K
kathmandu
Guest
[/quote]
I am entitled to believe what I believe. God did give us free will and discernment after all.
- Status
I am entitled to believe what I believe. God did give us free will and discernment after all.
B
benedictus2
Guest
K
kathmandu
Guest
Many people do not like children and are honest enough to say so. If he does not have children it is a good thing. He would not be a good parent. This person is wise enough to know this. You have made a decision not to have children. Why is he not allowed to make his decision and be honest about it.Aah LeC. With every post you dig your self deeper into the quagmire
Children are like hair that one can just cut off.
That goes for you as well. As I said, your mom has a lot to answer for.
Or maybe the doctor was to blame for saying she was pregnant when it was actually a humongous cancerous tumor.
Nope, according to you, you are a disease. That is why your position is laughable. A cancer complaining that there are too many cancers already. A cancer saying it doesn’t want other cancers around.
Oh and if you have a wife or husband, they are also right smack in that category. You might actually inform him/her of their current status as I believe he/she is not aware of this.
Well according to you, anything is permissible so killing one’s neighbour is permissible if one so happens to dislike to them.
Hoping that levity will mask the evil bent? Sorry it didn’t work.
And I will type eeeveeeen sssslllloooooooowwwweeerrr. I t h a s n o t h I n g t o d o w I t h l I k e s o r d I s l I k e s.
I think you need to brush up on comprehension. The points raised here have nothing to do with the charm or their company nor of the necessity of having them. I thought you would have got that by now.
Aaah, obviously you are not exercising the rational faculty again since you failed to make the connection that has been very plainly shown.
Read them a few times and you’ll get it.
C
copperblade
Guest
Do you believe in miracles? Both the virgin birth and the lotus-born?
B
benedictus2
Guest
Okay, this is the kind of posts that takes us nowhere and just makes this discussion go round and round.
Please take note: Never in my posts have I said that he - or anyone else for that matter - is not allowed to make his decision and be honest about it.
He has decided to not have children and who are we to twist his arm to do other wise.
But the thing is, he comes into this forum (which he didn’t have to), and makes a declaration of WHY he thinks his position is correct.
The issues being brought up on this thread have nothing to do with a person’s decision but the reasons that go towards making that decision.
The WHYS (the reasons) are what is being put under scrutiny here because we can objectively look at the reasons and find out whether they are good reasons (logical and based on truth) or not (illogical and fuzzy on the truth).
What I have been doing is exposing the inconsistencies and the lies behind the justification that people put forward for their decision.
If he wants to practice ABC that is up to him, but let us expose the bankrupt justifications behind such a practice so at least he is in possession of the other perspective and is fully aware of its evil.
So far all he has come back with are just an insistence on his will and his decision with no real rational rebuttal of our arguments.
Christ said that the truth will set us free. But the condition for this He sets forth a few verses prior by saying that those who dwell in His Word are the ones who will find the Truth and this Truth will set them free.
L
Le_Cracquere
Guest
“Can just cut off”? No. Bound and required to cultivate? No, as well.Aah LeC. With every post you dig your self deeper into the quagmire
Children are like hair that one can just cut off.
That goes for you as well. As I said, your mom has a lot to answer for.
Or maybe the doctor was to blame for saying she was pregnant when it was actually a humongous cancerous tumor.
And I’ll put down your beef-witted swipes at my sainted mater to a category error: finding plaguelike parallels in many behaviours of average children does not equate to believing them an agglomeration of cancer cells, nor does it require other people to share the individual’s opinion. Luckily for me, my mother thought rather more of children than I do. I don’t share her tastes, but I respected them, as I do yours. Not that you’d return the favour or anything. Ah, well.
Again, I’ll refer you to the above. It’s okay to stop using the site’s “confused” emoticon, by the way; we can just mentally insert it throughout.Nope, according to you, you are a disease. That is why your position is laughable. A cancer complaining that there are too many cancers already. A cancer saying it doesn’t want other cancers around.
Oh and if you have a wife or husband, they are also right smack in that category. You might actually inform him/her of their current status as I believe he/she is not aware of this.
At this point, you’ve graduated from drawing odd implications from my stance, to apparently arguing with the stances of earlier people who aren’t me. Please breathe into a bag for a few seconds, and focus on the points and people you’re currently addressing.
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
Hmm, perhaps it is fitting that the same protestant denomination that started because of a guy who didn’t want to be faithful to his wife is also the same denomination that was the first to allow contraception. 
B
benedictus2
Guest
Yes. As I said before, it is all par for the course that they start with contraception, then priestesses, then actively gay priests … It was all downhill right from the beginning.Hmm, perhaps it is fitting that the same protestant denomination that started because of a guy who didn’t want to be faithful to his wife is also the same denomination that was the first to allow contraception.
B
benedictus2
Guest
As I said earlier, you are just sinking deeper the more you try to extricate your self.
If a child is just facial hair then “can just cut off?” yes. Facial hair totally disposable. Children same.
Cultivate? Are they now some sort of vegetable?
Your initial reply was to the disease analogy. But let’s switch to the impersonation of a punishment. Since that also applies to you, then yes, I agree your mother must be a saint. After all, any ordinary mother would have just gotten rid of a punishment wouldn’t they?
So one wonders why a “punishment” such as you should think that other “punishments” should not be allowed equal right to be “punishments” if they so wish.
Luckily for you your mother don’t share your tastes which is why you are here able to tell all and sundry your tastes.
Oh but I respect your right to state your opinion. But your opinion is to be quite honest ain’t much. It’s all about me, me, me, me. How can one respect the opinion that children are of equivalent value as facial hair. Of course that goes for you and whatever significant other you may have.
Facial hair that has grown can be shaved off without so much as an after thought. So the same applies to you and to any child or any human being?
Naaah, putting it there is better. I like the emoticons in CAF. I wish they are available in ordinary email.
Quite wrong. You argued that “not every one likes children”, so you make what is permissible contingent on solely on what one “likes”. Extend that further and one can argue that it is okay to get rid of that one does not like based solely on this “like/not like” criteria.
Hmmm, I just had a thought of Nero doing another thumb up/thumb down gesture to signal the fate of one more possible lion fodder.
If it is good to eliminate “children who are doing very good impersonations of punishment”, then why not apply that criteria to anyone who does not meet up to our mark of “impersonations of blessings”.
L
Le_Cracquere
Guest
Okay, if you’re not being wholly serious–which I’m beginning to suspect–that’s a good one, and kudos! You’re reminding me of a humour/science article from this very morning, with a passage about “galactic cannibalism”:
… … …
…
… look, are you sure you’re not some exceedingly subtle satirist? This is too flawless an impersonation of addled logical drift to be on the money. I DEMAND YOU BRING OUT ALLEN FUNT! If you’re just putting us on, declare it and the drinks will be on me.
If you say so. Got to tell you, though: I’m pretty content at this point to let folks peruse this thread for themselves, and be the judges of who’s getting quicksanded here, if anyone, or otherwise embarrassing himself.
B
benedictus2
Guest
The soul in denial: makes a proposition and when someone takes that argument to its logical conclusion fails (refuses?) to comprehend.
You should think about your arguments before you write them. Or else you will continue with the same error…
.
A second attempt at levity? You’re short on logic and humour will not compensate for lack of reason. Exercise the grey cells. That’s what we are after.
Me too. I am pretty content to let clear thinking folks to peruse this thread. Muddled thinking as you have presented don’t really count.
And yes. you are deeply in the quagmire. The fact that you have not come up with a suitable rebuttal is proof. Sorry but humour is not an acceptable substitute for logic in this instance. It just falls under the category of obfuscation.
E
Erethorn
Guest
However I look at the scriptural passage regarding Onan, cannot see it as condemning ABC as a whole.
The correct interpretation is that in certain circumstances, ABC (like any means) can be used for bad purposes and can therefore be sinful.
Furthermore, if all the world’s population were Catholics and were to adhere to the Church’s teachings regarding contraception, we would quickly end up with either: a) a huge overpopulation, resulting in famine all over the world, or b) a population of largely sexualy inactive people. It’s nonsense.
The correct interpretation is that in certain circumstances, ABC (like any means) can be used for bad purposes and can therefore be sinful.
Furthermore, if all the world’s population were Catholics and were to adhere to the Church’s teachings regarding contraception, we would quickly end up with either: a) a huge overpopulation, resulting in famine all over the world, or b) a population of largely sexualy inactive people. It’s nonsense.
A
alongexpected
Guest
One thing that always amuses/annoys me about the strongly religious is how passionately they defend their religion’s or denomination’s doctrines. How fervently they believe that their interpretation of a trans- and re-translates book is the only correct one. Cant you admit that your way might be incorrect? You don’t know for sure.
Maybe there is a god or gods; I just really don’t think so. If there is, and he, she, it, or they ask me why I didn’t believe…I’d say something like "Well, dammit! There was a multitude of beliefs competing for my soul…what was I supposed to do? Blindly believe that I was randomly born into the one true faith? We were never given any proof, just a bunch of contradictory “evidence” that was centuries or millennia old.
P.S. I do NOT want to read how the bible, your children being born, or how the sun came out a minute after you prayed for the rain to stop as proof or evidence that your god exists. All religions have holy books, prophets, and miraculous stories to choke a horse.
Maybe there is a god or gods; I just really don’t think so. If there is, and he, she, it, or they ask me why I didn’t believe…I’d say something like "Well, dammit! There was a multitude of beliefs competing for my soul…what was I supposed to do? Blindly believe that I was randomly born into the one true faith? We were never given any proof, just a bunch of contradictory “evidence” that was centuries or millennia old.
P.S. I do NOT want to read how the bible, your children being born, or how the sun came out a minute after you prayed for the rain to stop as proof or evidence that your god exists. All religions have holy books, prophets, and miraculous stories to choke a horse.
E
Erethorn
Guest
The fact that there are many different religions/points of view does not mean that one of them can’t be the correct one.
The fact that one was born in a certain religion does not prevent the possibility of that religion being the true one.
That’s why God (or nature, if you like) has created you with a brain: to look into them all and judge for yourself. That’s what I did and that’s how I arrived at catholicism.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Then why did you even bother posting?
The thread is about how a Christian can possibly defend contraception and you obviously are not a Christian so what value is your opinion in the matter?
B
Bianconeri
Guest
Wrong title, should be: Catholics defend it.
Seriously the bible doesnt talks about any birth-control at all, why would a condom be forbidden? There is no obvious reason for that, its just an opinion of the pope of yours. Who is actually already getting back on it, with all the African story and all.
Why do other Christians use birth-control??
Simply because you can use it if you want it.
There is no biblical law against it. Therefore i see no reason to not use it.
Seriously the bible doesnt talks about any birth-control at all, why would a condom be forbidden? There is no obvious reason for that, its just an opinion of the pope of yours. Who is actually already getting back on it, with all the African story and all.
Why do other Christians use birth-control??
Simply because you can use it if you want it.
There is no biblical law against it. Therefore i see no reason to not use it.
P
Peepers
Guest
“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:”
Maybe I am dense. Would someone please explain to me how using a condom is an intrinsically evil method of preventing pregnancy. while using the “rhythm method” is not evil? Both means of contraceptive are “unitive” while the intent in each case is not to have sex and not to “procreate”. There is no difference in intent, only in method.
Maybe I am dense. Would someone please explain to me how using a condom is an intrinsically evil method of preventing pregnancy. while using the “rhythm method” is not evil? Both means of contraceptive are “unitive” while the intent in each case is not to have sex and not to “procreate”. There is no difference in intent, only in method.
S
sulkow82
Guest
This comes across as a false equivalence. Consider what the Catechism says:
This quote can be applied to both the example of vitamins and the abortion issue. While both are examples of applied science on the human body, the similarities end there. The taking of vitamins is considered “morally clean” because we do this to stay healthy. This can truly be said to be for our own body’s benefit. However, abortion by definition does not benefit the unborn. Science is a precious resource when it is for the benefit of all.
S
sulkow82
Guest
For me “desensitized” is the wrong word. One time I was in line for the Sacrament of Confession (in preparation for Easter). I was looking at the stain glass windows we have which show Christ carrying the Cross to his death (Stations of the Cross). I also looked at the Cross we have over our alter. It brought a tear to my eye (literally). This was not because of being horrified that the Church would display such things openly. I cried because I thought "Wow, Christ. “You went through ALL THAT $#!&… for ME???” The Catholic Church says "yes, but Christ wasn’t finished. He also resurrected for me too. It was a humbling event and my Confession was that much more meaningful for me.
S
sulkow82
Guest
God bless you for stating this.
There are examples in modern society where Jharek’s point holds up. Pick the person whom you think is the worst President the U.S. ever had. Do his flaws invalidate the Presidency or the U.S. as a whole? No it doesn’t… Then this is all the more true because the Church was instituted by Christ himself.
- Status