Feast of the Immaculate Conception

[Ben Kenobi]

How is it breaking the unitive act, unless you mean they are removing the chances of procreating? That still goes back to the idea that recreational sex = wrong.

Are you saying that only contracepted sex is pleasureable?

Contraception doesn't break up this union, unless you mean "union" to be referring to procreative protential.

It's no different then putting up a wall between each other. You are not accepting each other completely, you are holding back.

So men and women don't use birth control to prevent conceiving children, but rather to control their "surrender" to one another? Ludicrous.

Why is it birth control?

Look, the only reason birth control or contraception or whatever you want to call it exists is to prevent pregnancy, and the reason married couples would use it is to avoid the burden of having too many kids to care for.

Then why wouldn't they sterilize themselves when they've had enough?

Contraception does not necessarily result in less pleasure. It depends on the method. If the woman is on the pill, the physical pleasure is the same.

Are you a woman Boris? Why do so many women lose interest in sex on the pill because of hormonal changes?

Have you ever used contraception, BK? Or have the Catholic luminaries who devised such a silly idea?

Why are you lecturing me on how sex is like for a woman Boris?

It's a historical fact? How so? If I take the Bible literally, it says quite clearly Jesus had brothers.

Which bible? What does the original say?

There are no historical "facts" behind the perpetual virginity of Mary, only dogma contrived well after the "fact."

So if a reputable historian asserts a fact, why should we accept your word for things? I've already quoted Origen. Are we to believe your opinion is greater then Origen on this matter?

[Ben Kenobi]

What are "his" credentials for saying such a thing? Personal experience? Or wishful thinking?

The observer is irrelevant to the observations. You don't have to do something to find the truth.

I know that jumping 20 metres off a cliff is a bad deal. I don't need to do it to discover that for a fact.

[KrazyHorse]

I doubt his priest is a virgin. Most aren't.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Are you saying that only contracepted sex is pleasureable?

No, why on earth would you think I was saying that? Nothing I said even hinted at that.

It's no different then putting up a wall between each other. You are not accepting each other completely, you are holding back.

Holding back by... not having the potential to get pregnant. That's what you're saying here, because the only thing be withheld is the ability to conceive. This just proves my point

Why is it birth control?

You called it that, I called it contraception. But what does it matter? People use it to prevent pregnancy, not inhibit their relationships with each other.

Then why wouldn't they sterilize themselves when they've had enough?

Uhhh, many do: vasectomies and getting tubes tied. The Catholic Church opposes those, too.

The reason most people don't do these things is simple: they reserve the right to conceive again later when its better timing for them to do so.

Are you a woman Boris? Why do so many women lose interest in sex on the pill because of hormonal changes?

Are you a woman? You're the first person who asserted the loss of pleasure from contraception.

"So many?" You need to prove this assertion. Since so many women go on the pill precisely to engage in recreational sex, if "so many" women experienced such a problem, it wouldn't be nearly as popular.

Why are you lecturing me on how sex is like for a woman Boris?

Pot, kettle.

Why is an unmarried, apparently virginal Catholic man lecturing women on it?

Which bible? What does the original say?

It says "brothers." We went over this already.

So if a reputable historian asserts a fact, why should we accept your word for things? I've already quoted Origen. Are we to believe your opinion is greater then Origen on this matter?

Origen is a Christian Theologian from the 3rd Century A.D. who is writing his opinion on the subject. He does not cite any historical facts, merely his interpretation. If that's your standard for historical fact, it's woefully inadequate.

Since Origen certainly wasn't there, how does he know this "fact?"

What specific historical facts support the idea Mary was perpetual Virgin? And this is me putting aside the issue that the even the existence of Mary and Jesus isn't necessarily historical "fact" in the first place, so I'm already being generous.

[Verto]

You might well ask the same of the physicists. Why isn't everything so simple. Why is reality so complex?

Religion is 'complex' only because you are constantly having to twist scripture and doctrine around until it fits what you believe to be "true". It is the complete opposite of what science does.

It's apparent to pretty much everyone how wrong Christianity, and the Catholic Church, has been on all kinds of issues. How anyone, even religious people, could think the Catholic Church has any integrity or legitimacy left, is beyond me.

[Asher]

I have no time to read this thread right now, but I will assure you that MrFun and Ben Kenobi are horribly wrong.

Ben Kenobi and MrFun lecturing about sex is like Snuffleupagus lecturing about cocaine.

[Ben Kenobi]

Religion is 'complex' only because you are constantly having to twist scripture and doctrine around until it fits what you believe to be "true". It is the complete opposite of what science does.

Fits what I believe?

You are talking to someone who's been an Agnostic, Protestant and a Catholic.

If I was twisting scripture to fit what I believe, I never would have become a Christian, let alone a Catholic.

The only reason I am a Catholic is because I believe it is the truth, not because it's what I believe. Now, you can argue that it's false, but that is far different then saying I am twisting things to fit my own beliefs.

It's apparent to pretty much everyone how wrong Christianity, and the Catholic Church, has been on all kinds of issues.

It's not at all apparent to me. Why do you believe this to be true?

How anyone, even religious people, could think the Catholic Church has any integrity or legitimacy left, is beyond me.

I am curious Verto. Why do you believe this to be so? I have been an agnostic, and I found Christians to be the kindest and most caring people. They reached out to me when they had absolutely no cause to do so.

Why do you believe the Catholic church is spiritually bankrupt?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, why on earth would you think I was saying that? Nothing I said even hinted at that.

Ok, thank you. Why would the Catholic church be against sex if they are promoting sex which you have said is pleasureable?

Holding back by... not having the potential to get pregnant. That's what you're saying here, because the only thing be withheld is the ability to conceive. This just proves my point

No, that is not true. You are holding back yourself. If you are giving yourself wholly that means you will permit the opportunity to get pregnant.

You called it that, I called it contraception. But what does it matter? People use it to prevent pregnancy, not inhibit their relationships with each other.

Yet, that has been precisely the result. Men and women are more distant and their marriages are more likely to fail.

Uhhh, many do: vasectomies and getting tubes tied. The Catholic Church opposes those, too.

The reason most people don't do these things is simple: they reserve the right to conceive again later when its better timing for them to do so.

Thank you. They 'reserve' themselves and hold back rather then committing wholeheartedly.

Are you a woman? You're the first person who asserted the loss of pleasure from contraception.

It works both ways.

"So many?" You need to prove this assertion. Since so many women go on the pill precisely to engage in recreational sex, if "so many" women experienced such a problem, it wouldn't be nearly as popular.

http://www.womens-health.co.uk/pill_libido.html

It's well documented the libido problems associated with the Pill.

Why is an unmarried, apparently virginal Catholic man lecturing women on it?

Thank you. Your point is moot.

It says "brothers." We went over this already.

So all the Communists are brothers? Man that's a big family.

Origen is a Christian Theologian from the 3rd Century A.D. who is writing his opinion on the subject. He does not cite any historical facts, merely his interpretation. If that's your standard for historical fact, it's woefully inadequate.

Again, I repeat the point. He was there in the 3rd Century, he was vastly informed about the doctrines of the church, and he is about 10 times as close to the source documents as you are.

If he came out and said there was controversy, it would be an argument in favour of your position, that the wording was such. That he explicitly rejects the position, and instead cites them as a close relative, is a point in my favour.

Since Origen certainly wasn't there, how does he know this "fact?"

Good question. He not only states it as his personal opinion, but that it is the opinion of the church at the time. While it is not the same as a primary source, one would presume that if in fact Jesus had brothers, that scholars of the time would cite this was the case. Secondly, he is considered an authority on church doctrine. Again, we can be more likely to believe what he says about the Catholic church then other parishioners.

This is why I make the argument that you are really debating the best historians of their time, on source material that they spend their life studying.

What specific historical facts support the idea Mary was perpetual Virgin? And this is me putting aside the issue that the even the existence of Mary and Jesus isn't necessarily historical "fact" in the first place, so I'm already being generous.

Then why are we wasting time on her perpetual virginity? At least be honest here Boris. Why should I bother proving perpetual virginity to someone who doubts the historicity of Christ?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fits what I believe?
You are talking to someone who's been an Agnostic, Protestant and a Catholic.
If I was twisting scripture to fit what I believe, I never would have become a Christian, let alone a Catholic.
The only reason I am a Catholic is because I believe it is the truth, not because it's what I believe. Now, you can argue that it's false, but that is far different then saying I am twisting things to fit my own beliefs.

Every denomination interprets the Bible differently to fit their own teachings, or advance their own beliefs/agenda.

It's not at all apparent to me. Why do you believe this to be true?

All of the Bible is, according to you and most Christians, full of prophecy being both made and fulfilled. Why, then, has the RCC and Christianity in general been WRONG on so many things? Christians believed that the earth was at the center of the universe. Of course, when one believes that Earth was created by God and is the focus of his attention, this makes perfect sense. As we (or at least, most of us) now know, the Earth is NOT at the center of the universe.

Christians oppose evolution. A basic study of the human body will show a number of things that make perfect sense if you believe we are a product of natural selection and evolution, but are jarringly out of place if you believe we are created by God, in His Image.


[q]I am curious Verto. Why do you believe this to be so? I have been an agnostic, and I found Christians to be the kindest and most caring people. They reached out to me when they had absolutely no cause to do so.

Don't be silly, of course they had cause; not helping your fellow man is a sin. At a basic level, Christians do good in order to avoid punishment, or in hopes of converting you, etc.

Why do you believe the Catholic church is spiritually bankrupt?

Because I've studied history? The Papacy and Church has sunk to such a vile depth during its history, it's absurd. You can try to argue away the corruption of the Church as simply "products of men" or whatever, and act as if the integrity of the RCC remains intact, but I'm not buying it. The sex scandal is only the latest link in a long chain of corruption. The Reformation happened for a reason; while I don't think Protestants are any more correct, at least they can recognize that Christ would have nothing to do with the RCC if he ever existed.

[Ben Kenobi]

All of the Bible is, according to you and most Christians, full of prophecy being both made and fulfilled.

Very true.

Why, then, has the RCC and Christianity in general been WRONG on so many things? Christians believed that the earth was at the center of the universe. Of course, when one believes that Earth was created by God and is the focus of his attention, this makes perfect sense. As we (or at least, most of us) now know, the Earth is NOT at the center of the universe.

Ok.

1. There are no prophecies concerning such things in the Bible. If you can show me where the bible talks about such things as a heliocentric universe, then you are welcome to do so.

2. Even if the bible was wrong about scientific knowledge, it does not follow that everything in the bible is wrong.

3. Science itself also believed in a geocentric universe. Does that make Science wrong because they have been wrong many times before? If you say that Science ought to be trusted even though they have been proven wrong, then you must justify why you believe this to be so.

Christians oppose evolution. A basic study of the human body will show a number of things that make perfect sense if you believe we are a product of natural selection and evolution, but are jarringly out of place if you believe we are created by God, in His Image.

1. Christians are not of one mind on this topic.

2. Scientific evidence is not of a consensus, not in the sense that we have obtained natural laws governing the operation of mutations.

When evolutionary theory has advance to a truly scientific theory, we ought to be able to anticipate evolutionary changes, and predict them with the same degree of accuracy that Ptolemy did with his spheres. Until then, evolution is an excellent philosophy, on par with astrology.

Don't be silly, of course they had cause; not helping your fellow man is a sin. At a basic level, Christians do good in order to avoid punishment, or in hopes of converting you, etc.

Why did they choose me over others?

Because I've studied history? The Papacy and Church has sunk to such a vile depth during its history, it's absurd. You can try to argue away the corruption of the Church as simply "products of men" or whatever, and act as if the integrity of the RCC remains intact, but I'm not buying it.

Such as? I don't see any reason that the church should not have more integrity then anyone else. If you are arguing that the Church is morally bankrupt then so is everyone else, which btw is a Christian teaching.

You can do the same thing with science, and the men of science. How can we trust them to abide by the search for truth, when they are really shameless self promoters and plagiarists? It's a miracle anything ever actually gets discovered.

The sex scandal is only the latest link in a long chain of corruption. The Reformation happened for a reason; while I don't think Protestants are any more correct, at least they can recognize that Christ would have nothing to do with the RCC if he ever existed.

Really? Jesus told me that the RCC is the one true church. I didn't know he spoek with you too!

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. There are no prophecies concerning such things in the Bible. If you can show me where the bible talks about such things as a heliocentric universe, then you are welcome to do so.

From Wiki: Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."[85]

Regardless of whether you want to interpret this literally or not (again, to fit those passage with your beliefs), I just thought maybe the Bishop of Rome might have been able to get some insider knowledge and clear up the matter before the Church started trying people for heresy.

2. Even if the bible was wrong about scientific knowledge, it does not follow that everything in the bible is wrong.

Sure.

3. Science itself also believed in a geocentric universe. Does that make Science wrong because they have been wrong many times before? If you say that Science ought to be trusted even though they have been proven wrong, then you must justify why you believe this to be so.

Science is constantly trying to advance our knowledge of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Of course science has been proven wrong, but scientists don't claim to receive revelation, or to communicate with a god. They simply make conclusions based on the information available. Religion, OTOH, has been wrong on many basic things. Why is it so easy for prophecies from the OT to be fulfilled to the letter by the NT, but not for the RCC to recognize basic facts, such as a heliocentric universe?

1. Christians are not of one mind on this topic.

2. Scientific evidence is not of a consensus, not in the sense that we have obtained natural laws governing the operation of mutations.

When evolutionary theory has advance to a truly scientific theory, we ought to be able to anticipate evolutionary changes, and predict them with the same degree of accuracy that Ptolemy did with his spheres. Until then, evolution is an excellent philosophy, on par with astrology.

Evolution = astrology. Nice.

Why did they choose me over others?

Random chance. I'm sure you aren't the only person helped by someone else.

Such as? I don't see any reason that the church should not have more integrity then anyone else. If you are arguing that the Church is morally bankrupt then so is everyone else, which btw is a Christian teaching.

You can do the same thing with science, and the men of science. How can we trust them to abide by the search for truth, when they are really shameless self promoters and plagiarists? It's a miracle anything ever actually gets discovered.

I'll take a self-promoting scientist over a pedophile priest any day...I'm sorry that Catholicism has left you so jaded, but I personally have more faith in humanity.

The Church should at least have the same kind of integrity displayed by the Apostles, but it doesn't. It's a completely different beast.

Really? Jesus told me that the RCC is the one true church. I didn't know he spoek with you too!

Yes, I'm sure Jesus who spent his entire life eschewing riches would fully embrace the ridiculously ornate trappings of the RCC.

[Verto]

Really? Jesus told me that the RCC is the one true church. I didn't know he spoek with you too!

BTW, I spent a great deal of time as a devout and earnest Christian.

[Ben Kenobi]

From Wiki: Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."[85]

This is no different then Aristotelianism which said the same thing. If you are going to blame the church for being in the wrong, then so was science.

Regardless of whether you want to interpret this literally or not (again, to fit those passage with your beliefs), I just thought maybe the Bishop of Rome might have been able to get some insider knowledge and clear up the matter before the Church started trying people for heresy.

You mean the issue with Galileo? That was a problem with Galileo, not with the Church. There were many, many faithful scientists throughout the ages.

Science is constantly trying to advance our knowledge of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Of course science has been proven wrong, but scientists don't claim to receive revelation, or to communicate with a god.

Why is this? Revelation is an entirely different type of knowledge then Empiricism. You cannot test revelation in any way shape or form, in the way that we obtain empirical knowledge.

You cannot use one form of knowledge to test another. It's just not possible, because the whole concept that knowledge is a measurable quantity (that you can, in fact, increase knowledge), assumes you are working in the empirical realm.

WRT to revelation, all knowledge already exists, the only thing that changes is the distribution of such knowledge. Knowledge is revealed suddenly to one person, and not to others.

I can understand why you would be skeptical of knowledge obtained through revelation, but you cannot employ empirical methods to revelation, not the least because such experiences are not replicable.

They simply make conclusions based on the information available. Religion, OTOH, has been wrong on many basic things. Why is it so easy for prophecies from the OT to be fulfilled to the letter by the NT, but not for the RCC to recognize basic facts, such as a heliocentric universe?

The interpretation of scripture is based on aristotelianism, which had flaws in and of itself. Yes it is true that the earth does not move, and nor does the sun rise and set, but to claim that this means there is a problem with scripture is false. The problem is with the philosophy of aristotle.

Evolution = astrology. Nice.

Harsh, but true. Science is based on predictions not faith.

Random chance. I'm sure you aren't the only person helped by someone else.

No, but of all the people who could have helped me it was Christians who did so.

I'll take a self-promoting scientist over a pedophile priest any day...I'm sorry that Catholicism has left you so jaded, but I personally have more faith in humanity.

I've always been partial to Hobbes. I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise, that human nature is more akin to Rousseau, that it is society that corrupts and not man himself.

The Church should at least have the same kind of integrity displayed by the Apostles, but it doesn't. It's a completely different beast.

Even Peter who denied Christ three times rather then confess his beliefs?

Yes, I'm sure Jesus who spent his entire life eschewing riches would fully embrace the ridiculously ornate trappings of the RCC.

Christ himself said that it was better his feet should be perfumed then the perfume sold and the money given to the poor.

I hear the echo of Judas.

[Ben Kenobi]

BTW, I spent a great deal of time as a devout and earnest Christian.

Why the sudden change, Verto?

I was quite taken back by your charges.

I remember the whole Reagan thread that I kept as a thank you for you.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Asher
Ben Kenobi and MrFun lecturing about sex is like Snuffleupagus lecturing about cocaine.

Given the size of his nose and the dubiousness of his character, I'd say odds are good that Snuffy has some experience with the White Lady. But just to be sure, I'll ask my friend Charles, a pop-culture psychopath who has theories about Cookie Monster being a rapist. Everyone should have at least one friend like that.