Look - the Pope isn't evil!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

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.

What I don't understand is the advantage of religion over philosophy. Can't you arrive at the same conclusions philosophically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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!

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuchip

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuchip

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.