- Jan 9, 2004
- 32,648
- 1,608
- 68
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Archbishop 10-K said:
So oral sex is a sin in the churches eyes I gather from what you posted?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Archbishop 10-K said:Cobalt Blue,
Allow me to first link you to some Scriptural verses that oppose contraception, and then the writings of the early Christians on why they opposed contraception. You will see that they are mainly on religious grounds, but hey, at least the Catholic Church is being consistent, right?
http://scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html Verses that oppose contraception.
Early Church Fathers quotes......
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] outside of the vagina would be sin, but oral sex as foreplay is okay.mhatten said:So oral sex is a sin in the churches eyes I gather from what you posted?
How about, birthrate is not equal to population. All your point illustrates is that contraception has been successful in America and Western Europe. And even then, overpopulation is STILL a problem and you seem to be avoiding this.Carly said:The birth rate in American and Western Europe is below 2.
I'm sorry you've bought into the overpopulation lie.
I'll admit to not having researched the topic in depth, but let me try to clarify my view of feminism. I do not claim that this is how most women or most feminists view it. I think most big movements start off radical (partly to draw attention to themselves, and partly because they have been oppressed for so long) and then become more moderate and reasonable after a generation or so. Feminists said women could do anything men could do, and there was (and still is) a double standard about sexual promiscuity. People are much less likely to look down on a promiscuous male, indeed some view this as a positive thing or just a normal thing young men go through. A promiscuous woman on the other hand is automatically looked down on and given a whole slew of derogatory labels. Feminists said if men can be promiscuous, then so could women! The sexual revolution was going on about the same time, and so people did lots of irresponsible things. I think this attitude is a lot less prevalent in women today, but I could be completely wrong, I admit. Well whatever, I really don't have anything against people being promiscuous if that is what really brings them happiness, as long they use protection so as not to have children or spread diseases.Carly said:You don't know much about feminism then. Read up a little on Betty Friedan, Margaret Sanger and the rest.
There is more to the world than America and Western europe.The birth rate in American and Western Europe is below 2.
I'm sorry you've bought into the overpopulation lie.
And again, it is not the space people will take up, but the amount of recources we consume and waste we produce.The 2000 growth rate of 1.4 percent, when applied to the world's 6.1 billion population, yields an annual increase of about 85 million people. Because of the large and increasing population size, the number of people added to the global population will remain high for several decades, even as growth rates continue to decline.
Between 2000 and 2030, nearly 100 percent of this annual growth will occur in the less developed countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose population growth rates are much higher than those in more developed countries. Growth rates of 1.9 percent and higher mean that populations would double in about 36 years, if these rates continue. Demographers do not believe they will. Projections of growth rates are lower than 1.9 percent because birth rates are declining and are expected to continue to do so. The populations in the less developed regions will most likely continue to command a larger proportion of the world total. While Asia's share of world population may continue to hover around 55 percent through the next century, Europe's portion has declined sharply and could drop even more during the 21st century. Africa and Latin America each would gain part of Europe's portion. By 2100, Africa is expected to capture the greatest share (see chart, "World population distribution by region, 1800–2050", above).
Why exactly is that? Please don't tell me I am going to have to refute the "It is a waste of sperm" argument again...Archbishop 10-K said:[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] outside of the vagina would be sin, but oral sex as foreplay is okay
Cobalt Blue said:Why exactly is that? Please don't tell me I am going to have to refute the "It is a waste of sperm" argument again...
Anyone can read anything they want into scripture. If I tried I could probably explain away all those quotes from scripture, and if I REALLY tried I could probably find a bible quote I could twist around to support contraception. I am not going to try however, because I do not see the point. I don't consider the bible or the early church fathers as ligitmate authority figures, but you do. What could I possibly say that would make you change your mind? I think I basically understand the reasoning behind the catholic church's position on contraception now, but I consider it irrational*.Archbishop 10-K said:Read my quotes from the Church Fathers again. I am making an arguement for why the Catholic Church holds contraception to be a sin. It is because it is consistent with the Church Fathers and Scripture. If you can argue from a religious standpoint why I am wrong, go ahead.
Apparently you cannot seperate yourself from your beliefs. I did not call you moronic, I would never do that. Re-read my post and you will see that I said I personally think the church's reasoning behind opposing contraception is moronic. If I called Bush's tax cuts a stupid idea, and you happened to support them would I be calling you stupid? No of course not.Archbishop 10-K said:Moronic?
Maybe the Catholic Church just thinks of sex as more sacred than Dan Brown (reference to The Da Vinci Code) could ever dream of.
Anyway, I request that you don't call me a "moron" again.
Apparently you cannot seperate yourself from your beliefs.
No, not in in my opinon. There are plenty of people I have great respect for who hold beliefs that I consider ridiculus. That said, perhaps you are right, I could have been bit more tactfull. I will edit my post.Archbishop 10-K said:Is a person not defined by his beliefs? I would imagine that someone who subscribed to moronic beliefs would consequently be a moron. Regardless, I would prefer you would use a different word for either me or the Church.
Well, I was going from a Catholic POV. Since the Pope has the keys of heaven to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19) I would say that he does have the authority to interpret. I would say that no man has the right to disobey God's appointed authority.Well getting into the birth control, and condoms etc., that is not a place for a church to tell you what to do, the church is merely a gathering place for believers to fellowship and worship. No one man has the authority to tell people what GOD means in a certain verse or passage.
Refer to my first post on this thread. The Church has been consistent since the beginning. Christians have historically always been against contraception until the 20th century, when morals started getting lax.What about "pulling out", or viagra or anything that would chemically enhance or altar the physical part of sex, give me what the "priests" say on that issue.
Archbishop 10-K said:Well, I was going from a Catholic POV. Since the Pope has the keys of heaven to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19) I would say that he does have the authority to interpret. I would say that no man has the right to disobey God's appointed authority.
Hmmm, that passage doesn't say anything about the Pope, only Peter. I guess you could infer it also means his decendants, but which ones? All of them? Surely not. Anyway, I could be wrong, but aren't popes elected now? Could you please clarify this for me?Archbishop 10-K said:Well, I was going from a Catholic POV. Since the Pope has the keys of heaven to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19) I would say that he does have the authority to interpret. I would say that no man has the right to disobey God's appointed authority.
It is very possible to be consistently wrong.Refer to my first post on this thread. The Church has been consistent since the beginning. Christians have historically always been against contraception until the 20th century, when morals started getting lax.
Figurative, of course. It just means he has the authority to bind and loose. in the Old Testament, when the King of Israel left his realm, he would give a literal set of keys to a prime minister, which opened and locked all the doors to the palace. Figuratively, that meant he was in temporary charge while the King was gone. Refer to Isaiah 22:22. Jesus is the King of Israel, and the Pope his prime minister. Refer to Matthew 16:18-19.mhatten said:The Pope has the keys to heaven?Do you mean that in a literal or figurative sense?
Peter's first successor, St. Linus, was appointed (according to the Church Father Irenaeus), however elections are also valid. For example, Judas' bishopric was replaced by Matthias in election, and that's Biblical. But hey, you're dealing with a non-sola Scriptura Christian. I like to fall back on the Church Fathers and on Apostolic Tradition as well as the Scriptures.Hmmm, that passage doesn't say anything about the Pope, only Peter. I guess you could infer it also means his decendants, but which ones? All of them? Surely not. Anyway, I could be wrong, but aren't popes elected now? Could you please clarify this for me?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?