American Catholics(both libreal and conservative) disobey...

[AiliailiA]

I am going to end this topic(for myself) because all it has end up with is trolling and I don't have the time for that. Have you good day everyone.

Wait, you put the text back into the OP?

I deleted the contents of my posts, and then you just change your mind again?

I'm not pleased about that. Be very careful what you say to me in other threads.

*leaves*

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I imagine young people will need to start wearing cloth sacks over their faces so as not to even look at the opposite sex before marriage.

To be removed only in the presence of a qualified priest or nun in a monastery or nunnery respectively - I can see no problems with this.

It seems that that's what they'll need to do.

[Avenio]

People are generally self-centred hypocrites, yes. Why this is apparently news is beyond me, because it's not like people weren't hypocritical and self-centred before the 20th century, and certainly weren't perfect Catholics that were lead down a road to sin and debauchery within the last 100 years.

EDIT: Of course, I'd argue that the fact that the majority of Catholics, both liberal and conservative, disobey church dictates on issues like contraception means that the church itself needs to rethink its own positions, lest it become irrelevant in today's culture.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

And obedience to a church that systematically covered up child molestation and shuffled off the offending priests to be Someone Else's Problem is good how?

I don't believe you uderstand the point of relogion. if you believe that going against your religion will result in eternal suffering, you're going to be prepared to do neaely anything to avoid that.

[Bombadil]

And obedience to a church that systematically covered up child molestation and shuffled off the offending priests to be Someone Else's Problem is good how?

I don't believe you uderstand the point of relogion. if you believe that going against your religion will result in eternal suffering, you're going to be prepared to do neaely anything to avoid that.

.except when no one's looking.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

And obedience to a church that systematically covered up child molestation and shuffled off the offending priests to be Someone Else's Problem is good how?

I don't believe you uderstand the point of relogion. if you believe that going against your religion will result in eternal suffering, you're going to be prepared to do neaely anything to avoid that.

I fail to comprehend how, a God that is describe as a god of love, would condemn his creation to eternal suffering for being responsible or for disagreeing with the edicts of men.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

This is a good thread to read.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

I don't believe you uderstand the point of relogion. if you believe that going against your religion will result in eternal suffering, you're going to be prepared to do neaely anything to avoid that.

.except when no one's looking.

you, and many other people on this forum, seem to have a very negative opinion of organized religion. may I ask why?

[Spiritus Sancti]

I think that this thread has gotten out of hand(and way off topic) Plus, I have many things to do get ready for the family Christmas party. Have to buy things and ECT, E-invitations to make and ECT. I will not be coming back to this tread, have a good and peaceful Christmas everyone. Sit Deus cum te!

[Eirenia]

I'm not sure how "my mother aborted three fetuses" is not talking about abortion...

If you look at what I said before, that was meant to be preemptive statement for Conservative Catholics that believe I'm a plant, not a topic of debate. Look at my main body of my post, that is what I started this tread for, not four worded "FYI".

Why would having aborted siblings make you not a plant? I'm not following.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

I don't believe you uderstand the point of relogion. if you believe that going against your religion will result in eternal suffering, you're going to be prepared to do neaely anything to avoid that.

I fail to comprehend how, a God that is describe as a god of love, would condemn his creation to eternal suffering for being responsible or for disagreeing with the edicts of men.

by definition, god is omnipotent, and can therefore declsre him/her/itself as omnibenevolent, and regardless of actual actions, would still be the definition of good.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

If you look at what I said before, that was meant to be preemptive statement for Conservative Catholics that believe I'm a plant, not a topic of debate. Look at my main body of my post, that is what I started this tread for, not four worded "FYI".

Why would having aborted siblings make you not a plant? I'm not following.

this would show that the poster grew up in a non-traditional christian family, predisposing him/her towards more progressive ideals. the point is moot anyways, as it could be a lie.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I fail to comprehend how, a God that is describe as a god of love, would condemn his creation to eternal suffering for being responsible or for disagreeing with the edicts of men.

by definition, god is omnipotent, and can therefore declsre him/her/itself as omnibenevolent, and regardless of actual actions, would still be the definition of good.

I still fail to understand how a god of love can, in the same breath, condemn the very creation Christians claim he loves, to eternal suffering. He's either a god of love or not.

Why would he punish a married couple that uses contraception? Is there a fair reason for said punishment?

[Portugal Brazil and the Algarves]

I am afraid I an not following any of this thread including the supposed question.

You said you wanted a debate, yet when people offered counter opinions you simply mocked then and called them trolls.

Any way I'm pretty sure a mod already told you this, but do not seem surprised when not everyone agrees to you.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

by definition, god is omnipotent, and can therefore declsre him/her/itself as omnibenevolent, and regardless of actual actions, would still be the definition of good.

I still fail to understand how a god of love can, in the same breath, condemn the very creation Christians claim he loves, to eternal suffering. He's either a god of love or not.

Why would he punish a married couple that uses contraception? Is there a fair reason for said punishment?

my personal take on this is that he wouldn't. using contreception is not an inheriently evil action and would not be punished. not usinf contreception would mean that you trust in god to give children when you are fit to have chidren, and you would be rewarder for your faith, making this the ideal course of action.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

by definition, god is omnipotent, and can therefore declsre him/her/itself as omnibenevolent, and regardless of actual actions, would still be the definition of good.

I still fail to understand how a god of love can, in the same breath, condemn the very creation Christians claim he loves, to eternal suffering. He's either a god of love or not.

Why would he punish a married couple that uses contraception? Is there a fair reason for said punishment?

As I believe Stephen Colbert said,
"You see to Catholics, sex isn’t two drunk strangers getting their freak on at closing time,” he said. “It is the mystical union of two people inspired to create new physical life while God adds a soul in a divine and ineffably beautiful three way. So when you use contraception, you are not only sinning, you are cock blocking the Almighty."

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I still fail to understand how a god of love can, in the same breath, condemn the very creation Christians claim he loves, to eternal suffering. He's either a god of love or not.

Why would he punish a married couple that uses contraception? Is there a fair reason for said punishment?

my personal take on this is that he wouldn't. using contreception is not an inheriently evil action and would not be punished. not usinf contreception would mean that you trust in god to give children when you are fit to have chidren, and you would be rewarder for your faith, making this the ideal course of action.

I was keeping with the OP on the issue of contraception.

Your answer seems fair to me. God shouldn't punish his creation for making responsible choices.

And if the deity doesn't punish, the Church is usurping a position that, IMO, rightly belongs to god.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I still fail to understand how a god of love can, in the same breath, condemn the very creation Christians claim he loves, to eternal suffering. He's either a god of love or not.

Why would he punish a married couple that uses contraception? Is there a fair reason for said punishment?

As I believe Stephen Colbert said,
"You see to Catholics, sex isn’t two drunk strangers getting their freak on at closing time,” he said. “It is the mystical union of two people inspired to create new physical life while God adds a soul in a divine and ineffably beautiful three way. So when you use contraception, you are not only sinning, you are cock blocking the Almighty."

Now that, my friend, that's gutsy.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

As I believe Stephen Colbert said,
"You see to Catholics, sex isn’t two drunk strangers getting their freak on at closing time,” he said. “It is the mystical union of two people inspired to create new physical life while God adds a soul in a divine and ineffably beautiful three way. So when you use contraception, you are not only sinning, you are cock blocking the Almighty."

Now that, my friend, that's gutsy.

Can you blame God for wanting to damn you after that?

[Bombadil]

.except when no one's looking.

you, and many other people on this forum, seem to have a very negative opinion of organized religion. may I ask why?

..because the very idea that anyone knows what God wants, or has the authority to tell others, given the vast inconsistencies of the Bible, or near any other religious text, is ridiculous in this day and age.

By all means have a personal belief, by all means gather with like-minded people, but to start ordering those people around and telling them they'll go to hell if they don't obey your random commands while wearing a silly hat..

..seriously.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Now that, my friend, that's gutsy.

Can you blame God for wanting to damn you after that?

He might thank me for not spawning so, no.

In all honesty, srs bsnss now, sex is enjoyable and unless the couple in question is asexual, they will want to enjoy sex together. It's a pleasurable activity. I don't see a reason to relegate it only for procreation. That's why, condemning contraception, to me, is idiotic. Sex doesn't need to result, always, in pregnancy. Not if the couple doesn't want to, isn't ready yet and there are alternatives to prevent unwanted parenthood.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

my personal take on this is that he wouldn't. using contreception is not an inheriently evil action and would not be punished. not usinf contreception would mean that you trust in god to give children when you are fit to have chidren, and you would be rewarder for your faith, making this the ideal course of action.

I was keeping with the OP on the issue of contraception.

Your answer seems fair to me. God shouldn't punish his creation for making responsible choices.

And if the deity doesn't punish, the Church is usurping a position that, IMO, rightly belongs to god.

As long as the church doesn't try to directly interfere regarding contraception, I actually can agree with their position, by saying that contraceptives are bad, they likely inspire a small percentage of believers to not use contraceptives. following my earlier line of reasoning, in the view of the church, this would be good for those people spiritually, and above anything else, the primary goal of the church is to save its followers from percieved eternal damnation, all other things are second to that.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I was keeping with the OP on the issue of contraception.

Your answer seems fair to me. God shouldn't punish his creation for making responsible choices.

And if the deity doesn't punish, the Church is usurping a position that, IMO, rightly belongs to god.

As long as the church doesn't try to directly interfere regarding contraception, I actually can agree with their position, by saying that contraceptives are bad, they likely inspire a small percentage of believers to not use contraceptives. following my earlier line of reasoning, in the view of the church, this would be good for those people spiritually, and above anything else, the primary goal of the church is to save its followers from percieved eternal damnation, all other things are second to that.

I don't see anything in that position worth agreeing with. Contraceptives are not bad and to insist they are is akin to condoning irresponsibility.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

you, and many other people on this forum, seem to have a very negative opinion of organized religion. may I ask why?

..because the very idea that anyone knows what God wants, or has the authority to tell others, given the vast inconsistencies of the Bible, or near any other religious text, is ridiculous in this day and age.

By all means have a personal belief, by all means gather with like-minded people, but to start ordering those people around and telling them they'll go to hell if they don't obey your random commands while wearing a silly hat..

..seriously.

playing the apparent (heh) devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that being part of a large group fosters ideological connection with that group, and even if you assume only that faith is necesary to avoid eternal damnation, being part of said large group would prevent that, even if you have to deal with other laws imposed by the group. The end does, after all, justify the means in this scenario.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

As long as the church doesn't try to directly interfere regarding contraception, I actually can agree with their position, by saying that contraceptives are bad, they likely inspire a small percentage of believers to not use contraceptives. following my earlier line of reasoning, in the view of the church, this would be good for those people spiritually, and above anything else, the primary goal of the church is to save its followers from percieved eternal damnation, all other things are second to that.

I don't see anything in that position worth agreeing with. Contraceptives are not bad and to insist they are is akin to condoning irresponsibility.

it may be irresponsible, but churches are only required to maximise their followers spiritual well-being. my reasoning is that while contrceptives are not bad, not using contraceptives is beneficial from a religious point of view.