There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
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.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
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.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
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.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
BBC, more nuanced: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11813319
As the journalist says, our world is impatient with subtly.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
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.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Bookmarks