[Old Man G Funk]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on these points.. as it would take too much to explain why you are wrong, and I'm not as good an evangelizer as I should be! But it would appear you've been listing to a few anti-Christian professors.. I've heard it all before at the U.

Read the Bible. Jesus specifically talks about how it is OK to beat your slaves as much as they deserve.

Yes it does actually.. and the disagreements when those scientists have all been resolved, and since we live in the present, I would say the fact that those scientists were FUNDED by the church is evidence that IT HAS contributed to science, even if by divine providence and not a desire by its human leaders in the "Dark ages"..

I've already commented on this above.

Edit: Further, your list doesn't say they were "FUNDED" by the church, just that they were Catholic.

 

[fluff]

rather than get into a long, and never ending debate on the subject there are VOLUMES of information by the church on WHY it's wrong.. morally, culturally, and in terms of health.. pick up a Catechism or google "Catholic Church Contraception" and filter past the anti-catholic propaganda by Planned Parenthood and other groups.. and you'll get the long winded answer that I don't have the energy to type out.

There is nothing kept secret about the Churches teachings on anything..

OK - let's narrow it down, do you disagree with the use of condoms within marriage.

 

[Ti22]

Yet, Catholics accept torture more readily than the evangelical crowd, which was the whole point of the first post, or didn't you get that.

I completely got it, and piled on it with my disdain for their "Catholic" ness as it relates to other issues.. re-read my first post please.

I don't defend Catholics, I defend the Church, which after all is about the Risen Lord and his plan for us.

The reason I said that I might be off the mark with that particular comment was that the church might not put out a comment before there is an actual politician supporting torture who is Catholic. But, maybe they should do it anyway as a proactive measure.

I would love to see the Bishops take a pro-active role in a great many issues, but they in many ways also are politicians and must walk a thin line of what can be done, and what can't .. more over, what is politics and what is moral teachings..

But no argument from me.. I'd love to see a Bishop excommunicate an abortionist, or torturer of POW's..

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I completely got it, and piled on it with my disdain for their "Catholic" ness as it relates to other issues.. re-read my first post please.

I don't defend Catholics, I defend the Church, which after all is about the Risen Lord and his plan for us.



I would love to see the Bishops take a pro-active role in a great many issues, but they in many ways also are politicians and must walk a thin line of what can be done, and what can't .. more over, what is politics and what is moral teachings..

But no argument from me.. I'd love to see a Bishop excommunicate an abortionist, or torturer of POW's..

Good. No more argument from me on that score.

 

[Ti22]

OK - let's narrow it down, do you disagree with the use of condoms within marriage.

I do, and I've been married for 10 years, with two kids, and we simply use the Churches method, and it works flawlessly.. should we have an "Accident" then we'll treated it as a gift.. not an unwanted child.

However, my wife has gotten very good at knowing when she's ovulating and this is what it's all about.. natural methods that DO WORK.. but aren't intended for 15 year olds in HS..

 

[Ti22]

Good. No more argument from me on that score.

Well good.. I have a meeting to get to, so I'll check in later on you guys.. but do me a favor, and read BOTH sides of every thing, not just the anti- side.. you'd be surprised how many with "Agendas" against the Church will feed fuel to the few minuses and completely ignore the pluses of the Church.

 

[Ti22]

Read the Bible. Jesus specifically talks about how it is OK to beat your slaves as much as they deserve.

I have and I found no such passage... not that I recall, so you may have to site it for me.

That said, DO NOT confuse parables with teachings... this is a central tenants of Catholic teaching, and why we are the only church that should be able to translate and explain the bible passages.. we after all presided on the canonization of the bible in the year 335(??).. The Evangelicals used to site "Old Testament" passages to justify slavory, but the Catholic church has never justified it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Well good.. I have a meeting to get to, so I'll check in later on you guys.. but do me a favor, and read BOTH sides of every thing, not just the anti- side.. you'd be surprised how many with "Agendas" against the Church will feed fuel to the few minuses and completely ignore the pluses of the Church.

What makes you think I don't read BOTH sides?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I have and I found no such passage... not that I recall, so you may have to site it for me.

Luke 12:47-48

That said, DO NOT confuse parables with teachings... this is a central tenants of Catholic teaching, and why we are the only church that should be able to translate and explain the bible passages.. we after all presided on the canonization of the bible in the year 335(??).. The Evangelicals used to site "Old Testament" passages to justify slavory, but the Catholic church has never justified it.

Wait, the Catholic church is the only church that should be able to translate and explain the Bible? Umm, the Protestants were Catholic during the canonization of the Bible in 335 CE. They split off much later. How did they negate their opportunity to translate and explain? Why can't anyone translate and explain it?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I do, and I've been married for 10 years, with two kids, and we simply use the Churches method, and it works flawlessly.. should we have an "Accident" then we'll treated it as a gift.. not an unwanted child.

However, my wife has gotten very good at knowing when she's ovulating and this is what it's all about.. natural methods that DO WORK.. but aren't intended for 15 year olds in HS..

I must have missed something. The only method I know of that is endorsed by the church is not capable of accidentally leading to a child. The church holds that the only acceptable time to have sex is in the act of procreation last I heard.

Edit: From the google search that you had me do earlier, here's the first page that popped up (note it is a Catholic site and I didn't find all the anti-Catholic sites that you said would be there.)

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Note that it says:

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

 

[fluff]

I do, and I've been married for 10 years, with two kids, and we simply use the Churches method, and it works flawlessly.. should we have an "Accident" then we'll treated it as a gift.. not an unwanted child.

However, my wife has gotten very good at knowing when she's ovulating and this is what it's all about.. natural methods that DO WORK.. but aren't intended for 15 year olds in HS..

If your objection is simply down to blindly following church teachings then we have no possible discussion. If on the other hand you can give me a reasoned argument why condoms are wrong then we can move forward.

Do you have any objection to withdrawal as a method of contraception or do you believe that ejaculation must take place within the vagina? If you have no objection to withdrawal what is the difference between that and a condom?

 

[Ti22]

Luke 12:47-48

That IS indeed a parable, and not a teaching.. you must make a distinction between the two, and if you can't go see a priest and have him explain it.

Wait, the Catholic church is the only church that should be able to translate and explain the Bible? Umm, the Protestants were Catholic during the canonization of the Bible in 335 CE. They split off much later. How did they negate their opportunity to translate and explain? Why can't anyone translate and explain it?

because they, by definition, protested the church, and went in their own direction. What they believed before the reformation and King Henry the 8th, and what they believed after are not the same.

 

[Ti22]

If your objection is simply down to blindly following church teachings then we have no possible discussion. If on the other hand you can give me a reasoned argument why condoms are wrong then we can move forward.

alas then we are at an impasse. The idea of making up one's own mind as to what is right and wrong, is in contradiction to being religious. I defer to God and his church for such teachings.

Do you have any objection to withdrawal as a method of contraception or do you believe that ejaculation must take place within the vagina? If you have no objection to withdrawal what is the difference between that and a condom?

I don't know teaching on that.. but I for one don't like the idea.

 

[Ti22]

I must have missed something. The only method I know of that is endorsed by the church is not capable of accidentally leading to a child. The church holds that the only acceptable time to have sex is in the act of procreation last I heard.

Edit: From the google search that you had me do earlier, here's the first page that popped up (note it is a Catholic site and I didn't find all the anti-Catholic sites that you said would be there.)

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Note that it says:

No there is more, and maybe that article doesn't cover it, but the natural family planning methods are part of this teaching, and have been for a long while.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That IS indeed a parable, and not a teaching.. you must make a distinction between the two, and if you can't go see a priest and have him explain it.

No, it is the explanation of a parable.

because they, by definition, protested the church, and went in their own direction. What they believed before the reformation and King Henry the 8th, and what they believed after are not the same.

So, by protesting the church they are no longer allowed to interpret scripture? What?

The first break came because of Henry VIII wanting a divorce that was not granted by the church. It was not over interpretations, except in perhaps over marriage rights. It did not change the fundamental beliefs, however.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

alas then we are at an impasse. The idea of making up one's own mind as to what is right and wrong, is in contradiction to being religious. I defer to God and his church for such teachings.

At least you are candid about your status as an automaton.

I don't know teaching on that.. but I for one don't like the idea.

Of course not, because it would mess up your personal choices, but guess what. You are already in violation of church teachings.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No there is more, and maybe that article doesn't cover it, but the natural family planning methods are part of this teaching, and have been for a long while.

Citation?

According to everything I've seen, you are in violation of the church.

 

[Ti22]

No, it is the explanation of a parable.

It is not a teaching, it is a parable.. the fact that he's explaining the parable doesn't make it a teaching.

This is a prime example of why the church should explain the bible, and not the 13,000 different denominations who will read it how they wish.

So, by protesting the church they are no longer allowed to interpret scripture? What?

exactly.. there can only be one truth, and it began when Jesus told Peter that he would build his church on him, and the gates of Hatties would not prevail against it.

[/quote]The first break came because of Henry VIII wanting a divorce that was not granted by the church. It was not over interpretations, except in perhaps over marriage rights. It did not change the fundamental beliefs, however.[/QUOTE]

Henry the 8th and Luther were around the same time, and Henry the 8th played off the sentiments of Luther and his followers to make himself the head of the church in England. In doing so, he excommunicated himself and his followers. The turmoil in the Anglican church today with regards to doctrine is a prime example of why it is important to keep to the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the one and only, Apostolic, Catholic Church.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

It is not a teaching, it is a parable.. the fact that he's explaining the parable doesn't make it a teaching.

Jesus used parables to teach. Are you denying that fact?

This is a prime example of why the church should explain the bible, and not the 13,000 different denominations who will read it how they wish.

exactly.. there can only be one truth, and it began when Jesus told Peter that he would build his church on him, and the gates of Hatties would not prevail against it.

Henry the 8th and Luther were around the same time, and Henry the 8th played off the sentiments of Luther and his followers to make himself the head of the church in England. In doing so, he excommunicated himself and his followers. The turmoil in the Anglican church today with regards to doctrine is a prime example of why it is important to keep to the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the one and only, Apostolic, Catholic Church.

So, how do you know that the Catholic church got it right and not the Protestants?

 

[Ti22]

Citation?

read: Humanae Vitae but if you don't have time, see the link below for the conservative doctrinal view.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/contraception/index.htm




Taken from the Priests for Life website:

What's the Solution?

So contraception is always wrong. But that still leaves us hanging in regard to the three couples we saw at the beginning. They cannot use contraception, and yet they have reasons not to become pregnant at the present time. What do they do?

God has provided an answer in the fact that a couple can now determine with precision when ovulation occurs, even if the woman has a highly irregular cycle. We are not speaking here of the "calendar rhythm" method, but of a modern, improved set of methods which rely on several observable phenomena to determine the days in which a pregnancy could occur. These methods are grouped under the name "Natural Family Planning (NFP)." If a couple has serious objective reasons for avoiding pregnancy, they abstain during those days when pregnancy could occur. When used correctly this method is as completely reliable as artificial methods. In fact, Natural Family Planning is more than a "method." It is based on the virtues of sexual self-control, communication, shared responsibility, and obedience to God. By observing NFP, the couple is not distorting the meaning of the sexual act. Rather, they respectfully abstain from it at times in order to plan their family. The proper use of NFP is in line with God's law and the Catholic religion. The philosophy and practice of NFP can be learned in a few sessions, offered in various locations.

Our three couples, and so many like them, do have a solution. Yet the solution calls for respect and obedience to the design of God for marriage, love, and the procreation of new life. The Church is ready to help all such couples to know and do what is right.

Fr. Frank A. Pavone

 

[Old Man G Funk]

read: Humanae Vitae but if you don't have time, see the link below for the conservative doctrinal view.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/contraception/index.htm

Taken from the Priests for Life website:

From your own source:

Two Inseparable Aspects: Union and Procreation

12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seizing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle.

Do you think that timing your sexual activity so as to not procreate is allowed under this passage?

 

[Ti22]

Jesus used parables to teach. Are you denying that fact?

no but they were parables in the context of the times, so they would site law and society examples of the time.. but there is no serious theologian that accepts this parable as accepting slavery.. if you read it that way, then you are proof for the need of one authority on the bible..

So, how do you know that the Catholic church got it right and not the Protestants?

Apostolic succession and the Holy Spirit.

But if you want more, I can say this from my own view pont.. if for 1450 years doing something a certain way, i.e. the order of the Mass, the interpretation of the bible, the council of Trent, the Niacian council, etc.. was accepted as "Christian" and all of a sudden over 400 years literally thousands of movements splinter away from this... it's logical that the one that held fast to the original teachings is the steward of truth.

Logic would say the one that didn't change is the ORIGINAL one..

 

[Ti22]

From your own source

Do you think that timing your sexual activity so as to not procreate is allowed under this passage?

yes.. just as with the parable and savorily argument, you lack context, which is to say, you are trying to pick thru parts of the picture and make general judgments without know the whole picture. Why not sit with a priest and ask him to explain.. I really am not an "authority" on these things, I just follow my conscience..

Watch EWTN, or go to www.ewtn.com and go to the live tv area, and learn more.. I've got to run.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

no but they were parables in the context of the times, so they would site law and society examples of the time.. but there is no serious theologian that accepts this parable as accepting slavery.. if you read it that way, then you are proof for the need of one authority on the bible..

But, that would mean that Jesus accepted slavery.

Apostolic succession and the Holy Spirit.

But if you want more, I can say this from my own view pont.. if for 1450 years doing something a certain way, i.e. the order of the Mass, the interpretation of the bible, the council of Trent, the Niacian council, etc.. was accepted as "Christian" and all of a sudden over 400 years literally thousands of movements splinter away from this... it's logical that the one that held fast to the original teachings is the steward of truth.

Logic would say the one that didn't change is the ORIGINAL one..

So, you think that what you are following today as your religion is completely unchanged from what was practiced ~2000 years ago?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

yes.. just as with the parable and savorily argument, you lack context, which is to say, you are trying to pick thru parts of the picture and make general judgments without know the whole picture. Why not sit with a priest and ask him to explain.. I really am not an "authority" on these things, I just follow my conscience..

Watch EWTN, or go to www.ewtn.com and go to the live tv area, and learn more.. I've got to run.

I'm sorry, because this might come off as harsh, but that is completely hypocritical.

You rail against sex and contraception, yet you have your own method of contraception that you think is "approved" even though it seems as though it isn't when one actually reads the words from the Pope and not an intermediary. So, sex and contraception are bad and wrong, unless they affect you. Nice.

 

[Ti22]

But, that would mean that Jesus accepted slavery.

So, you think that what you are following today as your religion is completely unchanged from what was practiced ~2000 years ago?

Tell you what.. clearly you have no intention to listen to my argument, as you already have your mind made up. You chose to listen to the atheist viewpoint on God, rather than the religious one.. that's between you and God. I've said all I can.

Best of luck. From a debate standpoint, I will admit defeat.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

From the Humanae Vitae:

"Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."

The act of timing your sexual acts to avoid children is antithetical to the ordained nature of marriage and conjugal love.

 

[Ti22]

I'm sorry, because this might come off as harsh, but that is completely hypocritical.

You rail against sex and contraception, yet you have your own method of contraception that you think is "approved" even though it seems as though it isn't when one actually reads the words from the Pope and not an intermediary. So, sex and contraception are bad and wrong, unless they affect you. Nice.

you didn't read Humanae Vitae in it's entirety surely.. did you now?

but if it really makes you feel better about yourself and your life choices, fine I am a hypocrite.. but then I never claimed to be Jesus, and free of sin, did I? I just claimed to do my best to follow his teachings, which is more than I can say for you.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Tell you what.. clearly you have no intention to listen to my argument, as you already have your mind made up. You chose to listen to the atheist viewpoint on God, rather than the religious one.. that's between you and God. I've said all I can.

Best of luck. From a debate standpoint, I will admit defeat.

So, I can assume that you think that you worship in more or less the same exact way as was done ~2000 years ago? I'm pretty sure that popes have made declarations in that time and have changed aspects of your religion. Your insistence that your religion is the true one and not any of those other religions smacks of hubris.

The truth is that you have no idea whether or not your religion is right.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

you didn't read Humanae Vitae in it's entirety surely.. did you now?

but if it really makes you feel better about yourself and your life choices, fine I am a hypocrite.. but then I never claimed to be Jesus, and free of sin, did I? I just claimed to do my best to follow his teachings, which is more than I can say for you.

Did you? You must have missed the parts where it says that the purpose of marriage and sex is to have babies.

It doesn't make me feel better about myself that you are acting hypocritically, but I do like pointing out when people act holier-than-thou and are shown to be full of it.

I do wonder how it "is more than I can say for you." I never claimed to be a follower of Jesus. I also don't accept that it is inherently better to be a follower of Jesus than to not be. So, I reject your claim that trying to follow the teachings of Jesus is better than what I do. If it works for you, so be it, but it is NOT inherently better.

 

[Ti22]

I'll help you out.. from humanae Vitae..

HUMANAE VITAE

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI
ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH

JULY 25, 1968

16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

good day.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I'll help you out.. from humanae Vitae..



good day.

I just found that passage myself. So, I'll retract. You are not hypocritical if you are using the rhythm method in order to space out births. If you fully intend to have another child and are simply not ready yet, then I retract. If you don't want to have another child, then you are still in violation.

 

[moff_quigley]

That's rich...saying that the Catholic Church is the only church that can accurately interpret scripture.

Where in the Bible does it say that one should pray to Mary, Peter, or the "Saint Du Jour?" Doesn't the Bible say "there is only one mediator between God and man", ie Jesus?

What about the Catholic concept/doctine of purgatory? Paul states "after death there is judgement." None of this waiting around in limbo so my family can pray me out etc. (Is this still practiced?)

I'll agree that it is a shame that the "church" has become so split and therefore has lost it's focus.

 

[Ti22]

That's rich...saying that the Catholic Church is the only church that can accuratley interpret scripture.

Where in the Bible does it say that one should pray to Mary, Peter, or the "Saint Du Jour?" Doesn't the Bible say "there is only one mediator between God and man", ie Jesus?

What about the Catholic concept/doctine of purgatory? Paul states "after death there is judgement." None of this waiting around in limbo so my family can pray me out etc. (Is this still practiced?)

I'll agree that it is a shame that the "church" has become so split and therefore has lost it's focus.

Here you go, grass hopper.. Answers to all of your questions, and more!

http://www.justforcatholics.org/answers.htm#1

I've read it all before, and there is contradiction to all of it.. right here: http://www.catholic.com/

 

[MudGrrl]

I'm Buddhist.



does that mean that you need to 'save' me from eternal damnation?

 

[moff_quigley]

I've read it all before, and there is contradiction to all of it.. right here: http://www.catholic.com/

I would hesitate to call that "contradiction." More like a refuting or a response to the first site you listed.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Hey, Ti22, are you spacing out the kids or are you going against god's commands?

 

[Changleen]

alas then we are at an impasse. The idea of making up one's own mind as to what is right and wrong, is in contradiction to being religious. I defer to God and his church for such teachings.

And that's why you're helping retard humanity. Damn this attitude pisses me off. What the fvck? Don't you have the stones to decide for yourself what's right and wrong? You pathetic little girl. Grow up and make some decisions for yourself. God doesn't exist. The church is simply a control mecahnism for weak minded idiots like you. You're going to die, and then you'll be dead. Giving money and time to promote an organisation that harms the progression of humanity because you're too dumb and scared to ask the big questions for yourself is fvcking lame.

 

[dante]

back to the overall topic, this is the church that gave us the Inquisition. are you people surprised that its members would condone torture??

 

[ohio]

What did you want, the Pope to come over to the US and march with Rev. King or something?

Sure beats having a Pope who is former Hitler Youth...

For an organization that has preserved and promoted Western culture, they've been awfully passive in the face of some downright evil acts. You'd think that "preserving and promoting" would actually involve some actions, but apparently simply by existing they are able to accomplish this.