Feast of the Immaculate Conception

[Zevico]

You know, there's a much simpler explanation for Ben Kenobi posting the way he does. He's doing it on purpose. This is what he likes to do. It's a credit to his posting and writing that he's kept up this consistent persona for so long.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What makes you so confident of man given history? Even Rome broke and so will the West.

I think humanity has done pretty well for itself.

There is much love in the bible.

Yes, Christ is the ideal. Look at how many people Christ killed in order to pursue his mission. Look at how Christ conquered city after city, slaughtering all the fighting men, and taking the women as their own. Look at how Christ revelled in wealth and built palaces for himself to the sky.

And a helluva lot of violence, killing, done by God, or at his command, or in his name. And the best is yet to come! You can ignore the bloodthirsty OT god and focus on the "turn the other cheek" passages, but we come full circle with Revelations.

Do you believe the resurrection actually happened?

No.

Too much Neitzche? This is almost word for word his teachings.

Haven't read him.

[TheStinger]

Isn't the translation of the word virgin in the bible in fact bollocks and could easily mean a young woman.

The bible is clear that Jesus ancestors go back to King David, that would then make sense if Joseph was his natural Father. This doesn't preclude him also being the son of God.

Next some one is going to say that the great flood occured and all the animals went in 2X2

there are clear messages in the bible about loving GOD and your neighbour etc I cannot for a second think that if Jesus was ewho he said he was wanted 2 thousand years of debate over whether his mother went like a train

[Dr Strangelove]

Frankly I have no idea why anyone would want to feast on a conception, immaculate or not. It sounds positively heathren to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think humanity has done pretty well for itself.

So all the evil that people do doesn't matter to you?

And a helluva lot of violence, killing, done by God, or at his command, or in his name. And the best is yet to come! You can ignore the bloodthirsty OT god and focus on the "turn the other cheek" passages, but we come full circle with Revelations.

Oh sure, God is very harsh on Israel, banishing them and letting them fall to the sword when they stray.

You cannot complain about the so-called bloodthirsty OT God, without acknowledging the profound love for man that God has, so much so that he sent his only son to die for us.

As for the resurrection, if you say you believe in the 'historical Jesus', what does this mean? You are rejecting the best historical accounts we have of his life.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So all the evil that people do doesn't matter to you?

I admit to the evil done by humanity, but also recognize our future potential, which will be realized much faster once humanity rids itself of religion, or at least reduces it to a more proper role: keep the fables that teach good morals, and throw away the rest. (A view held, incidentally, by many Founding Fathers.)

Oh sure, God is very harsh on Israel, banishing them and letting them fall to the sword when they stray.
You cannot complain about the so-called bloodthirsty OT God, without acknowledging the profound love for man that God has, so much so that he sent his only son to die for us.

So why is it that God intervenes so directly and so frequently in the OT, killing what would probably amount to hundreds of thousands of people at a whim, then transforms into a cuddle bear, then disappears completely from the world? And don't give me any crap about modern miracles, because someone was nice to you.

As for the resurrection, if you say you believe in the 'historical Jesus', what does this mean? You are rejecting the best historical accounts we have of his life.

I see no evidence to believe in Jesus, in a religious or historic context. The 'best historic accounts' we have were written four decades after his life, and given the inconsistencies in them, the authors seem to be merely recounting what someone else told them, rather than something they would have witnessed.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Verto
I admit to the evil done by humanity, but also recognize our future potential, which will be realized much faster once humanity rids itself of religion, or at least reduces it to a more proper role: keep the fables that teach good morals, and throw away the rest. (A view held, incidentally, by many Founding Fathers.)

...also, we'll be a nation of yeoman farmers any day now. Get real. Religion, in one form or another, is here to stay. And simplistic religions such as you propose have been introduced, but with little or no popular appeal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

I gather that the general idea behind such schemes is that clever people like you who see through the "scam" justify morality as socially useful or whatever, and make up the religion to give more primitive minds a reason to behave. Problem is, that's like the episode of Futurama where Bender becomes a chef: having no taste for the thing you make, your attempts are inevitably hamhanded and paltry. You have to have a passion for a thing to make it well.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, I ask, is sex only pleasureable if it's contracepted?

Irrelevant. The position of the Church, as you've described it, is that sex is most pleasurable if conception is a factor. To say they are promoting it for pleasurable purposes is illogical in that light, as they are promoting is first and foremost for reproduction. It's pretty easy to put the pieces together and see that taking pleasure in sex isn't the foremost concern.

The real folks who are anti-sex are the folks offering contraception.

Sex isn't synonymous with conception, so wrong.

What's so hard to understand? She was sinless.

No, the church believes that sin spoils people and that the Virgin Mary was sinless.

Precisely, and one of the sins she wasn't spoiled with was sex. There's no other explanation for the writings I posted which linked her purity to her perpetual virginity. It was directly referenced.

Yes, he does. Does that mean that sex is sinful? No. He even says that sex between a man and a woman in marriage is like Christ and his church.

It reinforces my original point, that the Catholic dogma says sex, even within marriage, is "spoiling" people. As Paul says, the ideal state is celibacy. The logical conclusion is that having sex is considered a less-than-pure act. Paul's words plus Mary's perpetual virginity to be "pure" = sex is impure.

Of course not. They give each other to the fullest extent possible. That their union does not result in children, is no more a fault of theirs then if they had a disability.

If the ability to conceive children isn't required for partners to give themselves fully, then your entire argument about contraception depriving people of the most pleasure in sex is rendered irrelevant. The bottom line is that only the individuals involved can determine what is and isn't the most pleasurable method of sex for themselves, not old, celibate Catholic luminaries.

Divorce rate has risen hand in hand with the approval of contraception.

And global temperatures have risen hand in hand with the decrease in the number of pirates in the world.

Are you so daft to require the explanation that correlation and causation aren't the same thing?

If you are saying that you have to experience things in order to know about them, then your argument is worthless.

When it comes to a subjective thing such as physical pleasure, direct experience is all that matters.

And again, I am not the one making sweeping statements about what is and isn't pleasurable for people. That's you and your church. And yes, your argument is worthless.

I notice you evaded my point about jumping off a 20m cliff. I don't need to do that in order to know that it's a bad decision.

Jumping off a cliff: results can be determined via objective external analysis using physics, for one thing.
Pleasure during sex: results can only be determined via subjective experience.

Not comparable.

That is a huge side-effect. 10 percent is nothing? 10 percent should be mandatory reporting.

Will you concede the point that sexual dysfunction is a significant side effect of the pill?

You cut out the bulk of what I wrote on the pill to post a dishonest analysis. Typical.

Notice the part where it stressed that any side effects are easily dealt with by either switching kinds of pills (there is no "the" pill, there are many), or switching to some other type of contraception. In other words, there are so many options that it's not a significant problem to find one that works and doesn't have side effects.

So no, sexual dysfunction isn't a significant side effect of birth control pills in general, because it's very easily dealt with.

Now we are into tradition. Thank you Boris. You've just conceded that what the word means may not be what the word says.

I explicitly said there's no reason to believe it means OTHER than what the word says. If they weren't his actual brothers, I don't see why the Bible wouldn't state as much. Why use a term that predominantly means something else, and in context is most likely to mean the most common usage? Is god's plan to sow confusion?

If Mary's perpetual virginity is true, it's very bizarre that the Bible doesn't just come out and say it instead of stating things that would lead most people to conclude the opposite.

Why would it be weird?

A married woman being followed around by the same group of cousins or non-relatives all the time isn't strange to you? It's certainly less likely than a mother being accompanied by her own children.

If I sired a son, he would be my firstborn, even if he were my only son. At the time I had him, I would not know if I had any more children.

That the bible calls him firstborn, is evidence that the source Luke is using was a first hand account.

Since we know the gospels are not first-hand accounts, then your point is easily refuted here.

Earlier then Tacitus, or any other ancient historian.

Huh???

Origen: 185-254
Tacitus: 56-117



There are plenty of ancient historians who preceed Origen, who wasn't a historian but a theologian.

The two are identical. If you concede the fact that perpetual virginity is in fact church doctrine, then you contend with the second fact that church doctrine is regarded as historical fact.

Christianity is different from other in claiming such, so you have to deal with both at the same time.

No, I don't. I don't accept that Church doctrine is historical fact, but I can easily accept that it was a historical fact that the Church held certain doctrines early on. Only a devout Catholic would have to accept both, and clearly that ain't me.

As I explained earlier, it is an attested historical fact. That is all there is to it. If she had 74 children, it wouldn't change that the church teaches she was a Virgin mother to Christ.

Fine, but clearly it matters to the Church that she was a perpetual Virgin, or else nobody would have wasted their time on it. Certainly I think you're smarter for not thinking it matters, but that doesn't change the fact that it does for many Catholics.

I am refuting errors.

No success so far, but you've made plenty of your own.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
Problem is, that's like the episode of Futurama where Bender becomes a chef: having no taste for the thing you make, your attempts are inevitably hamhanded and paltry. You have to have a passion for a thing to make it well.

That doesn't explain Scientology, unless by "passion" you mean "passion for making money in what you've acknowledged is nothing more than a pyramid scheme."

[Elok]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That doesn't explain Scientology, unless by "passion" you mean "passion for making money in what you've acknowledged is nothing more than a pyramid scheme."

Yeah, and Scientology's really done well. It's doomed now, sure, but it's got a venerable history of...almost fifty years! See, Scientology is an exception because it only played the religion angle to escape the IRS. In its original formulation it was a quack pseudoscience like many others, only more successful, more greedy and eventually more prone to abusing the legal system to silence critics. It differs in a lot of ways from conventional religions, and even from other cults/NRMs.

Also, it's definitely not a pyramid scheme. It's possible to make money with a pyramid scheme, provided you're one of the first to hop aboard and you know how to work it. Not true with Scientology.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Elok


...also, we'll be a nation of yeoman farmers any day now. Get real. Religion, in one form or another, is here to stay. And simplistic religions such as you propose have been introduced, but with little or no popular appeal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

I gather that the general idea behind such schemes is that clever people like you who see through the "scam" justify morality as socially useful or whatever, and make up the religion to give more primitive minds a reason to behave. Problem is, that's like the episode of Futurama where Bender becomes a chef: having no taste for the thing you make, your attempts are inevitably hamhanded and paltry. You have to have a passion for a thing to make it well.

I'm not proposing such a religion be introduced. Just look at history to see the natural progression of a more rational Christianity. I'm not arguing that we mandate people to believe in anything.

[Ben Kenobi]

Irrelevant. The position of the Church, as you've described it, is that sex is most pleasurable if conception is a factor.

The church teaches that you can't pare the two apart without losing part of either. Pleasure and conception are not bipolar opposites.

To say they are promoting it for pleasurable purposes is illogical in that light, as they are promoting is first and foremost for reproduction.

That again is your interpretation, which is in error. The church teaches that sex should be pleasureable, and if it isn't pleasureable there is something wrong. They believe that the unitive (which is the pleasure part), and the procreative part (making kiddos) are wrapped together.

Sex isn't synonymous with conception, so wrong.

No, but they are saying you should be willing to accept the risk of loss of libido all in the pursuit of sex. That's why they are really anti-sex. They don't CARE one whit if sex is pleasureable, all the care about is that you won't be having a baby. That is a negative, not a positive outcome.

Precisely, and one of the sins she wasn't spoiled with was sex. There's no other explanation for the writings I posted which linked her purity to her perpetual virginity. It was directly referenced.

Again, you are twisting the words. She was BOTH sinless and a perpetual virgin. The two do not imply each other. She does not automatically become sinless by remaining a virgin her whole life, and neither does sex render her sinful.

There is nothing sinful about sex within marriage; Paul teaches that the union of man and women in marriage is similar to the union between Christ and his church.

It reinforces my original point, that the Catholic dogma says sex, even within marriage, is "spoiling" people. As Paul says, the ideal state is celibacy. The logical conclusion is that having sex is considered a less-than-pure act. Paul's words plus Mary's perpetual virginity to be "pure" = sex is impure.

Paul says, "in his opinion, it is better for a man not to be married, as I am, because he is free to devote his affairs to God."

This is a prudential judgement. Notice he does NOT say that those who marry sin, and that it is RIGHT for them to get married, if that is what in their heart they feel ought to be done.

As Paul says:

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

1 Cor 7:28.

He explicitly rejects the assertion that marriage is sinful.

If the ability to conceive children isn't required for partners to give themselves fully, then your entire argument about contraception depriving people of the most pleasure in sex is rendered irrelevant.

Not so. You can only give yourself fully to the extent of your ability. If you lack the ability to have children, through no fault of your own, how are you holding back when you have sex?

If, however, you can have children, and you hold back from one another, then yes you are not giving yourself to the fullest extent.

In either case, contraception is wrong. We are not called to be successful, but faithful. We cannot say by certainty we will conceive, but we must remain faithful to the teachings of Christ in doing so.

The bottom line is that only the individuals involved can determine what is and isn't the most pleasurable method of sex for themselves, not old, celibate Catholic luminaries.

How so? Paul says we are not owners of our own bodies, we were bought for a price. Each one of us, even you, Christ died that you might be free from your sins.

And global temperatures have risen hand in hand with the decrease in the number of pirates in the world.

Are you so daft to require the explanation that correlation and causation aren't the same thing?

Yet we have a mechanism. I have shown that contraception, in a significant percentage, will decrease libido in women. In a marriage, can't you see that would lead to an increase in divorce? Yes, correlation does not prove causation, but there is a very good link between the two.

When it comes to a subjective thing such as physical pleasure, direct experience is all that matters.

Subjective?

You are making objective truth claims. If it is all subjective, then you cannot say that one must have experience to know about physical pleasure, since as you have so eloquently said, that pleasure for one person is not pleasure for another.

Care to try a reasonable argument?

And again, I am not the one making sweeping statements about what is and isn't pleasurable for people. That's you and your church. And yes, your argument is worthless.

Despite the fact that it is backed up with the statements and testimony of those who have experience, means that your objection has no merit whatsoever.

Jumping off a cliff: results can be determined via objective external analysis using physics, for one thing.
Pleasure during sex: results can only be determined via subjective experience.

So if it is subjective, why would experience have any value whatsoever?

Notice the part where it stressed that any side effects are easily dealt with by either switching kinds of pills (there is no "the" pill, there are many), or switching to some other type of contraception.

That is an evasion of the point. All I am asking is do you concede that a significant side effect of the pill is a decrease in libido?

That was the point in discussion. Sure you can say there are ways to work around it, but you still concede the point at hand.

So no, sexual dysfunction isn't a significant side effect of birth control pills in general, because it's very easily dealt with.

Well of course, if you stop using them the side-effect will stop, which in fact makes it a significant side effect. Thank you for conceding the point Boris.

I explicitly said there's no reason to believe it means OTHER than what the word says. If they weren't his actual brothers, I don't see why the Bible wouldn't state as much. Why use a term that predominantly means something else, and in context is most likely to mean the most common usage? Is god's plan to sow confusion?

Good question. You have to remember that scripture was not written for a 21st century English audience. It was written, at least this portion, in ancient Greek.

The problem is that the terms that are used in the Greek do not have a direct English equivalent. 'Brother' can mean different things in English, and different things in the greek as well.

The issue isn't to sow confusion, which is why the fathers of the church were of one mind on this issue, and were clear in stating that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that she had no other children. and that the 'brothers of Christ' were in fact cousins. They were aware of the ambiguity in the term and sought to clarify.

If Mary's perpetual virginity is true, it's very bizarre that the Bible doesn't just come out and say it instead of stating things that would lead most people to conclude the opposite.

It's bizarre that they never explicitly state the Trinity either, which is of far more importance. There are many things that the church believes that are not explicitly stated by Scripture. This is why the tradition of the church is so important.

Why would you assume that the protestant approach is the correct one when it did not even arise until the 16th century? This I cannot understand from folks who have rejected a protestant upbringing. Why do you assume some things were in fact correct, but reject the rest?

A married woman being followed around by the same group of cousins or non-relatives all the time isn't strange to you? It's certainly less likely than a mother being accompanied by her own children.

It's strange to our modern eyes, but the fault is not with scripture but with modernity.

Since we know the gospels are not first-hand accounts, then your point is easily refuted here.

How do you know this? Did God come down and tell you?

Huh???

Origen: 185-254
Tacitus: 56-117

Tacitus wrote about events that were more then 200 years ago, same as Origen. I don't see why you would accept Tacitus as correct, and Origen as incorrect.

There are plenty of ancient historians who preceed Origen, who wasn't a historian but a theologian.

True, but when we ask ourselves the question, "what did the church of the time believe", then Origen is an authoritative source. He is, in a sense a historian in the church, because he writes often about the state of the church through the ages.

No, I don't. I don't accept that Church doctrine is historical fact, but I can easily accept that it was a historical fact that the Church held certain doctrines early on. Only a devout Catholic would have to accept both, and clearly that ain't me.

Here's your problem. You can't make that distinction. The church only holds their doctrine as true, because they are historical truth.

You cannot state the resurrection otherwise. To Christians, the resurrection is a historical fact, no different then any other. Secular historians have a bias in automatically rejecting Christian doctrines as false, based on nothing whatsoever but their own beliefs. I've been there and I see it. The discussion is basically, 'I believe this cannot be true, then therefore it never happened'. Horse****!

[Elok]

Originally posted by Verto
I'm not proposing such a religion be introduced. Just look at history to see the natural progression of a more rational Christianity. I'm not arguing that we mandate people to believe in anything.

"Rational" Christianity started declining in America about two centuries ago IIUC. The fundies are currently doing a lot better than more liberal Xians, even if their political party is waning.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi The church teaches that you can't pare the two apart without losing part of either. Pleasure and conception are not bipolar opposites.

Are you familiar with the word "orthogonal", BK? That's what they are.
When you polish your pole, you get pleasure without conception. IVF, on the other hand, is conception without any pleasure. Evolution has put them together to form a positive feedback loop, but that doesn't mean one depends on the other.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks onodera.

I don't think Orthogonal is the right word, they are stronger together then apart.