G and ending with a d”
Are mind, intellect, memory and will sometings that only Catholics have? of course not.
So can we agree that God is (and only) everything GOOD? (Logical)
And is “being fair,” “being Just”, a goodthing? Of course it is.
So if God is good, and fair and just, would God only judge Catholics on anything that is basically evil, and at times intrinically evil? Of course not!
What applies to one, applies to all. Some know and admit it, others chose to deny or ignore it, but that does not change the truth. Only conceals it.
Friend, if you believe in the existence of heaven and hell, you may want to rethink your position. If not, not to worry, you’ll find out THE truth, soon enough:thumbsup: Life is short, eterinity, is guess what? ETERNAL!
Love and prayers,
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
Sorry, I need to make a correction.
This…
I should not have repeated it because it is now unclear (and frankly, suspicious).
This…
Is a quote from a priest at one church (which included the Appeal’s presentation during the homily). It was contradicted by another priest at a different church I went to tonight (Vigil Mass), which also included a different Appeal presentation during the homily.
I should not have repeated it because it is now unclear (and frankly, suspicious).
E
Et_Cetera
Guest
Pete, you’re making too much sense for this thread. NFP is not as effective as other methods. So if you’re going to try to prevent pregnancy why not use the method that works better? If you’re building a house, you want bricks over cardboard right? In my opinion, the Church’s teaching on birth control is backward and dangerous. Ultimately, it can lead to many unwanted children who can’t be cared for properly. I’m pretty sure I’d rather not live than live miserably.
A
agangbern
Guest
There is simply no sense in trying to prevent pregnancy. It is looking at pregnancy as a disease that should be prevented. No! Pregnancy is not a disease.
There is no such thing as unwanted children. There are only selfish adults.
S
Sair
Guest
Actually, there was no point at which I referred specifically to a husband having sex with a woman not his wife. The extramarital sex to which I referred was a generic term, meant to encompass any sex between people not married to each other. In any case, I’m not seeing how the existence of adultery ‘proves’ that sex independent of marriage is unhealthy. To my mind, adultery is harmful because it constitutes a betrayal of trust, not because it involves sex. I have some friends, some married, who live in open relationships, and this works for them. For them, extramarital sex is not betrayal of trust, and to be honest, I would consider that this removes the harm from the action.
If I have referred to any ‘other forms of sin’, it is to elucidate, through comparison and analogy, my opinions regarding sex, not to detract from the subject of debate.
S
Sair
Guest
I would suggest that if a person hungers that much after sex, then it is probably pathological; they are not likely to be hindered from acting upon their desire by love of God. They might go to confession afterwards and regret their actions, but love of God won’t necessarily stop their urges getting the better of them.
As for sexual urges that fall within the range of normal, it doesn’t take faith in God to realise that rape is a wrong action, because it violates the personal autonomy and dignity of the victim. Furthermore, rape is rarely, if ever, primarily about sex - it’s about the perpetrator demonstrating that they have power over the victim, and can take away, by brute force, their right of decision regarding their own body. It’s about the perpetrator assuming that they have rights of dominance, or of having their own way, that trump the victim’s right to self-determination. This is why rape is often used as a weapon of war and a method of torture.
S
Sair
Guest
No, pregnancy is not a disease. It’s fairly evident that many women want to get pregnant - how many people want to contract a disease? However, from the point of view of unwanted children vs selfish adults, it seems to me that there are many people out there who, for one reason or another, do not want children, and I would never presume to say that every reason for not wanting children is selfish. Sometimes the decision is due to a desire not to pass hereditary conditions on to children; sometimes it is from an honest acknowledgement that you do not have the means to raise children (or another child) in any real degree of comfort; sometimes it’s because you want to pursue other goals that would leave insufficient time to devote to raising children; sometimes it is from an honest appraisal of one’s personality that results in a decision not to become a parent. So far it looks like all these reasons are actually taking the putative child’s needs into consideration - yet you regard this as selfish? Why make such a sweeping judgement when you don’t know the circumstances of other people?
P
PJM
Guest
My dear friend in Christ,
** Point 1.** I’m not sure that one could prove that conterceptive sex is less likely to result in a pregnacy than NFP, practiced correctly and faithfully. (Seems to me God is a pretty good designer.)
Point 2. On the topic of unwanted children.
Code:
Frankly this is a highly selfcentered statement. Marrige takes two, a man and a women. It is NEVER simply about I and me, rather it needs to be always about "us" and what God wants for US!Please look at these facts:
God is the Creator of everything, including me and you.
God’s presence is necessary (essential) is keeping us and the
planets in existence. No other explaination is feasible.
Every “unprotected” sexual act does not result in a pregnancy.
Why is that? (because God, desides, and that is the way it
should be, if a pregnancy occurs.
Marriage has two equally signifiant purposes according to our
MAKER!
Pro-creative, and Unitive (the “cement” that holds a marriage
togeather.) Not knowing, or caring about this reality, is the very
reason why 1/2 of marriages today end in Divorce
Guess what? When you don’t use “the tools” the way the
Manufacture has designed them to be used. Stuff happens!
Your postion relies on YOU!!! That means your not relying on
God. Guess which way orives to be better?
My friend, it is factually your position that HAS BEEN proven to
be “backward,” (1/2 marriages = divorece isn’t progress,) and as
for dangerous? Hmmmm isn’t abortion dangerous? Its MURDER!
Oh, and by the way. Are there so many abortions because
conterceptives work sooo unfailingly?
Friend, your not close to being correct, much less RIGHT
Find God and you’ll find his Love and The Truth!
C
Charles_22
Guest
Of course, you don’t see the sex in adultery as the problem, rather the trust, because it defeats your point of extra-marital sex as being healthy. It seems you should re-phrase yourself and state instead that you see fornication as healthy.
Well sex is a form of trust, as it was meant to bind the couple, however, it’s rather a contradictory binding when there’s an ‘open’ relationship, because that same sex can be used with anybody else totally without any commitment if need be. I mean, that’s the whole definition of ‘open’ isn’t it, that they can leave when they want, right? Elsewise, how is it open? And by what I understand of that alleged openess, any commitment whatsoever, even just an el cheapo ‘let’s stay together honey’ defies that definition to be open. It seems to me the truth of the matter is they want to cut their own way of committing, one that is binding when they well please and one that is not binding when they well please, IOW, cheap on both ends, just as long as it doesn’t come with much true commitment to the other, such as legal marriage does. But that is getting sidetracked from your extra-marital sex is healthy comment, but I think this and my prior comment on fornication was sufficient, it’s just much easier to assail your general point from the adultery angle.
Sure looked like you were trying to change the subject to me. When your point about sex isn’t being made well enough, shift to blaming people for thinking too much about sex.
You see, I quote you in a note to somebody else that was easy enough to find:
You said this to agangbern, if not also directly to me elsewhere as well. In agangbern’s case, he was referring to sex in a godless world, because it was the subject at hand. Any fool knows that man’s wickedness is not confined to sex, so quit stating the obvious as though it makes fools of our argument by not knowing that. It’s a real cheap tactic Sair, but I’m on to you.
- Status