Quote:

Original post by Steve132 Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by Binomine Quote: Original post by owl I just woke up, but I can't help it thinking that in a way the pope is saying that male prostitutes could use condoms and female prostitutes shouldn't. WTF? Correct. The Pope gets to make all sorts of decrees within the ivory towers of Pope-land. The reason Catholics can't use condoms is that any contraceptive is sinful, even indirectly. Since males are not using condoms as contraceptives with other males, then it's legal in pope-land. So to summarize: Men using condom to perform sexual acts with other men = ok Men performing sexual acts with other men = not ok Prostitution = not ok Women using birth control = not ok Women using birth control (pill, injection, IUD), but using condom to prevent disease = maybe ok..... I'm Catholic and even I think the rules are kinda dumb. Those rules come directly from the following ruleset, which DOES make sense within their framework of biblical belief: A) No performing sex acts outside of marriage. B) Marriage is between a man and a woman. C) No intentional prevention of pregnancy. D) No termination of pregnancy. Those three rules allow you to derive all the "Weird" rules above, exactly as formulated (plus a lot of other "Weird" rules above). For example: -No marriage between man + man & no sex outside of marriage -> No male male sex. -Male Male sex cannot involve pregnency-> male-male condoms ok. (but male male sex still not ok) -No sex outside of marriage->so no prostitution unless you are married to her -No intentional prevention of pregnancy->no birth control UNLESS you are already sterile, then its ok.

Ok, so here's the deal. Your 4 rules, A-D, (which I'm very familar with) makes sense, given the times and source. But, for instance, male-male condoms cannot be ok, if male-male sex is not ok. It's not too hard to see why. That's why the rules are kinda dumb, because they don't seem to be consistent, if not practical.

Quote:

Original post by Steve132 The way I understand it, in the 1950s or so, basically when the pill really became often used, the "theological think tank" part of the church sat down and discussed whether or not birth control was sinful.

All Christians churches agreed that birth control was sinful before the 1930's, when the Anglican community decided that birth control was alright in some situations during the Lambeth Conference. There are writings against contraceptives by the Church of England in 1920, St. Augustine and even Freud.

It didn't really matter to us lay people, because most birth control was fairly useless until the pill and latex condom were widely available, around the 1950s. That is when the lay people got into the act and most Protestant groups eventually sided with the Anglicans.

The big hold out is the Roman Catholic Church, with some minor quibbling from such groups like Mormons and some Conservative Protestants.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Ok, so here's the deal. Your 4 rules, A-D, (which I'm very familar with) makes sense, given the times and source. But, for instance, male-male condoms cannot be ok, if male-male sex is not ok. It's not too hard to see why. That's why the rules are kinda dumb, because they don't seem to be consistent, if not practical.

No. We're talking about additive sins.

It's a sin for a husband to cheat on his wife with another woman. One sin.
It's a sin for a husband to use a condom while cheating on his wife with another women. Two sins.

It's a sin to have homosexual sex. One sin.
It's not a sin to use a condom while having homosexual sex. Still one sin.

The pope has no authority to say anything, and nobody with a hint of credibility cares to listen to this kind of drivel, except his fan club.

Quote:

Original post by Tachikoma The pope has no authority to say anything, and nobody with a hint of credibility cares to listen to this kind of drivel, except his fan club.

which mostly are non-catholics. [grin]

Catholicism sees contraceptive as sinful because of an obscure paragraph in the Old Testament where a man pulled out early and "spilled his seed on the floor" and God struck him dead. As per usual, the Catholic church cannot see the forest for the trees. The bigger picture is that the woman was to give birth to a child that would start the line of David and ultimately end up with Jesus. In this case, the act wasn't in itself sinful, but it was the willful disobedience that was sinful. Of course, that would require forward thinking and historically, the Catholic church is not very good with that concept.

There is no other reference in the Bible that can be construed to mean sex without the goal of reproduction is a sin. Other than that one reference, only sex outside of marriage, infidelity and homosexuality are deemed sins.

Quote:

Original post by Tachikoma The pope has no authority to say anything, and nobody with a hint of credibility cares to listen to this kind of drivel, except his fan club.

QFT!!

I wonder if it ever crossed his mind to actually read the Bible and see where a "Pope" fits in... I cannot find it. [oh] Maybe it is hidden in a Bible code? [lol][rolleyes]

Quote:

Original post by MarkS Catholicism sees contraceptive as sinful because of an obscure paragraph in the Old Testament where a man pulled out early and "spilled his seed on the floor"

No, that has almost nothing to do with it. Read the actual church document that I linked in my post where they justify it. I don't agree with the Catholic Church, but don't use straw-man arguments. Considering that their reasoning behind their opinion is publicly available, there is no excuse to attribute an argument to them that they didn't make.

Quote:

There is no other reference in the Bible that can be construed to mean sex without the goal of reproduction is a sin. Other than that one reference, only sex outside of marriage, infidelity and homosexuality are deemed sins.

Thats not true at all, but even if it was true, the Catholic Church has publicly and openly declared that sex for pleasure is a good thing for a married couple, and a married couple who denies each-other sex is sinful. That is in other sources, but that same document claims this as well. Read it.

Quote:

I wonder if it ever crossed his mind to actually read the Bible and see where a "Pope" fits in... I cannot find it. [oh] Maybe it is hidden in a Bible code? [lol][rolleyes]

Read how/where the tradition of the office of Pope comes from according to them instead of assuming that they made it up. I critique the catholic church often, but I actually have researched what the church believes and why it believes that, in order to formulate my criticisms. This quote is the equivalent of "I wonder if Barack HUSSAIN Obama actually READ the Constitution to see Where HEALTH CARE fits in...I certainly can't find it! Maybe its hidden in the SOCIALIST how-to guide he keeps in his desk"

Quote:

Original post by Steve132 Read how/where the tradition of the office of Pope comes from according to them instead of assuming that they made it up. I critique the catholic church often, but I actually have researched what the church believes and why it believes that, in order to formulate my criticisms.

I'll grant you the other two points, but I want to read how the office comes into being based on the Bible, not their doctrine. ;) I know it has something to do with Peter (I refuse to use the "saint" prefix!)... ? It simply isn't there. If it is, it is only by contorting some verses.

Quote:

so no prostitution unless you are married to her

Thank God! That's a load off my mind. Now I can go back to selling sex to my wife.

Quote:

Original post by MarkS Quote: Original post by Steve132 Read how/where the tradition of the office of Pope comes from according to them instead of assuming that they made it up. I critique the catholic church often, but I actually have researched what the church believes and why it believes that, in order to formulate my criticisms. I'll grant you the other two points, but I want to read how the office comes into being based on the Bible, not their doctrine. ;) I know it has something to do with Peter (I refuse to use the "saint" prefix!)... ? It simply isn't there. If it is, it is only by contorting some verses.

"I'll grant you the other two points, but I want to read how the fed is justified in doing health care reforms based on reading JUST the constitution, not their socialist propaganda ;). I know it has something to do with commerce (I refuse to use the "Clause" postfix!)....? Look, it simply isn't there. If it is, it is only by contorting some verses."

Hopefully you see why this is silly. You want to read how they justify the office of pope from scripture, but you don't want to read any of their justifications or explainations in order to do it? How does that work? Do you know what a "Saint" is according to them? (hint, its not some deity thing..its a title awarded to an individual the church has strong reason to believe was saved)
If you don't know what verses they are "contorting" then how can you be so sure its a contortion?

My point isn't that they are "right" on any of those points, just that you can't criticize what you /think/ they believe. You need to criticize what they actually believe. To do that, you need to dig a little deeper and learn what they actually believe, and you need to learn it from someone who knows what they believe (like a theologically inclined priest, or the catechism, or from a theology professor at a catholic university). However, you have already stated that you don't want to actually do that for some reason. Thats your perogative, of course, but you won't actually learn anything with that attitude, and it will make your arguments weaker to people who are a little more informed.

I'm not an expert, but with regard to your pope question, this is a not great but decent reference. However, talking to a real informed person and debating them/having them answer your questions is FAR better.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth When you read things like this, you also have to consider that change comes slowly, especially in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church as a whole isn't stuck in some magical fairy land dark age. Those in Rome actually know a lot about the world, but they can't rock the boat too hard, or too fast, because doing so stands a high risk of breaking it and seeing another Protestant Rebellion against the Catholic Church as large segments break off because they are stuck in the stone age. When you start playing with a religion, you don't make changes overnight. You don't even make changes over the next 50 years. You start to make changes over centuries. You do things in small changes, as you have to raise people under the faith, and parents aren't going to accept that their kids are being taught a big change. So you teach a small change to their kids, then another small change to the grand kids, and so on.

Or....

you could just admit the whole thing is a made-up fairy tale and be done with it in seconds?

I really don't see how anyone can take this farce seriously. I'm willing to admit that there is a (vanishingly small) possibility that there is some cosmic force that created the universe and eludes all attempts at detection. I can accept that this concept might bring comfort to some people, but if anyone really believes it cares how they have sex, they are, quite frankly, deranged.

This is not some abstract theological discussion. Millions of people are dying because of this ridiculous dogma. So let me be very clear about this: fuck the pope. It's too little, too late.