The immaculate misconception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Watchman said:
How about… um…oh, let’s just toss this one out.

A study of over 400,000 homicides committed between 1976 and 1994 calculated the rate of uxoricide (the murder of a woman by her romantic partner). It was found that the incidence of uxoricide was nine times higher in women who cohabited with men than those who were married.

jstor.org/pss/20182377

And here are some non-lethal stats that show the same trend:
blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2011/07/20/science-of-sexism/

So, would that study permit me to recommend that couples not cohabit? Third-party harm and so forth?
Click to expand...
The least dangerous form of sex for women is actually homosexual activity.

Because there’s less chance of catching an STD (thanks to the absence of the fluid transfer that occurs during male/female and male/male sex) and no chance of pregnancy (which although natural and normal is a serious health concern for women, and can easily result in death).

To use your logic:
If women have sex at all, shouldn’t they refrain from all sexual activity except lesbian acts, because lesbianism is the least dangerous form of sex for them?
 
CEM5 said:
You bring up the practices of past eras and mistakenly say that the societies did not crumble into nothingness. This is not so: where are those societies today? Crumbled into nothingness.

The prostitutes of those times contracted STD’s, (and of course passed it on to their “clients”); had unwanted pregnancies, where those babies were tossed into a deep well/pit or left out of the city to die of exposure (or be consumed by the wildlife). This is how they practised failed contraception. There was no value for human life. Anthropologists have found such sites, and the bones were of babies 40 weeks gestation, suggesting they were killed right after birth.

The practice of homosexual activities among the soldiers was rampant and considered “normal” for a soldier was not permitted to marry unless they could afford a wife, which many could not. They had to obtain permission to marry. If they did marry, because of their abnormal sexual practices, the woman had to be dressed in the attire of a male soldier the first times in order to arouse the husband. Yeah, that is really “normal” eh? As well, there were many reported cases where the younger Roman soldiers were often assaulted against their will by their older superiors. This is what we call “rape”. That was accepted practice. So, nice, hey? And this is the society you look up to and present as an example to us in your OP.

As early as the third century, after the social collapse, homosexual acts, statutory rape, and other such abnormalities were legislated against. The rulers who accepted such abnormal acts, were in fact, homosexual and pedophiles themselves. Oh yes!!! Let’s not forget that pedophilia was an accepted practice as well, and sold boys, (children), for the sexual gratification of these men.

As for lesbian practices, there are records that some husbands would go so far as to kill their wives if caught, so not all ancient societies accepted this. As for the Island of Lesbos, it was run by males just as any ancient society of eras past. It was not an island filled with lesbians, and the word was derived from this island’s name because of the poetry (many lost) of a woman (Sappho) who wrote about her love of women, and who had a group of young women under her care for cultural instruction.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence for all these claims?
 
tonyrey said:
A superb survey of the sinister side of sex! It’s astonishing how many people fail to realise it’s often more dangerous than playing with high explosive… 🙂
Click to expand...
And its exactly this kind of attitude that trivializes and justifies violence in many forms.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
You’re forgetting something important Spock.
Catholicism (and Christianity in general) judges people not just on their sexual feelings but also their thoughts and emotions.

The Catholic Church disapproves of any sex act unless its within the context of marriage, open to life (e.g. no contraception), and the people involved have the right motivation (e.g. no lust).

This means that if a man or woman becomes lustful when having sex with their spouse, the Church considers the activitiy sinful. The Church only approves of a very very narrowly defined kind of sex.

Here’s a Catholic definition of Lust (source: newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm) for a bit of context:
The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.

Apparently you’re not supposed to crave or indulge when it comes to sex. If that’s true it appears that good Catholic sex is a non-pleasurable, joyless activity. The* problem *is that for the marital act to occur at all, base (e.g. instinctive) male arousal is (at the very least) required
Click to expand...
I think you missed a very important word: **inordinate. ** Lust is one of the seven deadly sins. It is not appropriate to be lustful. There is nothing wrong with sexual desire or sexual pleasure - it was created by God. It is when sex is reduced to simply a physical act with no attempt to show love and increase bonding with one’s spouse that it becomes lust - lust occurs when a person is treated as a mere object.
 
CEM5 said:
The NFP or “rhythm method” works with the natural God-given cycle of the woman’s body and does not prevent an artificial barrier between becoming “one” with ones spouse. The couple is still open to the possible conception of children, for only complete abstaining is 100 % sure. The NFP does not contribute to the possibility of “abortion” like the pill, or IUD can.

Working with the woman’s natural cycle is not using trickery or “cunning”. It does not alter the woman’s horomones, or prevent periods, whereas artificial contraception uses trickery and “cunning” by doing just this. Additionally, spermicides destroy sperm, whereas the NFP does not destroy human tissue of any type.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of a certain Youtube video: youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8;) 😉
 
John_Russell_Jr said:
… my dear friends ,

… on the harm of sin which is really moral evil , but natural evil though not moral is the result of human and angelic evil too – and most destructive i’m sure you will agree if honest , but is moral evil harmful to human beings ??? , yes , of course it is , my own theory is that , besides our whole world being turned upside down due to the fall for reasons i’ve gone into oft but can again if any ask , when man does evil this corrupts his mind and heart as he is being unnatural , and being unnatural is behaving in a manner human beings are not meant to , it always harms human beings when they are unnatural in any way and not only morally ,man is love and meant only to do gods will which is love …

… but this makes tthe mind and heart sick which can oft kill the soul , but there is much more , the sickness in heart , mind and soul effects and affects the brain and body causing chemical imbalances and many physical illnesses , sicknesses and diseases not just directly in the body but also flowing from the defective brain , but it all has it’s origin in sin or evil …

… if we are serious we can easily see the terrible harm to ourselves and others by all moral evils by humans apart from yjour personal health probs , it harms others dramatically too and not just their health , anger and hatred causes fighting , killing , wars , divisions and endless evils , stealing , pride , jealously , envy , sloth , laziness , drunkeness , drug addiction , etc etc etc etc etc along with all moral evil condemned by the catholic church is the cause of all mans problems in this world and even the natural evils that afflict him are the results of moral evils …

… but the answer is virtuous good works to solve so much of these moral and natural evils , i’m not going to list every sin or evil and virtue or good work , but it is obvious evils such as sexual ones have serious consequences for man and humanity , just put your thinking cap on and think , the catholic church an god are not as stupid as many make out with all this stuff …

… and there is no doubt endless amounts more man will learn about vices and virtues and there effects on humanity let alone all creation , we know next to nothing at this stage , science and medicine have not yet solved a single problem correctly , perfectly and permanently , so whilst i give them full credit for trying don’t think man has all the answers and knows it all yet …

… there is also as a catholic the truth that every good work lifts all humanity spiritually and every evil deed drags all humanity down , it is also a gigantic spiritual warfare going on here , but even if you dismiss that you should easily see all evils and sexual evils are very harmful to oneself and all humanity , it is obvious dear friends , think …

… may god bless and love you 👍🙂 ,

… john …
Click to expand...
John, is English your first language?
 
Robert_Sock said:
Masturbation will lead to blindness; it will lead to spiritual blindness.
Click to expand...
For things that are supposedly immortal, these souls you Christians describe seem amazingly fragile:rolleyes: Apparently everything can hurt them.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
For things that are supposedly immortal, these souls you Christians describe seem amazingly fragile:rolleyes: Apparently everything can hurt them.
Click to expand...
What is your point? Of course souls are fragile and are easily hurt. But God’s grace and mercy restores them. They are also immortal. They can’t be destroyed. And they do exist, even if you don’t believe it.

Robert Sock is correct in his statement.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
For things that are supposedly immortal, these souls you Christians describe seem amazingly fragile:rolleyes: Apparently everything can hurt them.
Click to expand...
Hurt, but not destroyed. It is immortal. And, not “everything”, just sin.
 
Warrenton said:
The Catholic starts from the opposite side of the spectrum as Spock. Spock proposes us Catholics to take the issue of sex in isolation. As crudely as he can get away with, he asks: “Is it theoretically possible that a sexual act has no wider consequences than the two people engaged in the act, and that the act be completely pleasurable, and that the people are unmarried to each other?”

This is nonsensical in Catholic eyes, because we start by taking people as they are. We put sex in the context of disease, lying, power, coercion, ignorance, fear, lust, perversity, and the whole gamut of emotion people experience. To us, Spock’s premise is not different than trying to justify murder on the basis that the victim could be a potential Hitler.
Yes, it’s possible the victim could be Hitler, but human experience has demonstrated that more often than not, the victim is someone’s beloeved mother, or little child.

One thing we Catholics want from our atheists is hard edged reality. Atheists are the ones who have always said we believers create a fantasy land of love and peace. Now some so-called atheist comes along and has the brass to suggest that this world is even more benign heaven, that it is a place where boys and boys and girls and boys never lie, and just want to share “more happy, happy love.” He calls himself Spock, but he should have called himself Keats, and even that would have been a stretch. It’s totally ludicrous.

He should lose his atheist membership for this kind of thing.

This bit was confusing. Is not premarital sex always “pre” marriage?

Other than that it’s wrong to bring someone else into sin that could endanger their soul?

I was not exactly certain what you were trying to express. From the context, I presume you are suggesting the “Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice” scenario. Catholics do not mind Fred and Wilma experimenting with each other, as long as they leave Barney and Betty out of it.

Here we leave the realm that atheists will be able to accept. They may as well stop reading here.

**Catholics can not experiment in the way I think Anevil suggests because to do so would break the vow we make at marriage. Only free people can bind themselves with a vow. That promise symbolizes freedom more than any other a layperson makes. Convicts, children and slaves are all not free to marry. People in a state of mortal sin cannot make a vow because they also are not free. In fact, they are slaves. There is only one thing they can do to obtain freedom, and in the atheist’s case, it is the only thing he will not do. That is why the vow of an atheist is worth less than nothing. It a pledge of collateral he does not even own.

For the same reason, a Catholic cannot “honestly” commit adultery, as these atheists suggest. To do so is a fundemental denial of our freedom, purchased by the blood of Christ. It is tantamount to selling oneself into slavery, and is a lie**.
Click to expand...
To refer to that as slavery, demeans, dismisses, and degrades the real meaning of the word.
 
Warrenton said:
.

This remark indicates an embarrassing lack of sexual understanding.

Naturally, to the Catholic, the aspect of sin is transcendent, and Catholics do not accept your definition of “rational.” Anevil was wandering somewhat, and “opened the door” to the reminder that Catholics do not see the issue as artificially as atheists do. Since you are posting on a Catholic forum, “you asked for it” to use your own phrase.
Click to expand...
That’s true, the problem is that the Catholic Church defines virtually everything (especially when it comes to sexuality) as a sin.
 
John_Russell_Jr said:
… my dear friends ,

… not long ago smoking was all the rage , no health worries , we use to drink out of lead mugs – no health worries , in fact we see asbestos was ok and everyone used it it seems , how many things are there that we now know are toxic , dangerous , poisonous , deadly etc – now that we once thought were ok ??? , i’ll bet it’s a very big list , am i right ??? …

… just because science and medicine has not yet unlocked all the mysteries of human sex and cannot tell us every minute detail about the consequences of unnatural sexual activity yet is no excuse to become presumptuous that they never will , in fact does anyone doubt that science and medicine are starting to uncover things harmful to man at alarming speed now — to the point where one might wonder should we slow down for a while until we learn a little more before we walk off a cliff ??? …

… science and medicine will end up showing that the natural law for man , the moral law , when correctly understood , is extremely beneficial to mans health and well being and extremely harmful to man when violated and man is unnatural , and it affects all men but also the whole of creation …

… sometimes the church is wiser than we realise and science and medicine are not interested in morality for the most part at present , there is a stupid huge conflict between the sciences , religion , theology and philosophy are also sciences and they have a lot to say about morality , ethics and evil , good too …

… i’d like to see all sciences come together accepting and embracing each other and try to collaborate to solve mans problems , rather than compete like enemies , all the sciences are supposed to befriend each other and bring there own unique contribution to the table to solve the problems that plague man – not fight each other like opposition …

… but science and medicine have little to say about human morality at present , give them time to come to their senses and they will once they do and start to really learn , and if we ask is there harm to man we must accept man has a soul and not just body and they are one man , you cannot ignore the spiritual dimension of man , but i suppose you must if you cannot believe in god because you can’t see spirit – you must believe spirit and soul does not exist perhaps , is that it dear friend ??? …

… may god bless and love you 👍🙂 ,

… john …
Click to expand...
To be perfectly honest John, this stream of consciousness writing style you’re using makes you harder to understand and whatever arguments you’re using less convincing.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
That’s true, the problem is that the Catholic Church defines virtually everything (especially when it comes to sexuality) as a sin.
Click to expand...
Are you sure know much about the Church and what she teaches?

Your problem above is of your own making.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
To be perfectly honest John, this stream of consciousness writing style you’re using makes you harder to understand and whatever arguments you’re using less convincing.
Click to expand...
I have no problems understanding that post. It appears to me that the poster has managed to step out of the box and to view the world as not merely black and white.
 
Warrenton said:
This question is why I advised the atheists to stop reading. You are drawing a line we Catholics do not recognize. We believe that the world in general is improved by telling the truth. On can lie, or defraud, if you prefer the legal term, by conduct, by ommission, by silence, or by spoken.

Adultery is a lie because it traduces the vow the couple make. Lying habituates people to lying more. Do all people who ever lie become inveterate liars? No. But all inveterate liars begin with one lie.

If you want to debate whether lying is better than the truth, we can do that. If you want to posit a world so secular that there are no Catholics in it, and where no one contracts marriage through a vow, we can do that. But what is the point? If you set up such a problem, you already know your answer. Why would my assent be important? It’s no different than the Hitler hypothetical I tossed out earlier.

You need to decide what is open for debate on this thread. If we posit a world that is totally devoid of religion, where not a shread of Catholic thought exists, then we only need one person’s consent for any action. There is no longer any logical reason for opposing anything. But if we posit a world where Catholics exist, then secular or not, we must factor in Catholic understanding.
Glad we seem to understand each other, too.
Click to expand...
You make laugh Warrenton.

This is one of the most self-centered things I have read in a while. Without religion and people like you (Catholics) there would be no rules?
Anarchy would reign forever:rolleyes:
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
You make laugh Warrenton.

This is one of the most self-centered things I have read in a while. Without religion and people like you (Catholics) there would be no rules?
Anarchy would reign forever:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How is speaking the truth, self centered?
How is pointing outside oneself for the ground of morality anywhere close to being self centered?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top