View Full Version : Look - the Pope isn't evil!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2010, 00:05
Basically, the Pope has said that if you use a condom to prevent disease transmission, that is better than not using one and knowlingly infecting someone with something.
I suspect he has always thought this, as have most other catholic theologians 0 but has only now been able to express it openly.
Horribly biased article from the Guardian that describes the historical Vatican position as both "wicked" and "romantic" in the opening paragraph:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/nov/21/condoms-pope-benedict-ban-overturned
People have been jumping up exicitedly about this all day, but I fail to see the interest really - at least not the way left-leaning Liberals do. The position is an obvious case of opting for the "lesser Sin" between two Sins, which is pretty central to catholicism in its various denominational varients.
Shock horror.
So, have at boys.
HoreTore
11-22-2010, 00:46
Sex before marriage is great.
End of thread.
Rhyfelwyr
11-22-2010, 00:47
I don't get his example, shoudn't he be more concerned about the facts they are prostitutes in the first place?
The Vatican spin machines waters down the comunication:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-20-pope-condoms_N.htm
nothing to see here...more along.
gaelic cowboy
11-22-2010, 01:01
I don't get his example, shoudn't he be more concerned about the facts they are prostitutes in the first place?
Rhyfelwyr your better than this.
Rhyfelwyr
11-22-2010, 01:19
Rhyfelwyr your better than this.
Wut that wasn't an attack (thought about having a little troll but didn't). I don't have an issue with the Vatican's stance on contraception, makes me feel a bit out of place though, normally its the crazy Proddies like me that should be spoiling everyones fun and saying you can only do enjoyable things if they have a practical purpose eg sex for procreation.
I just thought it was a strange example to use. If you go along with the church's view that prostitution is a moral sin, then saying they should use a condom to make it less bad is kind of like saying a murderer should kill his victims in a humane way and that this would be the first step on the road to taking moral responsibility as they put it.
Obviously using the condom would have the benefit of preventing the risk of aids, I just don't think it fits into his example since the issue with aids is not a direct part of the moral issue. I mean, people generally don't set out to give people aids when they have unprotected sex, so wearing a condom has nothing to do with the morality of the act. It's more a case of being unaware of the dangers in most cases I would think.
So I wasn't meaning to troll, I was just having a sasaki moment in being ridiculously rigid in my interpretation of things and being a bit of a stickler for 100% correctness in setting the parameters for the discussion or something. You know I don't even know what I am talking about right now, too many long days of late.
Does it matter small kids don't get pregnant anyway
HoreTore
11-22-2010, 13:22
Does it matter small kids don't get pregnant anyway
:drummer:
Does it matter small kids don't get pregnant anyway
but now you can put a condom in your kid's pocket when you send him to church....an important step!
In nomines patris, et fallatio, and spiritus sanctionless
Louis VI the Fat
11-22-2010, 14:57
And He looked down, and He saw that it was Good, and He smiled.
https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2098/image001115.jpg
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2010, 15:36
In nomines patris, et fallatio, and spiritus sanctionless
Charming.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2010, 15:39
I just thought it was a strange example to use. If you go along with the church's view that prostitution is a moral sin, then saying they should use a condom to make it less bad is kind of like saying a murderer should kill his victims in a humane way and that this would be the first step on the road to taking moral responsibility as they put it.
I think that's exactly the idea - having unprotected sex when you know you have HIV is worse in the Poep's view than just being promiscuous.
Isn't that the basis of what every parent says to their children at a certain point?
"You're too young to have sex, but wear a condom."
HoreTore
11-22-2010, 15:59
I think that's exactly the idea - having unprotected sex when you know you have HIV is worse in the Poep's view than just being promiscuous.
Isn't that the basis of what every parent says to their children at a certain point?
"You're too young to have sex, but wear a condom."
My parents have never told me or any of my siblings anything negative about sex, nor that we shouldn't have any. Instead they've told us that we should protect ourselves without saying that our behaviour is wrong. They trusted our ability to make the right choices, and are of the opinion that sex is a good thing that they wouldn't want to spoil for us.
What's the result of that?
None of us have gotten pregnant or got anyone pregnant. None of us has had an STD. None of us has had a bad experience with sex. None of us judge and look down upon people who have multiple partners.
Charming.
Maybe such old arts will once be more accepted, but for now it's latex armour +1, 75% disease resistment
HoreTore
11-22-2010, 16:02
Maybe such old arts will once be more accepted, but for now it's latex armour +1, 75% disease resistment
It's actually 100% for those of us who know how to use one.
It's actually 100% for those of us who know how to use one.
Yeah but I hate them they squeeze you to blue smurfdom and I'm absolutely no goliath. Use them of course but the catholics used to be onto something, condoms suck.
HoreTore
11-22-2010, 17:05
Yeah but I hate them they squeeze you to blue smurfdom and I'm absolutely no goliath. Use them of course but the catholics used to be onto something, condoms suck.
Bah, you barely notice having the thin ones on.
Rhyfelwyr
11-22-2010, 17:23
I think that's exactly the idea - having unprotected sex when you know you have HIV is worse in the Poep's view than just being promiscuous.
Well I guess that's a fair point then. Although less revolutionary than what people are making out.
Isn't that the basis of what every parent says to their children at a certain point?
"You're too young to have sex, but wear a condom."
I thank Jesus every day that my parents said no such thing to me.
So the Pope isn't evil, because he says use a condom if you have an STD?
Strike For The South
11-22-2010, 17:54
Just another Catholic recantment in a long line of Catholic recantments.
Nothing more than a black stain on human progress, these little chardes people dance because one crazy Roman emperor had a crazy dream 2000 years ago is most trying on the soul.
Progress is made, the church complains, progress slows, the chruch gives in because there position was bloody indefensible in the first place, progress continues.
Religon is the ultimate roadblock to enlightenment the two are diametrically opposed.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2010, 18:33
Well I guess that's a fair point then. Although less revolutionary than what people are making out.
I think it's pretty blisteringly obvious, this man has been a theologian for around 60 years. To suggest he would do something "revolutionary" by accident is to massively underestimate him.
So the Pope isn't evil, because he says use a condom if you have an STD?
No, he isn't evil, and everyone who used the condom-thing as a reason to call him evil can now hopefully see they were barking up the wrong tree there. To see why it was such a delicate issue for him to address chec this out from the Gruniard: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/african-catholics-fear-of-aids-second-fear-of-god
Theologically, they are correct - eternal damnation is worse than death, but the reasoning breaks down when you consider that they are also sinning by fornicating.
Just another Catholic recantment in a long line of Catholic recantments.
Nothing more than a black stain on human progress, these little chardes people dance because one crazy Roman emperor had a crazy dream 2000 years ago is most trying on the soul.
Progress is made, the church complains, progress slows, the chruch gives in because there position was bloody indefensible in the first place, progress continues.
Religon is the ultimate roadblock to enlightenment the two are diametrically opposed.
Wow, Strike, that Faith of your really died and left some bitterness behind.
Strike For The South
11-22-2010, 18:40
Wow, Strike, that Faith of your really died and left some bitterness behind.
Meh, I'm sure I'll mellow at some point
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2010, 18:59
Meh, I'm sure I'll mellow at some point
You could just mellow now, it's actually a choice, you know.
Strike For The South
11-22-2010, 19:03
You could just mellow now, it's actually a choice, you know.
But If I'm not here to take a stand against religon who will?
Unlike Horetores cliched and passee attack on the commoner. I focus more on the machinene of christianty which is constantly qaushing the individual scientest and philosihper.
If my attention span and soberity hold you may get a debateable reply out of me.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2010, 19:13
BBC, more nuanced: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319
As the journalist says, our world is impatient with subtly.
Strike For The South
11-22-2010, 19:30
BBC, more nuanced: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319
As the journalist says, our world is impatient with subtly.
So, you can't use condoms unless you are really going to do irrerprable harm to someone (IE give them AIDS). It's these sort of moral gymnastics that are so frustrating. There is nothing logical about it at all, it smacks of damage control.
It isn't so much subtly as its "Well clearly we're wrong and our position makes no sense but a baby or the clap people will get over" It's always facts to fit theroy with the chruch.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2010, 19:49
But If I'm not here to take a stand against religon who will?
Unlike Horetores cliched and passee attack on the commoner. I focus more on the machinene of christianty which is constantly qaushing the individual scientest and philosihper.
If my attention span and soberity hold you may get a debateable reply out of me.
You do realise I'm a Christian philosopher (not, I should add, a "Christian Philosopher"). My initial training was in Plato and Aristotle, not Augustine.
What's the result of that?
A horribly annoying pro-sex forum troll... ~;)
Oh yeah, I guess the pope is right, it's better to be promiscuous with a condom than to be promiscuous without one if there is a good chance you'll more or less kill the other person without one. sex = sin, sex + infection = sin² or so.
Strike For The South
11-22-2010, 19:58
You do realise I'm a Christian philosopher (not, I should add, a "Christian Philosopher"). My initial training was in Plato and Aristotle, not Augustine.
Ok then pray tell why one should belive in something that has been constantly been proven to be wrong, backwards, and biased?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2010, 20:07
Ok then pray tell why one should belive in something that has been constantly been proven to be wrong, backwards, and biased?
I wouldn't belive in such a thing, but that description applies only to a small segment of Christianity, a very small segment.
On the other hand, anything is "biased", all thought systems support certain motivations and not others, that doesn't make them inherently wrong, or not more wrong than each other, in any case.
Much as I feel for you and your loss of faith, I have to tell you that, as a Christian philosopher, such an outcome is hardly surprising to me given the background from which you have come.
Case in point: sex, you get told if you do it without being married you go to hell, but you spend all your time trying to get in with some girl.
Ergo, you have always had a fundamental disconnect there.
Strike For The South
11-22-2010, 20:28
I wouldn't belive in such a thing, but that description applies only to a small segment of Christianity, a very small segment.
On the other hand, anything is "biased", all thought systems support certain motivations and not others, that doesn't make them inherently wrong, or not more wrong than each other, in any case.
Much as I feel for you and your loss of faith, I have to tell you that, as a Christian philosopher, such an outcome is hardly surprising to me given the background from which you have come.
Case in point: sex, you get told if you do it without being married you go to hell, but you spend all your time trying to get in with some girl.
Ergo, you have always had a fundamental disconnect there.
All fair enough, I never professed to be the greatest christian nor did my sins trully push me away from the church. I like most Christians were able to compartmentalize those things and still profess a love and belief in Jesus.
What I can't reconcile with is the logical games and holes. I have always had many questions and everytime I have asked them I was given a roundabout hot air answer all tied up with "Jesus loves you"
Anytime you have to bend a beilif system which still claims to be the rigid word of God you lose credibilty.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2010, 20:46
All fair enough, I never professed to be the greatest christian nor did my sins trully push me away from the church. I like most Christians were able to compartmentalize those things and still profess a love and belief in Jesus.
This is my major problem with some Protestant denominations, you can't compartmentalise like that, you have to accept yourself, whole and inperfect. I feel bad about my Sins, but I keep trying - and I keep failing to to not turn my head every time a pretty girl walks past so I can look at her backside and rate it on a scale of 1-100.
Still, I try not to dwell on my failings.
What I can't reconcile with is the logical games and holes. I have always had many questions and everytime I have asked them I was given a roundabout hot air answer all tied up with "Jesus loves you"
Anytime you have to bend a beilif system which still claims to be the rigid word of God you lose credibilty.
Well, this was either bad theology or bad explanation - the one would actually be wrong, the other would be glossing over complexity and dumbing down. Either way smells pretty fishy.
For example: The Bible is catagorically not the unmediated Word of God, because it is flawed and God, being perfect, therefore obviously did not write it himself. To suggest otherwise is bad theology, and would have been considered obvious nonsense before the invention of the printing press when you could compare the work of two scribes copying the Bible and detect the corruptions both had created.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-22-2010, 22:01
What I don't understand is the advantage of religion over philosophy. Can't you arrive at the same conclusions philosophically?
Tellos Athenaios
11-23-2010, 00:23
I think it's pretty blisteringly obvious, this man has been a theologian for around 60 years. To suggest he would do something "revolutionary" by accident is to massively underestimate him.
No, he isn't evil, and everyone who used the condom-thing as a reason to call him evil can now hopefully see they were barking up the wrong tree there.
I believe the issue wasn't that the Pope was merely being evil, rather that a hard and fast ban on condoms is grossly irresponsible given the daily reality where condoms basically save lives (if not from acute threat of death then at least from a needless STD infection). Merely suggesting that using condoms might not be so bad when you are having sex knowing you are infected by some STD is not nearly good enough. What if you don't know? It's not like those diseases are one night you had sex the next night you feel ill. For the type of STD which is effectively prevented by condoms there is an incubation time which varies, and for quite a few of those diseases you do not even need to have sex to get them.
Theologically, they are correct - eternal damnation is worse than death, but the reasoning breaks down when you consider that they are also sinning by fornicating.
Realistically, he was simply wrong. He still is. Not just merely wrong as in “sorry guys, but I mistranslated the Scripture here”, but every bit as wrong as the Romans who condemned the early Christians for being a bunch of incestuous terrorist cannibals -- to translate the 3 common accusations leveled against the Christians back then to a more modern rhetoric. Now the Christians eventually were accepted, then gradually given more and more power to the point that we ought to have been given a few tasters of divine wrath from the Pantheon. Of course no such divine wrath occurred, nobody has yet had to go and create a whole new human population by throwing rocks over their shoulder so it might be reasonable to assume those early Romans got it quite wrong.
So to sum up, as long as the argument for using condoms is grounded in a practical reality, I'll go for a few more lives saved from needless STDs, and continue to ignore divine beings at my peril. It has worked a good 2000 years for the Christians after all. I also would encourage everybody else to do likewise, and until the Catholic Church cottons on I can only hope that the Church will fade into irrelevance like the Romans did to the betterment of mankind.
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: as someone more informed on Catholic and Christian faith, how do you personally fit this into the church's and the bible's doctrine? I always was learned at Catholic school that sex was only morally okay, when used for reproduction. How then can the condom be morally okay to use when you are bringing someone else in danger of contamination? If this is the case, then one is not using sex for reasons it should? Hence abstinence is the morally correct solution. Thus isn't this rule implying that sex can be used for means other than reproduction?
I'm not against the use of condoms, but this rule doesn't make too much sense to me, when put into the perspective of the larger list of rules. I'm confused about what (I think) I know about catholic rules, now.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-23-2010, 12:34
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: as someone more informed on Catholic and Christian faith, how do you personally fit this into the church's and the bible's doctrine? I always was learned at Catholic school that sex was only morally okay, when used for reproduction. How then can the condom be morally okay to use when you are bringing someone else in danger of contamination? If this is the case, then one is not using sex for reasons it should? Hence abstinence is the morally correct solution. Thus isn't this rule implying that sex can be used for means other than reproduction?
I'm not against the use of condoms, but this rule doesn't make too much sense to me, when put into the perspective of the larger list of rules. I'm confused about what (I think) I know about catholic rules, now.
For some time now the Church has viewed sex as not only the means of reproduction but as an expression of love and closeness from one half of a married couple for their spouse. The "reproduction only" attitude was never doctrinally correct -- though some felt it should have been and went so far as to suggest sex after menopause was wrong.
The Church DOES assert that sex is part of marriage and that adultery and pre-marital sex "cheapen" what should be a more profound interaction between the spouses whose union has been made sacred through matrimony. The Church opposes condoms for married couples because such interferes with the potential for the creation of life through man's artifice. The Church opposes condoms among the unmarried because it opposes sex among the unmarried -- condom usage therein is secondary to that more basic point.
The Holy Father, responding to what is effectively a lovely "forced choice" question, acknowledged that condom usage to prevent HIV was better than spreading the infection to another -- not a difficult choice really. The Holy Father did NOT assert that extra-marital sex was on the "good" list.
HoreTore
11-23-2010, 19:55
I believe the issue wasn't that the Pope was merely being evil, rather that a hard and fast ban on condoms is grossly irresponsible given the daily reality where condoms basically save lives
I do not in any way believe the Pope is evil because he wants to ban condoms and sex in general.
I simply believe that he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about, the pope is completely unaware of what sex even is, and the real problem is that people take the advice of someone who is completely ignorant on the subject.
Kinda like taking legal advice from a dolphin.
I do not in any way believe the Pope is evil because he wants to ban condoms and sex in general.
I simply believe that he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about, the pope is completely unaware of what sex even is, and the real problem is that people take the advice of someone who is completely ignorant on the subject.
Kinda like taking legal advice from a dolphin.
Except that dolphins are really cool, I'll take legal advice from dolphins over moral guidance from the Pope anyway, sick puppies.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-29-2010, 15:43
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: as someone more informed on Catholic and Christian faith, how do you personally fit this into the church's and the bible's doctrine? I always was learned at Catholic school that sex was only morally okay, when used for reproduction. How then can the condom be morally okay to use when you are bringing someone else in danger of contamination? If this is the case, then one is not using sex for reasons it should? Hence abstinence is the morally correct solution. Thus isn't this rule implying that sex can be used for means other than reproduction?
I'm not against the use of condoms, but this rule doesn't make too much sense to me, when put into the perspective of the larger list of rules. I'm confused about what (I think) I know about catholic rules, now.
Theologically speaking, all sex leads to Sin.
Well, actually it doesn't you see.....
We are supposed to love God more than anything or anyone else, but during orgasm it's a bit hard to remember that, so sex isn't bad, but it leads to a certain estrangement from God.
Now, the church has always taught that sex within a marriage with someone you love when there is a chance it can lead to creating new life is better than any other kind of sex, but prayer and piety are better full stop.
The Pope's words on condoms fit exactly into this line of thought. Sex with a condom is bad (morally), but sex without a condom risking HIV infection is worse.
The Pope's words on condoms fit exactly into this line of thought. Sex with a condom is bad (morally), but sex without a condom risking HIV infection is worse.
Not true because in the Catholic faith, a sin, is a sin, is a sin. There is no big or small sins, only sin.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-29-2010, 16:24
Not true because in the Catholic faith, a sin, is a sin, is a sin. There is no big or small sins, only sin.
Oh, of course there are....
There are Venal Sins and Mortal Sins Beskar.
Everything is a Sin, and it is all about degree of severity.
So you were partly right, "there is only sin".
Rhyfelwyr
11-29-2010, 17:03
Not true because in the Catholic faith, a sin, is a sin, is a sin. There is no big or small sins, only sin.
That's more a Proddy idea.
That BBC drama series I watched last night lied to me. :(
We are supposed to love God more than anything or anyone else, but during orgasm it's a bit hard to remember that, so sex isn't bad, but it leads to a certain estrangement from God.
Now, the church has always taught that sex within a marriage with someone you love when there is a chance it can lead to creating new life is better than any other kind of sex, but prayer and piety are better full stop.
So God actually created us hoping that we'd die out very soon because we pray instead of having sex?
If he didn't want us to enjoy sex, he could have created us so we don't enjoy it. I know this argument is a bit of a slippery slope but in th case of sex, which is our only natural way to reproduce, it seems laughable to think that God prefers us not to have it. That's not to say he wouldn't want us to accept certain rules like only doing it within marriage for example.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-30-2010, 22:35
So God actually created us hoping that we'd die out very soon because we pray instead of having sex?
If he didn't want us to enjoy sex, he could have created us so we don't enjoy it. I know this argument is a bit of a slippery slope but in th case of sex, which is our only natural way to reproduce, it seems laughable to think that God prefers us not to have it. That's not to say he wouldn't want us to accept certain rules like only doing it within marriage for example.
Did I say God didn't want people to have sex? Try reading what I wrote again, then go read the Song of Solomon, preferably while in bed with your wife!
Don Corleone
11-30-2010, 23:24
I am really enjoying the irony of watching poor Philipvs playing Papal apologist in this thread. Welcome to our side of the street, mate. :laugh4:
Did I say God didn't want people to have sex? Try reading what I wrote again, then go read the Song of Solomon, preferably while in bed with your wife!
You said it leads to estrangement from God, estrangement from God is something that God does not want, or is that not so?
You also said prayer is always better so if people would strive to always do the best thing, they would always pray instead of having sex, which basically sounds like the only ideal way to please God is to never have sex but pray a whole lot instead. So basically only people who are estranged from God and do not do their best to be close to God can have children, so either God wants you to behave in a non-ideal way by getting children or he wants your family to die out, neither sounds very true to me.
Rhyfelwyr
12-01-2010, 01:44
I'm going to disagree with PVC's take on this. *surprise*
@Husar: God did not make people to spend all day praying, and they aren't commanded to by scripture either. Rather, it says that all aspects of our lives, whether just everyday things like work or even sex, should be sanctified unto the Lord. If they are to be sanctified, they must be done in their proper order, and in the case of sex this means only within marriage. Marriage in Christianity is not some artibrary rule we follow for the sake of discipline or something, it is a creation ordinance rooted in the earliest stories of Genesis. A monogamous relationship between one mand and one woman is part of the natural/inherent nature of mankind, therefore anything else is unnatural and a rebellion agaist God's order.
Sure people will say what about evolution, monogamy is unnatural, spread your seed etc, but I am talking about from a Christian (more specifically, biblical) perspective.
Don Corleone
12-01-2010, 04:00
I'm going to disagree with PVC's take on this. *surprise*
@Husar: God did not make people to spend all day praying, and they aren't commanded to by scripture either. Rather, it says that all aspects of our lives, whether just everyday things like work or even sex, should be sanctified unto the Lord. If they are to be sanctified, they must be done in their proper order, and in the case of sex this means only within marriage. Marriage in Christianity is not some artibrary rule we follow for the sake of discipline or something, it is a creation ordinance rooted in the earliest stories of Genesis. A monogamous relationship between one mand and one woman is part of the natural/inherent nature of mankind, therefore anything else is unnatural and a rebellion agaist God's order.
Sure people will say what about evolution, monogamy is unnatural, spread your seed etc, but I am talking about from a Christian (more specifically, biblical) perspective.
Question for you Rhyfelwyr... if a man thought he was entering a sanctified relationship, then discovered afterwards, he discovered his "wife" had been married before and had never had the marriage properly annulled, i.e. according to Jesus, she was still married and he was an adulterer... Was that pre-destined? Since in Calvinism, all our sins are still fully our responsibility... how would you begin to council somebody on reconciliation, as the act of reconciliation requires an acknowledgment of exactly what you did wrong, and the 'guilty party' in this particular case clearly doesn't have knowledge of their wrongdoing?
Maybe God isn't always pulling all the strings?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-02-2010, 20:49
You said it leads to estrangement from God, estrangement from God is something that God does not want, or is that not so?
You also said prayer is always better so if people would strive to always do the best thing, they would always pray instead of having sex, which basically sounds like the only ideal way to please God is to never have sex but pray a whole lot instead. So basically only people who are estranged from God and do not do their best to be close to God can have children, so either God wants you to behave in a non-ideal way by getting children or he wants your family to die out, neither sounds very true to me.
What you are saying would be correct, theologically, if Prayer were only some sort of "act" which one engages in. However, if you concieve of payer in a more spiritual sense as a reaching towards God then it is, theoretically, possible to do that all the time and still, eat, drink, have sex, etc.
From a theological persepctive the problem with this is that we tend to be bad at thinking of God, or even being aware of him, when doing stuff we enjoy.
As I said, read the "Song of Solomon" in bed with your wife.
Personally, I need to take a cold shower every five verses in order to get through that part of the Bible.
HoreTore
12-02-2010, 22:02
As I said, read the "Song of Solomon" in bed with your wife.
Personally, I need to take a cold shower every five verses in order to get through that part of the Bible.
Uhm....................
This explains soooooo much.
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla tops it off with what happens after the City of Sodom and the loss of Jobs' wife.
Reenk Roink
12-03-2010, 04:20
The Holy Father, responding to what is effectively a lovely "forced choice" question, acknowledged that condom usage to prevent HIV was better than spreading the infection to another -- not a difficult choice really. The Holy Father did NOT assert that extra-marital sex was on the "good" list.
I mean how else did people expect him to respond to a question with these horns? :rolleyes:
Granted, given this man is the leader of the Holy Church, and extremely educated AND intelligent, he probably could have just dismissed the journalist and his loaded question with his swag turnt up and have the gravitas to pull it off, but he instead maintained two critical Catholic teachings with a clear answer. :bow:
Did I say God didn't want people to have sex? Try reading what I wrote again, then go read the Song of Solomon, preferably while in bed with your wife!
Don't you think that's kinda creepy, not trying to mock you, but isn't that between you and your wive, why would you need anyone's aproval. Not sure what I really want to say but it just screams wrong in my face, it comes across almost as a pervertion to me. I know you don't care about that (and you shouldn't) but it sounds like church sanctioned variety of porn. Same thing but aproved, but why care about aproval when it's so easy to be forgiven.
serious question I really want to understand
Don't you think that's kinda creepy, not trying to mock you, but isn't that between you and your wive, why would you need anyone's aproval. Not sure what I really want to say but it just screams wrong in my face, it comes across almost as a pervertion to me. I know you don't care about that (and you shouldn't) but it sounds like church sanctioned variety of porn. Same thing but aproved, but why care about aproval when it's so easy to be forgiven.
serious question I really want to understand
I've heard that the Song of Solomon is a bit controversial among different denominations, some say it's scripture, some don't, and some grudgingly accept it as an allegory of God's love.
When I got to that part of the Bible I skipped it because my church says it isn't inspired scripture so I didn't bother reading it, but I did glance at it and it didn't seem to be that pornographic to me, it just seemed like any other love poem.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-06-2010, 11:17
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla tops it off with what happens after the City of Sodom and the loss of Jobs' wife.
I have sex with my daughter while drunk?
Eh?
Don't you think that's kinda creepy, not trying to mock you, but isn't that between you and your wive, why would you need anyone's aproval. Not sure what I really want to say but it just screams wrong in my face, it comes across almost as a pervertion to me. I know you don't care about that (and you shouldn't) but it sounds like church sanctioned variety of porn. Same thing but aproved, but why care about aproval when it's so easy to be forgiven.
serious question I really want to understand
Yes, it would be wierd, but my point was that the Bible even contains porn, because it is a book which comprehensively reflects human experience. I was being a bit flippant, but it's a fair question you have asked, so I will try to answer.
A Christian is supposed to love God first, so as a Christian you actually look for that in a partner. I can see how from a secular perspective that seems wierd, to actually seek out someone who will always put you second to something apparently abstract and arbitary. Personally though, I find the idea of someone who is totally devoted to their faith still making a place for me in their life very alluring.
It's a different kind of love, but I would not call it "creepy".
I've heard that the Song of Solomon is a bit controversial among different denominations, some say it's scripture, some don't, and some grudgingly accept it as an allegory of God's love.
When I got to that part of the Bible I skipped it because my church says it isn't inspired scripture so I didn't bother reading it, but I did glance at it and it didn't seem to be that pornographic to me, it just seemed like any other love poem.
Interesting that your denomination does not accept the Song of Solomon/Song of Songs/Canticles - it is generally considered to be canonical.
It is also quite graphic, I respectfully suggest that your Bible may have toned it down in translation.
Interesting that your denomination does not accept the Song of Solomon/Song of Songs/Canticles - it is generally considered to be canonical.
It is also quite graphic, I respectfully suggest that your Bible may have toned it down in translation.
Well we use the KJV, I don't know if that one was toned down or not. And I only glanced at it so I could be wrong.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-08-2010, 13:39
Well we use the KJV, I don't know if that one was toned down or not. And I only glanced at it so I could be wrong.
The KJV is an outdated and politically biased translation known for obscuring sexual themes, among other sins.
It should be rejected on the grounds that we know it's manuscript witnesses were poor if nothing else - as we now have much better ones.
Rhyfelwyr
12-08-2010, 16:09
The KJV is an outdated and politically biased translation known for obscuring sexual themes, among other sins.
It should be rejected on the grounds that we know it's manuscript witnesses were poor if nothing else - as we now have much better ones.
KJV only-ism is the way to go!
Nah, I'm kidding. As for the Song of Solomon, I agree it should just be read for what it is. I've heard a lot of people say it is representative of God's relationship with the church or Israel, but there's not really any reason to think that.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-08-2010, 16:37
KJV only-ism is the way to go!
Nah, I'm kidding. As for the Song of Solomon, I agree it should just be read for what it is. I've heard a lot of people say it is representative of God's relationship with the church or Israel, but there's not really any reason to think that.
Yeah... that'd be wierd, wouldn't it?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.