Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[humble_in_doubt]

But sex is not considered a taboo in the CC.

yeah right. Frankly Josie I don’t want to discuss the views of the CC with regard to sex. I don’t think I can do that without being harsh.

You are so fixated on giving me statistical facts when the truth of the matter is that this is more a manifestation of a morally depleted society.

our society is far more moral today than it’s ever been. I equate freedom with morality, I believe Jim Crow and segregation was aberrant and immoral, I believe forcing women to have life threatening back alley abortions was immoral, I believe a social structure that compelled the molested and abused to remain silent was immoral, etc.

I also believe denying gay people equal rights is immoral … so we’re not all the way there yet (but I suspect we will be soon enough).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

HD,

You are rude to people who do not share your point of view. How rational is that? You’re telling everybody else their on a diatribe. You’re on a diatribe, and you sound ridiculous.

at least I generally use cognizant grammar

 

[guanophore]

Actually, Eve is a prime example of why God’s Word is not preserved orally.

No, Moon. Deceit and disobedience cannot nullify the power of God to preserve His word.

How do you think the story of Adam and Eve got thousands of years from them to Moses? If you have no faith in God to preserve His Word in people, then you have no basis to believe anything that Moses wrote before He came on the scene!

Adam was told by God that he was prohibited from eating the fruit of one of the trees in the garden (Gen. 2:16-17). Obviously after the creation of the woman Adam orally passed this commandment on to Eve.

Obviously he did a very poor job, if that was the case.

But what does Eve say to the serpent?Gen 3:2-3 "The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it **or touch it**, or you will die'"She ADDED to God's Word and, it is recorded, the serpent blatantly contradicted it.

Well, Moon. You were not there, so you don’t know that God didn’t command her not to touch it. She would have been better off, as would we all, had she followed that command!

We see both of these happening in oral tradition today.

Well, Moon, what can I say? You are using an example of oral tradition to “prove” that it is not reliable. Your argurment, therefore, has no basis.

For this reason God has preserved His Word in theopneustos Holy Writ. Jesus is the prime example of why God has done so. When tested by Satan He Himself responded with “It is written…” He knew the Scriptures and Satan fled.

the catholic obedience to the Apostolic command to preserve the Traditions just as they were handed down to us does not, in any way, minize the importance of Scripture. It just acknowledges that God’s revelation is not confined to Scripture.

 

[josie_L]

according to your religious diatribe greed is always bad (I never said your mythology treated greed kindly). However, I’m talking reality not the virtues of primitive old testament poets.

Capitalism is not about greed per se, so there is no conflict between our “mythology” with capitalism.

the poor, handicapped, etc. don’t always have to be with us. We can in theory evolve to a state where these things are eliminated (through humane means of course). When we learn why people are born with congenital defects we can mitigate them. If we allow ourselves to become more enlightened and as we move beyond ancient superstition with no rational basis, we can overcome ignorance and poverty.

If anything your religion enables poverty and ignorance.

Catholicism is not an enemy of progress, and anyone who knows the views of the Church concerning such issues would not say such things?

I’m not a sociologist so I can’t comment on your opinion here. All I’m saying is the method I prefer to analyze these questions is logic as opposed to ancient mythology (I wasn’t necessarily providing answers).

Logic led to the first eugenics movement and nuclear weapons. Lets say that logic minus conscience/ethics is . . . . bad.

no better way to instill loyalty among the sheep then to make them believe it’s us against them. It’s a classic tactic … and I see it for what it is.

We’re not against anyone where do you get these ideas?

 

[josie_L]

yeah right. Frankly Josie I don’t want to discuss the views of the CC with regard to sex. I don’t think I can do that without being harsh.

Frankly Francis I don’t want to talk about it either (because it’s aggravating me to no end).

our society is far more moral today than it’s ever been. I equate freedom with morality, I believe Jim Crow and segregation was aberrant and immoral, I believe forcing women to have life threatening back alley abortions was immoral, I believe a social structure that compelled the molested and abused to remain silent was immoral, etc.

And who do you think helped in bringing about the end to segregation, the Church. And I’ve told you many times over, the amount of women dying from illegal abortions was practically negligent compared to the millions of babies being killed. How can you support such a solution? You just had to bring up the abuse has if this is all there is to the CC?

I also believe denying gay people equal rights is immoral … so we’re not all the way there yet (but I suspect we will be soon enough).

We’re not denying anyone rights, we are preserving marriage.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Capitalism is not about greed per se, so there is no conflict between our “mythology” with capitalism.

capitalism is inherently about greed. It’s an economic and social system where trade and industry are privately controlled for profit rather than by the state. Indeed it was Adam Smith’s invisible hand, which posits through the pursuit of individual self-interest (greed), unintentionally produces a collective good for society.

Logic led to the first eugenics movement and nuclear weapons. Lets say that logic minus conscience/ethics is . . . . bad.

nuclear weapons served the purpose for which it was created … it saved millions of lives on both sides (we would have lost at least a million Marines, and the casualties on the Japanese side would have been unthinkable). Moreover, there’s a great argument that asserts the infusion of nuclear weapons into the cold war prevented an all out war between NATO and the Soviets (due to MAD or mutually assured destruction).

Yes nuclear proliferation is a problem today, but not an insurmountable problem if approached correctly (and in hindsight as long as we’re successful in our proliferation efforts the positives probably outweigh the negatives).

Eugenics, on the other hand, was never logical (the premise of that statement requires one to think racism is logical).

 

[SHW]

according to your religious diatribe greed is always bad (I never said your mythology treated greed kindly). However, I’m talking reality not the virtues of primitive old testament poets.

Can’t win an argument, so attack. The usual sad, unpleasant, atheist response.

the poor, handicapped, etc. don’t always have to be with us. We can in theory evolve to a state where these things are eliminated (through humane means of course). When we learn why people are born with congenital defects we can mitigate them. If we allow ourselves to become more enlightened and as we move beyond ancient superstition with no rational basis, we can overcome ignorance and poverty.

Evolve into immortality? You won’t “live” to see it. Greed guarantees ignorance and poverty.

If anything your religion enables poverty and ignorance.

The non-practice of our religion by bad Catholics enables poverty and ignorance. “No religion” also enables poverty and ignorance since there are no standards agreed upon by all.

I’m not a sociologist so I can’t comment on your opinion here. All I’m saying is the method I prefer to analyze these questions is logic as opposed to ancient mythology (I wasn’t necessarily providing answers).

Logic: correct reasoning; valid induction or deduction

It is perfectly logical to believe in a higher power. I “see” (empirical evidence ) that I am but a “speck” in this vast “universe.” Unless I commit suicide, I have no control as to when I die. I also had absolutely no control to choose whether to be born or not. So, Who has this “power” since it is not human power?

religious quotes won’t convince me of anything … give me statistics, evidence from empirical studies, etc. then we will have a rational foundation to discuss this issue with.

This is a Catholic Answers Forum even though this particular sub-forum includes non-Catholics. We are Scripture Catholics. Get used to it; or else you can always leave. Scripture is beneficial for all areas of life; personal, social, political and religious. “Statistics” and “studies” can be manipulated to “prove” whatever “needs” to be “proved.” However, God’s Word never changes. He is the same yesterday, today, forever. (cf. Hebrews 13:8)

Common sense also tells us: If able-bodied persons receive no hand-outs and they get hungry, then they will have to work in order to get money to buy food to eat, especially if guns are pointed at them and mad dogs are growling at them when they try to take food from others.

more religious diatribe … noticeably absent are references to reality?

Since children are “naturally” conceived during sex, parental responsibilities are inherent. This is the “natural” consequence of sex. Sex begets children. Children need parents. Get used to it.

and because you guys preach a life denying religion all you think people need is to merely breath and eat. Sorry to disappoint … but I think that’s a dark world view.

Don’t worry about it, okay? A different type of “darkness” will eventually be yours for eternity.

no better way to instill loyalty among the sheep then to make them believe it’s us against them. It’s a classic tactic … and I see it for what it is.

Speeches containing “us against them” slogans actually help to win wars. All England rallied after Winston Churchill’s speech: “You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.”

“I have not yet begun to fight.” John Paul Jones

“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” Nathan Hale

You get the picture…

Here’s my favorite to help me win my own personal spiritual battles:

"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9

Spiritual battles have eternal consequences. I hope to win! (Ephesians 6:10-12)

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Can’t win an argument, so attack. The usual sad, unpleasant, atheist response.

there was no attack … I simply provided my opinion of the truth (and oh … talk about the pot calling the kettle black)

Evolve into immortality? You won’t “live” to see it. Greed guarantees ignorance and poverty.

who defines morality? many centuries ago it was perfectly moral for your church to burn dissenters at the stake. Now it’s not moral … but not because your church magically woke up one day & saw the light. We just refused to put it with it; so their morality was forced to evolve.

The question is why should I ever trust an institution who burned men alive in the name of a loving god; who I know capitulated to progressive thought because it had to, not because it wanted to? I say it’s illogical to trust such an institution, and indeed potentially dangerous to our civilization.

Don’t worry about it, okay? A different type of “darkness” will eventually be yours for eternity.

mythological fear tactics hold no sway over me.

Speeches containing “us against them” slogans actually help to win wars. All England rallied after Winston Churchill’s speech: “You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.”

“I have not yet begun to fight.” John Paul Jones

“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” Nathan Hale

You get the picture…

Here’s my favorite to help me win my own personal spiritual battles:

"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9

Spiritual battles have eternal consequences. I hope to win! (Ephesians 6:10-12)

my point exactly. It’s a tactic …

 

[PRmerger]

I strongly doubt that … but I’d love to see the study?

I will work on getting that.

 

[SteveGC]

who defines morality?

God does, actually.

humble_in_doubt:

many centuries ago it was perfectly moral for your church to burn dissenters at the stake. Now it’s not moral … but not because your church magically woke up one day & saw the light. We just refused to put it with it; so their morality was forced to evolve.

It was perfectly moral? To what decree or proclamation from the Church are you referring wrt these actions? Perfectly moral?

 

[guanophore]

Then do some history reading for yourself, PR. Get out of that Catholic rut of having everything told to you. If you take the effort you might appreciate the result.

I found this reimark rude, insulting, and disrespectful. I have read many of your posts where you degrade Catholics for accepting what the Church teaches (“everything told to you”).

You also imply that Catholics do not read, study, ponder, question and research. This is grossly disrespectful for the level of Catholic scholarship on CAF.

You were asked to provide documentation for your assertion. Instead of providing it,you have attacked the person who was asking for it.

 

[PRmerger]

But sex is not considered a taboo in the CC. And the Church very well knows the natural impulses that we have, however, sex is sacred. And its sacred because such a gift was meant to be cherished within the confines of marriage (a sacrament) not thrown about like yesterday’s leftovers. People have made everything that is good in life a commodity, a means to an end. People use other people for sexual gratification and nothing more. This kind of mentality is what leads to prostitution, promiscuity, pornography . . . etc.

Indeed! The CC has “declared war on a warped and destructive form of” sexuality.

From the exquisite “Deus Caritas Est” by Pope B16,
But it in no way rejected eros as such; rather, it declared war on a warped and destructive form of it, because this counterfeit divinization of eros actually strips it of its dignity and dehumanizes it. Indeed, the prostitutes in the temple, who had to bestow this divine intoxication, were not treated as human beings and persons, but simply used as a means of arousing “divine madness”: far from being goddesses, they were human persons being exploited. An intoxicated and undisciplined eros, then, is not an ascent in “ecstasy” towards the Divine, but a fall, a degradation of man. Evidently, eros needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, but a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

It was perfectly moral? To what decree or proclamation from the Church are you referring wrt these actions? Perfectly moral?

A writ of the church? How about the actions of the church and its inquisition (actions do speak louder than words). Are you saying it’s OK to burn human beings alive at the stake for mere dissent? Why then should I view you as any different than the hard line Iranian government who murdered protesters of its recent election, or the Taliban who killed little girls in soccer stadiums because the wind blew their dress too high? Indeed why shouldn’t any rational person view religion as a threat to our democratic society? Thankfully I doubt you speak for most theists (unless I’m misconstruing your reply), although from what I can see you do represent the propensity of theism.

 

[PRmerger]

I strongly doubt that … but I’d love to see the study?

The study was “Sex in America: A Definitive Survey”
Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata,

“Couples with long-lasting marriages indicate that the practice of religion is an important factor in marital happiness. Indeed, David Larson’s systematic reviews indicate that church attendance is the most important predictor of marital stability. Others have found the same result.Twenty years ago it was first noted that very religious women achieve greater satisfaction in sexual intercourse with their husbands than do moderately religious or non-religious women.The Sex in America study published in 1995, and conducted by sociologists from the University of Chicago and the State University of New York at Stonybrook, also showed very high sexual satisfaction among “conservative” religious women.From the standpoint of contemporary American media culture, this may appear strange or counter-intuitive, but the empirical evidence is consistent.” (source here)

And more: “Faithfully married people report being extremely satisfied with the physical intimacy in their relationships, more so than all other sexually active people. Married men and women are least likely to associate sex with feelings of fear, anxiety, or guilt. Also, unmarried couples who abstain from premarital sex are less likely to separate or divorce after marriage. Further, studies show that brides and grooms who have practiced chastity are less likely to have attitudes about marriage that contribute to adultery, divorce, and lower satisfaction with a married partner.”

 

[PRmerger]

Then do some history reading for yourself, PR. Get out of that Catholic rut of having everything told to you. If you take the effort you might appreciate the result.

Ah, so it seems that you do not have any documentation of your absurd and bizarre claim that our priests do not read Scripture.

Interesting that when you ask for Scripture to back up Catholic doctrines, you’ve never once been let down. When you demanded a list of the 40,000 denominations, you were provided with the source.

But when you’re asked to provide a resource for your claim, you come up with the above retort?

So, again, moon, where’s your source?

 

[SteveGC]

A writ of the church? How about the actions of the church and its inquisition (actions do speak louder than words). Are you saying it’s OK to burn human beings alive at the stake for mere dissent? Why then should I view you as any different than the hard line Iranian government who murdered protesters of its recent election, or the Taliban who killed little girls in soccer stadiums because the wind blew their dress too high? Indeed why shouldn’t any rational person view religion as a threat to our democratic society? Thankfully I doubt you speak for most theists (unless I’m misconstruing your reply), although from what I can see you do represent the propensity of theism.

that’s the only thing that stands out as an appropriate, meaningful response from this post of yours. And here I thought your were “logical”.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This thread is now closed.

God bless!

Rachel