Are we really thinking everything through?

Uphill Battle said:

I was clear in my OP that was a statement made by a Catholic. I didn't claim to have been fresh off a phone call with the Pope.

Click to expand...

No, you said "the Catholic Church thinks".

"isn't open to conception blah blah blah. Same difference. Just like the hypocracy of the NFP teaching being A-OK.

Click to expand...

NFP is being open to conception. The couple is not holding back anything from the other.

I know what is taught. I just don't cover up the reality of it with weasel-speak.

Click to expand...

Obviously you don't know what is taught since you were wrong and I corrected you. And you respond by rudeness.

I note that you ignored this entirely. an uncomfortable example, perhaps?

Click to expand...

Are you wanting to discuss anything or just be hostile and rhetorical? It makes no sense to say I ignored something in a response about what I said. I obviously didn't by virtual of the fact you had something to respond to. Thus far you have no said anything of substance.

again, it was a statement made by a Catholic. perhaps your teachers should do a better job.

Click to expand...

Again, nothing of substance. This time it didn't even make since. I am not disputing anything you claimed was said by a Catholic. I was specifically pointing out the flaws in your understanding of rules-based morality.

interesting. So there IS situational morality. Yet we're told there is not.

(and also interesting that an abortion to save a mothers life is acceptable, but a condom, which could protect the same person from being in that position in the first place, is not. this lacks in common sense completely.)

Click to expand...

Catholics don't believe in rule based morality. It is all about what is the good being done and what the intention involved is. Abortion is never acceptable. There are procedures that are used to save a mother's life, but they are not abortion. The death of the embryo is the usual and unfortunate side effect. But the procedure is not done for that purpose.
Regarding condoms, as far as I am aware, all of these procedures and problems are not known as pre-existing conditions.

that's some finely backed horse apples.

Click to expand...

HIV would not be an epidemic disease if people did not objectify other people and their sexuality.

yes, I see the bible as a guide.

I didn't see anywhere written in it's pages that you have to check your brain at the door though. I think God expects us to think things through.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church believes in faith and reason. Unfortunately for some people outside of the Church, it is faith and "what I want" that determines their moral convictions.

if Jesus was intent on us following rules for rules sake, then he should have had the adultress stoned. He did not.

that again, was in response to a statement made by a Catholic.

Click to expand...

Well that statement is not representative of what the Church believes, so you ought to take it up with the person that said it, rather than using it to argue against the Church whilst saying "it was just what someone said".

Uphill Battle said:

my irony meter just blew up.

Click to expand...

Probably because you make accusations about others without examining the basis of your own moral philosophy.

so then, God is subject to his own laws and statues... that's interesting.

Click to expand...

God is not subject to anything. He does not change His laws, since He is unchanging. Since humanity and all creation is an expression of God, then whatever laws govern human beings are eternal. Thus, it makes no sense for God to change laws.


you don't get it, do you?

that is RULE BASED. you pretend it's some question of natural order, but over the last two years, killing my wife by getting her pregnant would have been a real bad "natural order" don't you think?

it boggles the mind. It's almost like people don't THINK. on the one hand, they say it's the natural order, so condom use is sinful, but then would say that abstinence would be the only way to protect my wife from a potentially fatal pregnancy.... and THAT doesn't violate the natural order?

Click to expand...

Abstinence does not violate natural law. Jesus was abstinent. That was the original way that man was created (before Eve existed) and that is the way we will return to in Heaven were we will be perfect.

To say that it is rules based is like saying I am obsessed with rules because I think eating McDonald's every day is bad for you. God did not create people to eat fast food every day, when they do, they become unhealthy by using the body in a way it was not intended. In the same way, using any human function, be it eating or sex, in a way not in accordance with the designs of God will create spiritual problems.

That's not rules, that using common sense and reason.

it's no secret, when both parties are part of the decision. That's a silly statement.

Click to expand...

That's not what I am talking about. Holding your fertility is like holding part of your personhood (which is similar to keeping secrets about yourself).

NewHope2010 said:

Maybe I'm just confused. You're getting defensive about an issue that could be avoided if those same people just abstained from sex. Why do you insist that they have to be given condoms. Why do you have to argue with the idea that an organization doesn't want to support a habit of pure sexual gratification because it doesn't match their values? People dont HAVE to have sex, so what does the Catholic Church's stand on it have anything to do with compassion? If you don't like the fact that they won't support condom distribution, then start an organization of your own that does! I really don't get why you are so upset over this.

Click to expand...

People know what the right thing is sometimes and get upset when it is made apparent to them.

Uphill Battle said:

because intellectual discourse is automatically filed under the "you just don't get it" category.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you make, for whatever reason, false arguments and then get upset that people point out that your argument is invalid based on your misunderstanding of what the Church teaches. That is, everyone assumes you are not deliberately misinterpreting the Church.

Now you call what you did intellectual discourse dismissed as not getting it. No, you do not understanding Catholicism properly and so your arguments are out of whack.

If someone says the Pope is God, then all you can do is say that is wrong. You can't explain/defend Catholicism based on a false premise/idea like that.

and, the one issue, (infallible statements/rules that harm people) is very extremely vexing.

Click to expand...

Subjective morality is what hurts people.

Uphill Battle said:

Indeed. Just like eating meat on a Friday. oh wait... that's ok now.

but nothing changes.....

Click to expand...

Catholics are required to do penance according to the norms of their particular Church. For the Latins, this was by abstaining from meat on Friday. Catholics are still required to abstain from meat on Fridays, however, they must substitute it for a different form of penance.

This would be a change in the disciple of something, which vary among regions and can change over time.

sunlover1 said:

Very real and deadly too.

Actually, God bound Himself to forgive us.
That's why He says that He is faithful and "JUST" to forgive us if we
confess our sin ...
If He did not forgive us, after Christ paid, He would be "unjust".

Click to expand...

heymikey80 said:

I think that presumes too much. John is especially writing to God's children, "we".

John said Christ was the propitiation for "the whole world". Christ's payment was enough to pay us all up. But God isn't unjust to punish some that the payment covers. Mt 25 comes to mind.

Click to expand...

sunlover1 said:

Hey there you are Mikey.
What presumes too much?
Didn't you just say the same exact thing that i said?
*scratches head

Click to expand...

I don't think so. You said that God paid -- He must forgive -- otherwise God could be considered unjust. But the result of Jesus assuming the role does not conclude that God could be considered unjust to punish some.

He paid. Some are still punished. And God is still not unjust.