Former Catholics question?
Offline For all those former Catholics on the boards, what is your current body of knowledge on the Catholic church?
As in have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any of the early Church Father's writings, papal encyclicals, or the Bible (completely).
I would like to qualify reading to mean actually attempting to understand what is written, as one would do so with an article in a science journal or precious document. Or have you just read the materials as you would read a comic strip, with no effort to understand the meaning, contents, and background.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
- Login to post comments
jcgadfly's response to my first post about contraceptive failure rates
There is only one idea of yours I agree with. People do need to learn self-control. How can one learn that from Christianity, which teaches that control comes from God and isn't in yourself? If you have all this self-control, why do you still need the confessional?
Which Pope suggested that? It doesn't sound like Ratzinger. Not that I understand the logic behind a celibate telling anyone about sex education...
end quote
The statement about Christianity teaching that control comes from God doesn't make much sense.
First off, God has given us free will, and with this free will we can exercise self control, make good/bad choices, choose to act for the betterment of others or their detriment. This gives us control over our lives. The Catholic church does teach that through prayer to God we may gain extra graces to increase our ability to control ourselves and make better choices, but this has nothing to do with God having control over us, just helping us due to His mercy. The graces you pray for may be denied or used that choice is yours as well.
We still need the sacrament of Confession because we are human and not perfect; therefore, we make mistakes and need forgiveness. This can be acquired only through true penance and true contrition as defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read up on that. (no sarcasm intended there)
Pretty much every recent pope has suggested this. It goes back to Pope Paul VI and his encyclical Humanae Vitae on July 25, 1968.
Here's the link:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Check out Theology of the Body too.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
I'll answer Atheistextremist's questions tomorrow or Saturday. I have homework, studying, and some toy hunting to do.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
From Pope Wehrmacht - The pontiff, speaking to journalists on his flight, said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".
I never said that contraception didn't fail. All things have a failure rate. Your ideas have a failure rate closer to 100% than I like.
How do you figure leaving it to chance is a better solution?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Free will is another discussion - there may be a thread on the forums about it. But I will ask this - are you saying you don't give your life to God when you accept Jesus' atoning gift?
You need confession because you're human and you don't have self-control. Yet you claim that teaching self-control will solve all the problems that can accompany human sexuality.
I will read up on it - learning is never a bad thing.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You are a little confused about the stats, it seems.
It is 50%-60% of the women who have abortions do so because their contraception failed. There is another 40%-50% who have abortions for other reasons.
According to the CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5808.pdf
In 2006, there were 846,181 abortions reported to the CDC. So about 423,090-507,709 abortions were because of failed contraception.
As a comparison, in 2006, there were 4,265,555 births in the US. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm
4,265,555 + 846,181 = 5,111,736
5,111,736 / 846,181 = 6% abortion rate. Roughly since the total number of pregnancies I calculated here does not include naturally occurring miscarriages. And the CDC site says 5.7% abortion rate so the .3% is probably those miscarriages.
But all of this is really not important. If contraception and barriers prevent one abortion, one STD, then they are useful, helpful, and a necessity for the person whose pregnancy was prevented or who missed getting an STD.
Unintended pregnancies happen not only to teenagers. And not all unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Refer back to the first pdf file. About page 13 are tables and charts - so you don't have to read the entire report - by state, by race, by age, by type of abortion and so on. Page 16 is by age - note that the over 40 group is a pretty large number.
(On page 16, there are fewer than 846,181 abortions total. This is because if the woman's age was not reported, it is not on this page. Also, the number is the number of abortions per 1,000 in that age group, not the raw total number. Understanding these reports requires attention to the small print.)
And the numbers of abortions as reported to the CDC do not include the illegal abortions that are still happening. Though mostly now, they are done with inappropriately used morning after pills. http://www.thenation.com/article/154166/crossing-line Which is a step up from my friend in high school who threw herself off of her galloping horse.
And you too, are guilty of "correlation does not imply causation". Because divorces are up, that does not mean contraception is the cause. Abortions may be up, but lack of contraception is the cause. And so on.
Finally, yes, total abstinence will prevent pregnancies and STDs. But it is far from practical if you are married. Sex only for procreation means you may have sex only a few times during your life or you have 20+ children. There is a reason sex feels so good - if it didn't, many women would only have one child. As long as it does, people will indulge. Better to have as much information as possible, better to protect yourself as best you can.
As for Uganda, again, if one pregnancy or STD is prevented, then it is worth it.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
If the wine turns to actual blood, and the wafer is really flesh, it's cannibalism.
I was talking with a POE (parody of an evangelical) about his (alleged) version of christianity. He was going on about how women need to be kept in their place by slapping them around a little. He said in heaven if I made it, I would be more perfect than I am on earth. And therefore, I would be slapped around less in heaven. Pretty funny.
I don't think you believe this. It was just the image I had of a heaven where good ol' boys slapped the women around and people walked around with blood dripping off their mouths like the vampire movies. I know you don't believe this either, but the image was too funny. If heaven is really like that, I will beg go to hell.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Time for a Jimmy Buffet quote:
Mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I'm sorry, but the succes Uganda had in combating aids was entirely due to the abc-method. All Pepfar did was take the "c" out of the program.
I don't know about you, but if I want to know which way the numbers are going since that change, I'll ask a doctor who lives there and actually has to deal with patients.
Turns out he's right : http://allafrica.com/stories/201003290750.html
Maybe I'm old -fashioned but shouldn't the first question asked by a researcher be "Does the data support my conclusion?" instead of "Will the results of the study make the people funding my research look good?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The first question you need to ask yourself as a Catholic before delving into statistics and claims in regard to birth control is the pope actually speaking ex-cathedra on this subject? It is in the area of faith & morals only in regard to unmarried individuals.
When one considers the original Jewish view of sex it does not seem to be the same as that propagated by the Church.
For example:
From Judaism 101 - "The primary purpose of sex is to reinforce the loving marital bond between husband and wife. The first and foremost purpose of marriage is companionship, and sexual relations play an important role. Procreation is also a reason for sex, but it is not the only reason. Sex between husband and wife is permitted (even recommended) at times when conception is impossible, such as when the woman is pregnant, after menopause, or when the woman is using a permissible form of contraception." see http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm for more detail.
Other highlights from jewfaq.org/sex-
"Sex is the woman's right, not the man's.
A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her.
He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it.
The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce."
Birth control is permitted, specifically the pill. The use of condoms is questionable and may be specific to each case.
Abortion is not only permitted but may be required.
In Judaism, human life is sacred and must be preserved. Thus it is argued that the possibility of contracting Aids is superceded by the requirement to preserve human life. There are contradictory views on this in Judaism today.
So if Jesus was a good Jew he would have followed these rules.
The pope therefore based on scripture could not issue an infallible papal encyclical that would contradict these basic Jewish fundalmentals which are based in scripture.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
The supposed event from 780 Italy is the fabric of Urban Legends. It is not possible to determine what actually occurred at all as it is an uncontrolled situation. A priest could have easily concocted the event to bring in greater contributions or to bring his church greater recognition.
As to Methuen MA, this church was closed due to the sex scandals of priests. There again was never an investigation substantiating the event. See - http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping250.htm
Urban Legends tend to propagate supposed real events and neither of these 2 you have claimed here have ever been shown to be more than that.
The Methuen case was never investigated by the Diocese nor by investigators from Rome according to the records. Despite no investigation claims are found all over the Internet that this actually occurred and was proven to be true, even on Catholic Church Web Sites in the US. This is exactly how an Urban Legend is spread. Someone knows someone that knew someone that heard that something occurred.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
If this stuff really happened, I don't think it would be hard to prove empirically anyway. You would think evidence would abound.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
What the youtube videos show from the OP is what the witnesses thought they saw. The lab confirmed only it was human blood supposedly.
However, altar boys are capable of much more than bending over for priests. Priests in a Diocese that was being investigated for sex scandals who knew the church was losing members are also capable of creativity. After all, they covered up the scandals didn't they, so why not create a miracle so to speak.
And of course why didn't the Vatican investigate??
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I liked this from the "Eucharistic miracle" site:
"The Flesh and Blood have in them AB type blood, the same blood type found in the Holy Shroud of Turin."
Nothing like using one fraud to support another.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy, mostly trashy stuff. It helps me relax.
The thing that gets me is, if you change nouns around, you really can't tell the difference between trashy fantasy novels and this thread. Eating supernatural flesh from a human (born of a god non the less!) sacrifice to grant yourself immortality....really? If you use your mind correctly, with enough belief, you can supernaturally influence reality in ways both subtle and profound...really? Problems are often caused by direct intervention of wholly evil beings, good events are often caused by direct intervention from wholly good beings...really?
It just really gets me. I guess the reason it is so startling to me is that since I was raised as a fundamentalist evangelical, I have had the same indoctrination (Fundy evangelicals aren't that different from fundy Catholics when it comes to the woo-woo magic stuff.) during my childhood...what that means is it doesn't sound outrageous to me unless I think about it. Then I actually think about it and it looks ridiculous, like adults believing in Santa. Literally.
Hmm, an analogy. You know those optical illusion pages, where you see a vase, then two faces, then a vase? I can do that with the woo in religion, my indoctrinated child sees it as normal, my rational adult mind sees it as absurd.
One thing that I try to point out to theists is they can always see the absurdity in *other* belief systems, but never their own. Christian beliefs aren't any more rational than the Hindu beliefs, or Native American beliefs, or ancient greek beliefs...but to a believer the 'other' is absurd and the 'self' is perfectly reasonable. That isn't specific to religion though, that is just human psychology.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
it smacks of animism to me.
Eat the lion's heart, gain its courage. Eat the heart of a gorilla or a strong warrior, gain their strength.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
And I don't understand the point of it anymore. Why do you need woo-woo magic when we have real 'magic' now? If you need courage, we can help people achieve it (psychology, counseling, drugs). If you need strength, we know the best ways to reach levels of strength that would literally be impossible in ancient times (We have humans that can bench press over 1,000 pounds. Literally not possible without modern strength building methods and drugs). We can fly. We can wipe out whole cities in the blink of an eye. We can create systems of morality superior to those held by Jesus Christ himself. We can travel to the moon. We put robots on other planets. We're on the cusp of directly manipulating our genetic inheritance and legacy. How crazy is that?
The only thing we can't do is make people immortal, and because of that some of us cling to superstitious belief systems that promise miracles and never deliver in the childlike hope that we can avoid ceasing to exist.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
jcgadfly said,
From Pope Wehrmacht - The pontiff, speaking to journalists on his flight, said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".
I never said that contraception didn't fail. All things have a failure rate. Your ideas have a failure rate closer to 100% than I like.
How do you figure leaving it to chance is a better solution?
end quote
I'm assuming that by Pope Wehrmacht you mean Pope Benedict XVI? Can you at list call him Ratzinger? The insult to someone you don't know is very rude. (Yes I'm aware he was in the Nazi youth, as was pretty much every German citizen). If so then he is correct. The mentality being taught in African countries, as well as here, is that by putting this on/in, or taking this pill or that pill you will be "safe" from STDS/pregnancy. This is untrue as I presented previously. One does not even need to look at these stats. Our recent history provides us with telling evidence. Our countries sexual morality has been in decline since the passage of laws allowing contraception and abortion. We've seen more abortions, unintended pregnancies, and higher STD rates.
"My" failure rate has been shown to be much lower than the failure rate for contraceptives. I'm well aware it won't solve the the problem entirely, and I never said it would. I said it would work better than the current method, and it has. I'll do some more research for you. Okay? Now what to do with the remainder. Easy. Let them live with the consequences of their actions. Novel concept I know. Bear in mind I'm not saying let them suffer and die. If one of these people gets a STD, I'm for helping them even if the STD is incurable; however this doesn't mean I will coddle them. Handing out contraceptives to these types of people is akin to telling an alcoholic after he/she got drunk to drink a cup of joe and get a good night's sleep. I'm not solving the problem just encouraging it.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
jcgadfly said:
Free will is another discussion - there may be a thread on the forums about it. But I will ask this - are you saying you don't give your life to God when you accept Jesus' atoning gift?
You need confession because you're human and you don't have self-control. Yet you claim that teaching self-control will solve all the problems that can accompany human sexuality.
I will read up on it - learning is never a bad thing.
end quote
Yes you do give your life to God when you accept his atoning gift(s); however, this does not mean He controls you. You still maintain your free will; therefore, you can choose to reject the gifts by sinning.
I never said I didn't have self-control. I said that I am not perfect in my application of self-control, as in human. Therefore my will, self-control, what have you can be weakened by temptation and acting on that temptation.
When I choose to reject these gifts by sinning then I can choose repentance or continue to sin. I will need Confession when I sin mortally. This means knowing that the action I am thinking of doing is a grave matter (illicit sex or murder e.g.), know that it will greatly offend God, and then decide to do it anyway. Once I chose repentance I must then show true penance, which means trying to the best of my ability not to sin again.
Again I never claimed that teaching self-control would completely solve the problem, only that it would do a better job than the current method and that it is the right way to do it. For short it is right because it follows natural law and is therefore objectively right.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
cj said:
You are a little confused about the stats, it seems.
It is 50%-60% of the women who have abortions do so because their contraception failed. There is another 40%-50% who have abortions for other reasons.
According to the CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5808.pdf
In 2006, there were 846,181 abortions reported to the CDC. So about 423,090-507,709 abortions were because of failed contraception.
As a comparison, in 2006, there were 4,265,555 births in the US. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm
4,265,555 + 846,181 = 5,111,736
5,111,736 / 846,181 = 6% abortion rate. Roughly since the total number of pregnancies I calculated here does not include naturally occurring miscarriages. And the CDC site says 5.7% abortion rate so the .3% is probably those miscarriages.
But all of this is really not important. If contraception and barriers prevent one abortion, one STD, then they are useful, helpful, and a necessity for the person whose pregnancy was prevented or who missed getting an STD.
Unintended pregnancies happen not only to teenagers. And not all unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Refer back to the first pdf file. About page 13 are tables and charts - so you don't have to read the entire report - by state, by race, by age, by type of abortion and so on. Page 16 is by age - note that the over 40 group is a pretty large number.
(On page 16, there are fewer than 846,181 abortions total. This is because if the woman's age was not reported, it is not on this page. Also, the number is the number of abortions per 1,000 in that age group, not the raw total number. Understanding these reports requires attention to the small print.)
And the numbers of abortions as reported to the CDC do not include the illegal abortions that are still happening. Though mostly now, they are done with inappropriately used morning after pills. http://www.thenation.com/article/154166/crossing-line Which is a step up from my friend in high school who threw herself off of her galloping horse.
And you too, are guilty of "correlation does not imply causation". Because divorces are up, that does not mean contraception is the cause. Abortions may be up, but lack of contraception is the cause. And so on.
Finally, yes, total abstinence will prevent pregnancies and STDs. But it is far from practical if you are married. Sex only for procreation means you may have sex only a few times during your life or you have 20+ children. There is a reason sex feels so good - if it didn't, many women would only have one child. As long as it does, people will indulge. Better to have as much information as possible, better to protect yourself as best you can.
As for Uganda, again, if one pregnancy or STD is prevented, then it is worth it.
end quote
First off none of the links worked. At any rate my set of statistics focused on the teenage portion of the American population for two major reasons. One, their ages, 14-19, are a closer range to those in African countries. It's the teenagers and young adults who are having sex and spreading the diseases. Also it showed that the contraceptive efficacy rates are exaggerated, which was their intention.
So if contraception prevents one STD and/or pregnancy but does not prevent hundreds of others it's worth it. Where as it can be statistically shown that sexual education programs like the ones I've briefly described prevent a lot more STDs/pregnancies then it's not good?
I'm aware unintended pregnancies happen to older women as well. Thank you again for proving my previous point about contraceptive efficacy rates. If there is a substantially high number of older women having abortion and using contraception (which there is and supposedly they are using them "perfectly"
, than the efficacy rates are exaggerated. Again I focused on the teenagers/young adults, because that is the target population for these "safe sex" ed programs.
I did read the small print, no need for insults. I acquired the numbers I got from other calculations and other references.
Illegal abortions. I'd love to see the real numbers on these. The public numbers have been exaggerated. At least 10X since the beginning. The co-founder of NARL provides the info on this:
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html
There are quite a few more interviews with Dr. Nathanson and proof for his claims. Check it out.
I don't believe I said contraception was the sole cause for the increase in divorces, unintended pregnancies, abortions, and etc. I said that contraception in conjunction with the general degradation of sexual morality has caused the decline. While It may not be 100% causally proven 50 years of evidence goes a long way. Plus 40 years of correlational studies indicating the exact same thing indicate a strong link. The same cannot be said for contraception.
I never said abstinence for married couples, only for those having premarital sex. If the couple is married then all they need do is not have affairs. Hard I know. Sex in the Catholic Church has never only been about procreation. It does require the couple keep the option open when married, but the married couple can still have sex for the enjoyment of it, and not end up with 20 kids. Have you read the latest NFP research? 98% effective, better sex, better marriages. Check out http://www.catholic.com/default.asp for some good links.
Again I'm aware people will indulge, and when they do so for their own gratification and when not married I'm not going to cheer them on and provide them with stop-gap solution.
More information and better way to protect yourself, Catholic Church all the way.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Again not cannibals. Can you at least read about the Eucharist from the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Not trying to be mean or sarcastic just serious.
No I don't believe in either two of those things, and neither does the Catholic Church.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
I'm not getting this unless you're saying its God's fault for not making us perfect? Is that it?
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
So the success in Uganda started when contraception was dropped form the education, at least according to the article and other articles and studies like it. Just like I said.
Dr. Paul Semugoma seems to focus on homosexuality and the spread of STDS within the gay community. Where his research came from is highly questionable. More than likely it comes from the last 50 years of "sex research". Which means it's been inspired by Kinsey and that is a good example of pseudoscience. I'll do some more research on him later today.
Regardless I'd rather trust the stats and experimental data than anecdotal evidence.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
In this case yes the Pope is speaking ex-cathedra. This infallible teaching has been re-iterated many times by many different popes, and since the formation of the Church way back at Pentacost.
As for Judaism the use of contraception sounds a bit off to me. As the book of Genesis strictly forbids contraception with the story of Onan. This would provide scriptural evidence for an infallible claim. I believe it was only until recently that some forms of Judaism allowed contraception perhaps before or after the Lambeth Conference.
I'll comment more later.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Uhm, no, the success started after the introduction of the abc-method in 1987. Up untill 2003 the government was promoting the use of condoms. Now they're actively discouraging their use.
And now the numbers are going back up, and in reaction to that, some district authorities at least are planning to start promoting condom use again.
He's been dealing with aids-victims his entire working life, the overwhelming majority of which have been straight, so what exactly do you mean "highly questionable" ?
Heh.
Actually, his articles on that particular subject were inspired by a recent visit to Uganda by Scott Lively and co, and the insanity they brought with them. You might want to do some research on that as well.
What's anecdotal about this ? http://allafrica.com/stories/201003290750.html
Onan's "sin" was that he didn't want to father and take care of kids that were never going to be considered his.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Jesus was a good and perfect Jew. Your argument here is not that. It focuses on God's Law versus man's law. First off in Jesus' time there was no pill or condom or any of the modern forms birth control. Judaism condemned the spilling of seed to prevent pregnancy in Genesis as I stated earlier, which also dealt with neglecting to continue the family line, and in either Leviticus or Deutoronomy.
If one were to follow this logic than Jesus would not have been a good Jew in several other areas. For example He deliberately spent time with public sinners, outcasts, and tax collectors. Which, for an Orthodox Jew at the time would have been a huge no-no. According to their law it was wrong to even go near them. They were seen as taking the punishment for a previous family member's sin.
Jesus was the best Jew and the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. By best I mean he followed the Law of God, not the laws of men which is what many of the Jewish Rabbis were doing at the time. God's law and Mosaic or Jewish law differed greatly in many cases.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Yes, and it was also that he spilled his seed which is a sin in Judaism.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
The event in 780 A.D. is not the fabric of urban legends. As it is a real piece of flesh and blood, which has not decayed, and still is very visible and free to see in Lancanio, Italy. It has also been documented fairly well. There are multiple books on it, and multiple scientific studies have been preformed on it. Trying doing a cursory search on google or better yet here:
http://www.catholic.com/default.asp
search the forums for Eucharistic miracles.
Did I say the Methuen case was investigated by the diocese or Rome? I said some are still under investigation, and that the youtube video was a starting point to show that the there have been cases of bread turning to the body and blood.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
try researching it.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Could we lose the lewd jokes, please?. Yes, we get it a super small portion of priests, compared the entire number of priests, in an extraordinarily liberal area of the country did something wrong. While I'm not excusing their actions by any means, it surprises me that other professions with sex scandals more massive then this get little to no attention. Also since many of the supposed cases never went to trial it remains to seen whether the cases had merit or not? Again not condoning what happened by any means, just saying it was a small number, blown way out of proportion by the media. This is a topic for another thread not this one. So please do not bring it up again. I'll be glad to decate this issue in another thread though.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
The site was making an interesting point actually. As practicing Catholics we are not required to believe in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
Again if you want to discuss this issue in a different thread then I'll be happy to do so. Much of the Shroud is misunderstand and a lot of the current information being taught about it is untrue and questionable at best, such as its age, paint on it, and the whole Da Vinci Debacle. There is quite a bit of good evidence to support its authenticity.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
A fellow sci-fi fan cool. Sci-fi is cool; however, re-arranging the words in trashy sci-fi novels and this thread will not produce the same results. Fundamental Evangelicals and Fundamental Catholics are very different. For example one believes in sol scriptura (Evangelicals) while the Catholics do not, sola fida (Evangelicals) Catholics do not, and much more. As for the woo-woo magic stuff there is a large difference. Catholics believe in the Real Presence, Evangelicals do not. Many Evangelicals believe in, "believe in God and your 401K will increase", Catholics do not. I could spend hours listing the differences.
Your "description" of the Eucharist displays your ignorance on the subject. Again, have you read anything from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, earlier Church Fathers, or papal encyclicals? A little research goes a long way.
"If you use your mind correctly, with enough belief, you can supernaturally influence reality in ways both subtle and profound...really?" Again displays your ignorance of the Catholic faith.
Your description of problems caused by direct intervention of wholly evil beings and good caused by direct intervention form wholly good beings shows your ignorance as well.
Again read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Yet again your ignorance is seen in your statement about the irrationality of Christianity compared to other religions such as Hinduism. Christianity forms the basis for rational thought. Look at the history of Europe before the introduction of Catholicism and after wards. Science, colleges, and civil society among other things were introduced and look what it produced.
I can guess what you're thinking the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades among other things. Incorrect both were started by the Church, but both were ruined by the actions of government and actions of soldiers acting independently of the Catholic Church. There's a lot of history to discuss there. I'm aware there were a handful of bad popes and I'm sure you can find some member of the Church who supported the ideas. That does not prove the Church was the cause.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
First response:
The numbers of STDs went down when condoms were taken out of the picture, and abstinence education was focused on. Example 2:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0151.htm
The numbers are increasing due to the lack of abstinence and self control education and the promotion of "safe sex."
Second Response:
I suggested it might be questionable because it may have come from the last 50 years of "sex research." Since that has mostly been affected by Kinsey's "research" then I am very skeptical of it.
Again as near as I can see from the articles written by and about Dr. Paul Semugoma he seems to want to give condoms to straight and especially homosexuals in Uganda. If this is true then giving condoms to homosexuals will do nothing. Homosexual sex leaves the door open to numerous other health risks outside of STDs both psychological and physical.
I'll do more research on him.
Third Response:
The beginning of the article shows why supporting contraception in these countries isn't working.
"Reports show that there has been an increase in the spread of Aids due to alcohol abuse, commercial sex, multiple sex partners and poverty among others, Sam Lawino and David Okumu write. The HIV/Aids prevalence rate is on the increase as indicated by the population office surveys. The disease has seen an increase by five per cent from 10.9 per cent in 2008/9 to 12.9 per cent this 2009/2010. Mr John Luwa the district population officer says the trend has increased due to many factors such as commercial sex, inconsistent use of condoms, multiple sex partners, sex for survival, alcohol abuse before sex, mother to child transmission and poverty among others."
Condoms are not the answer, teaching self control, abstinence and the sanctity of sex will do far better.
As far as it being anecdotal, the article shows no experimental data to support the claim that condoms will help or are helping.
After reading this article it seems to me that after teaching the Ugandan people about self control, abstinence and the sanctity of sex than helping them repair their economy is the next step. Not encourage more illicit sex.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
1. Then why use it for support and call it "Holy" if as Catholics, it's not something worth believing in?
2. I'd be happy to go into it in another thread or by PM. I accept the DaVinci Code series for what it is - fiction. I don't know why the religious types made such a stink. As for the other explanations, they seem more plausible because they don't need a miraculous event to get the same result.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I don't recall Jesus being married in any account. He had a duty per Torah to propagate, so he missed out on that one.
Does the Catholic Church still only allow technology and advances up to the 1st Century CE and not anything thereafter? That's your argument in regard to the pill, since it wasn't invented at the time the Torah was written it can't be used. However, that is not the view of Judaism.
Again, condoms are sometimes allowed when it preserves human life as existing life is given precendence.
This is the same order of precedence Jesus used when he stole corn from fields and did work per se in violations of the Torah. Saving lives is of higher precedence.
Feel free to show how Mosaic law in the OT was changed in the OT and was not the same as god's supposed laws. Use of the NT to make this claim other than to indicate where in the OT it changed is acceptable. Using the NT to make a new claim such as because Jesus said so in Mark, or Paul wrote such and such in Corinthians is not an acceptable way of showing there is a difference between the two.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Yes I know what the claims are made in these records, it's not like I haven't read them.
What I was pointing out is the claim is from 1200 years ago. There is no way to really know if the blood and flesh weren't planted in order to gain a relic for the Church. It wouldn't be the first time nor the last.
The event is not substantiated sufficiently at it's origin and all had a vested interest in propagating the story in one way or the other.
All it takes is one priest planting the blood and flesh to pull off the con. Instant holy relic.
What you said was misleading - you said " Both of these wafers have been studied by independent labs."
I realize that they did blood tests, but that doesn't substantiate origin does it. Quackery and cons abound in religion and claims in regards to relics.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
The point being here is altar boys are capable of creating your miracle with a few drops of blood. I was an altar boy in a Lutheran church and more than once one of us pulled a stunt on the pastor that was a mean old guy. Such as, moving the marker in his Bible off a page or 2 so when he went to read he'd stumble. Tying his sash with a knot. And several other minor things.
The other consideration, since the church had lost so many members it was destined to be closed and even priests, church secretaries, maintenance men all had an interest in keeping their jobs should be considered as someone that created the supposed miracle wafer.
One should not jump to conclusions such as was done here that it was real.
And as to the sex scandals of the Church, it only indicates the dishonesty, and cruelty of those who were supposedly trustworthy as not. Whether it was one or 100 doesn't matter, the point is it caused the reduction in the congregation and the need for something to buoy up attendance. And it matters little whether the scandals were real or not, public perception is what caused the loss of members.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Lack of abstinence and self control education ? Since Pepfar that's all they've been getting as far as prevention was concerned, so there is no lack whatsoever. Obviously, and according to the authorities who have to deal with this situation, it's not working, and they're putting the C back in.
You also seem to be skipping a lot of steps. First came the aids awareness campaign. Then they switched to the abc-program. Then numbers started going down, and kept going down, thanks to organisations such as TASO , the Kibale Tree Planting Project, and people like Philly Lutaya who helped break the taboo.
Then came Pepfar and up went the numbers.
Actually, they've been up for longer than the article suggest. The National Guidance and Empowerment Network's stats have been showing this trend long before the official government rates.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What exactly qualifies you to criticize an informed opinion of an experienced medical professional, who's been dealing with the AIDS situation in his country for his entire working life ?
Have we read the same article ? In the very paragraph you're quoting "inconsistent use of condoms" is listed as one of the factors. More like no condoms at all, since they are no longer as freely available in Uganda as they were in the 90s.
Most of the other factors simply drive the point home that abstinence is a fairy tale. You keep forgetting : Pepfar is already pushing abstinence-only prevention. They have already failed.
What it shows is that the numbers are back up, and abstinence-only prevention isn't helping. You can preach abstinence till you're blue in the face, it doesn't work, and these numbers prove it.
Once again, abstinence-only prevention was already going on. That's what the Pepfar prevention program was all about. It was already happening. Nobody was encouraging illicit sex, quite the opposite. For pete's sake, deliberate infection gets you the death penalty. How is that encouraging ?
Thank you for re-making my point. I assure you, if you protect the bible's fundamental insistence on believing the unbelievable or being eternally tormented, it's you who has the problem with comprehending justice, love, choice and responsibility.
Maybe you need to read some texts on the development of morality. It certainly doesn't spring from your silly book.
Down-thread you insist there is non-decaying jesus flesh in Italy. Yet you say the church is the font of rationality. How do you manage to make sense of this?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Most professions don't claim to represent a deity. If priests aren't any better than anyone else, who needs priests?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I meant in a broad sense. Yes, specific beliefs are different, but both believe in woo-woo magic from God. For you there is a vast difference because the details matter. To me the details don't matter, because non of it is real to me. Does that make sense? To me yuor magic beliefs aren't any better than a Wiccan's beliefs, or an evangelicals.
I am very familiar with it, but this is the same problem as above. To you, the details and rationalizations matter, to me, they don't. Your religion *is* about immortality, and you use ritual in the service of that goal. It isn't my fault that bluntness is not flattering.
Same as above. Prayer and miracles? Angels, saints, demons, the Devil...and my shorthand is not accurate? I don't see how.
I did not bring up those things, I'm not sure what I said to prompt that. I'm not of the opinion that religion makes people monsters, I think religion is just another viral meme that can be good or bad...but it isn't rational and it is very infectious. I think the main danger of religion is the idea of faith, magical forgiveness and the concept that this world is not the 'real' reality we should be focused on (afterlife).
Christianity is not the basis of rational thought, that is simply incorrect. The history of western philosophy started in ancient Greece, long before Christ. Who told you Christians were responsible for rationality?
Besides, in general, how is Christianity more rational than other religions?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
jcgadfly said:
1. Then why use it for support and call it "Holy" if as Catholics, it's not something worth believing in?
2. I'd be happy to go into it in another thread or by PM. I accept the DaVinci Code series for what it is - fiction. I don't know why the religious types made such a stink. As for the other explanations, they seem more plausible because they don't need a miraculous event to get the same result.
I didn't say that the Catholic Church said it was not worth believing in only that it is not a requirement of the faith as transubstantiation is. The shroud is very mysterious item. It has quite a bit of evidence supporting its authenticity.
As for the DaVinci debacle I was referring to the new idea that DaVinci made it using a camera obsecura and sulfur nitrate.
Right now I'm focusing on the Catholic faith and whether or not former Catholics truly understand the faith or just understand what they think the faith is.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Sorry. i thought that PJTS, et al. had proven that they understand it better than you do. I thought it was a dead issue and we were moving on.
Can there really be a solid religion when one Pope can cancel out the edicts of the others with a few strokes of a pen?
As I said, another thread is cool also. I'd love to see the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity. I think it's a genuine piece of fabric. Everything else, not so sure.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
And the most dangerous, the concept of objective morality combined with the above.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
This is a response to PJTS comments on Judaism:
It is not required in Jewish law or God's law to get married; however, if two people are married and fertile, than they are to be fruitful and multiple.
My argument in regards to the pill was not that. It was that the acceptance of contraception in Judaism and all other major Christian denominations, except Catholicism, is relatively recent. No Jew in the time of Christ accepted birth control and neither did Jesus. As for allowing the use of condoms in some cases because of it protecting existing life is completely against God's law. Murdering another for the sake of another is never permissible in God's law.
As for the "Jesus stealing corn" I believe you are referring to Mark chapter 2 verses 23-28. In this case He and His disciples were munching on grain seeds, which is akin to picking a couple of blackberries on a bush on the side of a country road. This is not stealing. This is and was completely acceptable in God's law and Jewish law. What Jesus and His disciples did is known as the gleaning laws. Gleaning was a way to feed the poor, which was required by God's law. This was laid out in Leviticus chapter 23 verse 22. Harvesters were not to harvest the edge of their crops and suppose to leave what fell on the ground after the harvest for the poor. This is what Jesus and His disciples were doing. In fact in that Gospel reading you mentioned it states that Jesus and His disciples were walking beside the field. This particular part of the Gospel dealt with the pharisees trying to trap Jesus into admitting to work on the sabbath. This was not the case however as gleaning was permitted.
Another example of how Mosiac law differed from God's law is that of divorce. God under no circumstances allowed divorce; however, Moses allowed divorce under the Hebrew law. This is laid out well in Mathew Chapter 19 verses 1-12.
Give me a few more days and I'll provide some more.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Actually PJTS et. al. have not proven they understand better than I do. PJTS did not seem to know about Jewish gleaning laws, and he did not read Mark chapter 2 versus 23-28 correctly. As for many of the others they have made incorrect statements about the Catholic faith and the Christian faith in general.
One Pope cannot cancel out the edicts of another pope.
Give me some time on the shroud. Between this, masters course and trying to find a job. I like to use my little free time to relax and play War for Cybertron.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
This is a response to PJTS comments on the Eucharistic miracles.
In regards to the real flesh and blood being planted in Lanciano, Italy this seems highly unlikely, because the flesh and blood has not decayed over 1500 years. So this means that there is something special about this piece of flesh and blood or some people are cutting out part of the heart of a person with an AB blood type, and putting on displace at least twice a week. I think the former is more highly likely. I also doubt that the Lanciano, Italy host is a fake, because when it was originally "formed", for lack of a better term, it was a time during the Church's infancy, and not when they were "supposedly" interested in making relics.
Again the event is substantiated sufficiently at its origin.
What I said about the wafers was not misleading. Both have been studied by independent labs, and the Lanciano, Italy case is very well substantiated. Again it was first reported when it happened in 750 AD, witnessed by people at the mass, people today, and substantiated through separate contemporary writings.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor
Or there have been a LOT of replacements. I could see a 1500 year conspiracy in the name of God. Celibates buggering altar boys has been around for how long?
It could also be meat that people are claiming is heart - has anyone unrelated to the Church shown it to be cardiac muscle?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
PJTS said:
The point being here is altar boys are capable of creating your miracle with a few drops of blood. I was an altar boy in a Lutheran church and more than once one of us pulled a stunt on the pastor that was a mean old guy. Such as, moving the marker in his Bible off a page or 2 so when he went to read he'd stumble. Tying his sash with a knot. And several other minor things.
The other consideration, since the church had lost so many members it was destined to be closed and even priests, church secretaries, maintenance men all had an interest in keeping their jobs should be considered as someone that created the supposed miracle wafer.
One should not jump to conclusions such as was done here that it was real.
And as to the sex scandals of the Church, it only indicates the dishonesty, and cruelty of those who were supposedly trustworthy as not. Whether it was one or 100 doesn't matter, the point is it caused the reduction in the congregation and the need for something to buoy up attendance. And it matters little whether the scandals were real or not, public perception is what caused the loss of members.
Response:
Unfortunately altar boys are not capable of creating this miracle, because putting a few drops of blood on a Communion wafer will not replicate the Lanciano, Italy case or several other cases. As I said previously they would need to get a hold of an incorruptible piece of heart, that has an AB blood type, and AB blood that is incorruptible as well. That's a very tall order.
As for your pranks on your pastor, these come no where near close to the Eucharistic miracles that have been recorded.
No one has jumped to conclusions on the Lanciano, Italy case, and the Church has not jumped to any conclusions in the recent cases of claimed Eucharistic miracles.
As for the sex scandal this is partially responsible for the loss in parishioners, but the Church had been losing parishioners before then, partly due to the liberalization of the culture, inadequate education of the Catholic faith, and the growing popularity of the philosophy of do what you feel and never face the consequences.
Thankfully, to God, the Church's numbers are growing again.
I'll agree that the sex scandal does indicate dishonesty and cruelty on those who perpetrated the crime, but not the whole of the Church. This appears to be the argument you and many others are making.
"And it matters little whether the scandals were real or not, public perception is what caused the loss of members." I find this quite disturbing coming from a "rational" mind. It is very important to know the truth of the matter, not what the perception of it is. People perceive many things to be true, but it does not make it so.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor