truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Are you saying that female circumcision is comparable to the idea of the tooth fairy
Of course one man's "God & the tooth fairy" argument is another's "deliberately inflammatory subject"
Are you saying that female circumcision is comparable to the idea of the tooth fairy
Great - could you post a link
No, I'm merely puzzled that you seem to take exception to others raising what you see as "deliberately inflammatory subjects" while you don't seem to have any problem with making fairly wild accusations and generalisations about the Church, and religion in general.
Anyway, are you just going to ignore the good things the Church does on a daily basis?
I dont understand what is offensive in comparing a god to any other imaginary entity. As much scientific evidence exists to support the existence of the tooth fairy as does to support the existence of a god. I am sorry if you find that offensive. Unfortunately it is the truth. If the truth offends it is because the mind examining it is not open to fact.
If science could prove the existence of a god, in a manner that could be repeated, experiment after experiment then Id be the first to jump on the god bandwagon. But it cannot.
Plus there is the common sense notion that there are a large number of different religions around the world. They cant all be right can they? The only reason a large number of people are Catholic is that they were born of Catholic parents. They were indoctrinated before they had any understanding of the world around them or knew what they were signing up for by being baptised/make communion/confirmed. Its a matter of chance what religion you are.
I fundamentally disagree with a number of different 'rules and regulations' of the Catholic church (like being against homosexuality, contraception, abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage, sex only for procreation etc).
But that is a totally seperate issue to belief in the existance of a god. And it is intended to be an unquestioning belief. Its very easy to stand by the argument for a god if no one is allowed to question it.
Questioning it and making valid comparisions is classed as 'offensive' - so this prevents open discussion because the religious member can always use the 'you are causing offence' as a fall back position.
I would imagine a document banning homosexuals from joining the priesthood would in fact give support to the point I made about the church being against homosexuality!
From:
[broken link removed]
Modern history of Catholic teaching
1930
The modern attitude of the Catholic Church to contraception was laid down in the 1930s when Pope Pius XI issued Casti Connubii (which translates as 'Of Chaste Marriage').
This document said that artificial birth control was a violation of the "law of God and nature" and that those who used it committed "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
1951
In 1951 Pope Pius XII said that it was acceptable to use the rhythm method if a couple had a good reason to limit the size of their family.
1958
In 1958 Pius XII stated that it was legitimate for women to take the birth control pill for medical reasons other than contraception. He said that the contraceptive side effect would not be wrong because of the 'doctrine of double effect'.
1968
In 1968 Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, which banned all artificial methods of birth control. His uncompromising position on birth control led to protests around the Catholic world and Roman Catholic hierarchies in some countries openly modified the policy.
The document surprised many Catholics, who had hoped for a relaxation of the traditional attitude after Vatican II, and it rejected the views of the commission appointed to consider birth control, which had recommended that the ban on contraception be ended.
Pope John Paul II
Pope John Paul II thought birth control was profoundly important; while still Cardinal Wojtyla he wrote that the issue of contraception was a "struggle for the value and meaning of humanity itself" (1978).
When he became Pope he confirmed the Church's position, "the natural regulation of fertility is morally correct; contraception is not morally correct."
I didn't say you did.I merely commented on the nature of the subjects you choose. I never indicated I found them offensive?
Sorry, I cannot find any indication there that sex should only be for procreation?
undermined the allegation that the Church is a monolithic, dictatorial organisation that rules and controls by fear.
Very last line "contraception is not morally correct" - the purpose of contraception is to prevent conception, if use of it is not morally correct then that infers that the purpose of sex is to conceive.
which is a different matter entirely.I fundamentally disagree with a number of different 'rules and regulations' of the Catholic church (like ...sex only for procreation)
Where was that alleged?
No it doesn't. You originally said...
Fair enough you didn't allege it, I didn't make my point particularly well. However my point still stands, most organisations that rule and "control by fear" (your words) don't bother with niceties like internal policy debates, least of all conducted in the public domain.
How does it not infer that the purpose of sex is to conceive if the use of contraception is morally wrong?
I think that its pretty clear that the churches stance on this is that the purpose of sex is for procreation.
Of course they do!! Its so people like you will believe that you are not being controlled by fear.
If what you are saying is correct, the Church would teach that it is immoral for a woman to have sex if she is infertile. If this is their teaching, it is news to me.
apology accepted. Thanks
But dont the people who dont go to mass still have to pay the church for things like baptisms, weddings, funerals etc?
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?