There is a purpose to procreative sex- and done right, it can take up to 35 years.
There is NO purpose to recreational sex.
Despite the similarities, the reward outweighs the risk with the first. And is nothing other than mutual prostitution with the second.
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
61 comments:
"There is NO purpose to recreational sex."
Except maybe to make life a little more enjoyable. But you have a problem with people who seek to enjoy life.
I can make life more enjoyable with a good book than with sex, and it lasts a lot longer.
That's fine. That's you. But you can't deny that other people just might have a capacity to derive more pleasure from sex than you and your book. Why should that pleasure be denied to them if they are not impacting anyone else? That is a question that you and the Church seem unable or unwilling to answer.
No, actually, they don't. They're lying. They claim to feel such pleasure because it is expected of them- no fault divorce proves that they failed.
I think this is just a case that you begrudge others of having a satisfying sex life because you don't have one.
If your sex life is so satisfying, why do you liberals get divorced when it ends?
Over and over I see it- as soon as one partner becomes disabled, the other one splits.
Sex, like romance, doesn't last and can't be counted on.
Your arguments against people enjoying sex for its own sake just keep getting more and more desperate. Why don't you try it. You might like it.
The freedom to do evil is slavery, but I am not surprised at this attitude from somebody who does not believe that evil exists at all.
I have said that sin is a religious concept. I never said that evil does not exist at all. In the struggle between good and evil, I don't share the Catholic view that the Church stands for good and the World stands for evil. It is even sometimes the other way around. For example, it is evil to try to deny a rape victim of the morning after pill or to discriminate against gays or to fire a Catholic school teacher upon finding out she is going for IVF treatments and telling her that SHE is evil.
Well, actually, to my understanding of it, the church teaches that sex is both for pleasure and procreation. To abstain from sex except to procreate is to belittle the act. To have sex while trying to stop the possibility of procreating is to belittle the love that is supposed to be communicated through the action.
Procreation and sex are meant to strengthen a relationship, however, by having sex while using a contraceptive is to lessen the sacredness and importance of the act. To use it only to procreate, however, lessens it as well (not to mention your spouse would probably get pretty snappy).
I can't resist this one...
The church has never taught that the world stands for evil. In fact, quite the opposite. Catholicity teaches that the world and all people are inherently good. It is certain actions and thoughts that are considered evil.
Gays aren't truly discriminated against in the church, despite what people keep saying. They're not banned from it, they're allowed to become priests, religious laity, or just be members of the laity at large. They're also allowed to get married. It is in the church's definition of marriage that gays are supposedly discriminated against. They're allowed to get married insofar as what the church defines as marriage. Since that's defined as between a man and woman, if two homosexuals of opposite genders decided that they were going to marry each other, they could. They're afforded the same rights as everyone else in the church, although current teaching states that they're called to a life of celibacy (which straight people are called to as well anyhow), they can still choose to be married. They just don't necessarily like the fact that marriage in the church is between man and woman.
As for rape victims, only about 3% of rape victims ever become pregnant. The ones who do and get abortions overwhelmingly report having cases of severe depression afterwards. Meanwhile the few who become pregnant and choose to raise the baby are most often the quickest to recover from their rape.
I'd go hunting for an excellent quote I found from such a rape victim who said something along the lines of, "It was a horrible, horrible thing, but one of the most amazing things in the world came from it." talking about her child. I'll be searching for it tomorrow, no doubt, but for right now, I need sleep.
Kathryn,
Welcome to the Twilight Zone. You will find an ally (not me) on this site. You are much brighter at your age than I am, even with all my experience. You seem to be suggesting that gays can marry each other and remain celebrate or a gay man can marry a lesbian, so gays are not prohibited from marrying. That's if I understood you right. That's not good enough.
I think if there was ever a right time for an abortion, or even emergency contraception, it is after a rape or incest. I'll grant you your arguments about the rest.
The Church does set itself up as the good guy against the World, the Devil and the Flesh, the bad guys. I don't have a reference for that, but it's what I've been told. Good to see you here. I too have followed people whose views I've found worth debating against to other sites. I was even accused of stalking them which is not a fair assessment. I welcome your comments. You are a good defender of the faith.
Kathryn,
I'm ok lessening the "sacredness" of the sex act. I don't do it because it is sacred. I do it because I enjoy it. Sex goes all the way back to almost 3 billion years ago when living cells were reproducing by dividing themselves. Nature found a way to reproduce through sex. I thank Nature for making it so much fun. And I fool Nature by contracepting. It really is ok to fool Mother Nature. We do it all the time.
"That's not good enough."
The motto of a man who has lost sight of the difference between good and evil, in and of itself.
The Church is the defender of the world, and the true meaning of the flesh, against the devil. You are on the wrong side of history, Bill.
You defend evil. Over and over, you defend evil. Sin, wrong, and evil are SYNONYMS, and your attempt to redefine them is obvious.
Buying children as slaves (IVF) is obviously evil, as is attempting to destroy the evidence of rape to let the rapist off the hook (morning after pill).
In other words- you're a heretic to paganism as well as Catholicism.
You know that the human race has the ability to counteract and manipulate nature for our own purposes and that there is nothing wrong with that, right?
Yes, Eugenics is. After all, that is what you are *really* talking about: More children for the people who are "fit" and can afford it, fewer for the "unfit", those horrible poor whose population must be reduced at any cost.
It is objectively evil- for it is counter to nature itself.
But of course, you have no problem with being a heretic to paganism.
There is quite a bit wrong with that- from global warming to eugenics to extinction of other species. But it is not like there is anything actually wrong, right? Good and evil, virtue and sin, don't exist.
I'm not advocating Eugenics and you know it.
You are indeed advocating eugenics. The children of rape are just among your personal "unfit to live". Just as the child of a woman able to PAY the immense cost of IVF is somehow more fit to live.
Just because it is cloaked in the rhetoric of choice, doesn't mean that the choice actually exists.
For that matter, homosexuality is also encouraged among a certain segment of the population for the purpose of eugenics.
It's all about population control- and as you put it elsewhere in this thread, fooling mother nature, thwarting God for the purposes of mankind, which you somehow imagine to be good instead of evil.
Yours are the ravings of a lunatic. You really need to chill out. Because a couple makes a good income and can afford IVF, that is not eugenics in the sense that made it so bad. I don't know what you want, but it doesn't appear that you are ever going to be content with your life and the world around you. You need to reboot.
It is the use of money to influence the genetic pool of humanity- a key component of eugenics.
Anybody who is content with THIS world and THIS life, does not have a brain or a heart.
Wow, Ted. You are one messed up dude.
And that is where you and the Church would differ. An act that is specifically done to prevent human life from continuing, where otherwise it would, is against church teaching. Hence the Church's being, generally, anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty, and anti-contraception. As for contraception, we're discussing that elsewhere, so there's not much point in rehashing, as of yet.
I just realized that I wrote a novel-length post. Yikes.
The thing is, no one's forcing anyone to belong to any particular religion (at least, through most of the world). Through Catholicism, they're treated the same as every single other person, so the argument that they're being discriminated against is invalid. They can do what everyone else can do. Just because they don't like that doesn't mean that they're entitled to anything. Pathological liars, through the church, are considered to be just as sinful when they lie as anyone else. Every single youth commits a sin if they disobey their parents without due reason (i.e., their parent's tell them to go do something that they physically can't, or is considered sinful itself). It's not just that gays can't be married to people of the same gender through the church. No one can be, because that's not what marriage is in the church.
Whether people like that or not doesn't matter, that's the truth of the religion.
Also, straights have the exact same choice, if they follow church teachings. Marry, or be celibate.
As for abortion, as you know, I disagree. Mainly, in the specific case of rape/incest, because it's killing a fetus who in and of itself is innocent of any wrong-doing or intentional harm. Although in some cases, a constant reminder in the form of a living being of what happened can potentially cause psychological harm, adoption is a potential solution to that. Of course, for that to be a commonly used one, other changes need to take place, including a revamp of the social security system as it currently stands, so that the process is more streamlined and less ridiculously time-consuming and difficult to get through.
The Church throughout history shows what many would deem as mixed demonstrations. Religious orders within the church were responsible for the first hospitals and community schools, as well as churches historically being places of refuge. Furthermore, Church teaching throughout history strongly supports helping through donations of time, money, and skills to the poor, or anyone else who may need help in any way. It is the beauty and grace which Catholics believe is inherent in every person, no matter where they are or what they have done that puts the Church at odds with some common world views today. It is the actions of a person that the Church will set itself against, not the person themselves. For example, I have several friends who are lesbian. I enjoy hanging out with them, and I care for them dearly. I don't hate them, I hopefully never will, for any reason. I hate the lifestyle that they support, and I heartily disagree with them on it. Does that mean that I hate them? No, just certain actions of theirs. It's much the same as being annoyed with a sibling, because of a certain action of theirs (i.e. tapping their pencil incessantly against a book for no reason), but not loving the sibling any less for it.
Also, the Church isn't against the flesh, rather, it encourages people to be sure to take care of themselves, and of other's, bodily needs. However, it also teaches self-control. A child, being hungry, may want to eat candy. Does that mean that the child should? No. The same basic principle is applied to Church teaching as far as the needs and desires of the flesh. It teaches self-sacrifice, as well, but only to a certain extent, such as, for example, fasting and abstinence, neither of which will harm a person's physical well-being.
Actually, as far as what the Church teaches on matters of the flesh, to the best of my knowledge, some good reading on that would be Theology of the Body, and any work of St. Anthony of Padua. There are certainly others, but since I'm most familiar with some of St. Anthony's early works, and Theology of the Body, I recommend them specifically for answers on such matters.
Yes, Kathryn, I do oppose Church teaching on many issues. I believe it is my right to do so, which is also against Church teaching. The Church claims an authority from God but I don't believe in God so I obviously don't believe that the Church has the authority that it claims to have. Hope I'm not corrupting you.
It is I who are sane. I see no sanity from your side, just unbridled lust and sensuality, masquerading as a life.
Kathryn,
You show a complete dedication to your religion. It requires that you believe things that I refuse to believe. Some things that you are sure are true, I am equally sure they are not. I was Catholic for 60 years and I still go to church with my wife. But I can only believe those things that I have been convinced are true. I don't worry about not believing those things that I can't be convince are true. I don't believe in a reward for believing or a punishment for not believing. That simply is not how it works. I don't pretend to be the most moral man in the world nor am I particularly immoral. I do the best I can. As with belief, I also don't believe in rewards for being and doing good or punishments for being or doing bad. That is not what motivates me to try to be and do good and avoid being or doing evil. I do it for the good of others and for my own self esteem.
You see too much in others. Just look at yourself.
Actually the Church teaches that you have a right to believe whatever you so choose, because you have free will, so if you disagree with it, that's up to you.
It is because I look at myself, that I see eugenics in your wish to avoid the expense of the "unfit" upon family, friends, and society. It is NO different than the same wish expressed by a certain political party in Europe 70 years ago.
Thank you for not being judgmental about. You're a very bright young women. I wish you well.
Bill, the Church doesn't teach that people are punished for believing or not believing in God, or many other things, under various circumstances. For example, if a person was born into an atheist household, and lived their entire life believing that there's no god, but lived a morally upright life nonetheless, they won't go to hell, according to Church teaching.
As for rewards/punishments based on virtue or lack thereof, many of the things the Church teaches as being moral in nature are usually considered good anyhow (even, yes, abortion, over 51% of Americans are strongly opposed to abortion, it's just that most of them are members of generations near mine, my own, and the younger ones) and sound in reasoning.
Also, the reward if we do good, or the punishment if we do evil is generally speaking not the main motivator for any Catholic's actions. Rather, it is love. Love of our neighbors (in this instance, being everyone), love of God, and love of ourselves. The importance of others, their dignity and well-being, is a central part of Church teaching, and as such, we believe that it is the sacred duty, and honor, to offer our time, talent, money, and even our own lives so that others may be helped. So, I argue, it is not fear or greed of what may come of our actions in the next life, but of love for others.
As for dedication, if I don't understand a Church teaching, or disagree with it, it's my duty to find out the reasoning behind the teaching. If I do find it, but still cannot see the reason for it, or reconcile myself to it, and find that the teaching is unsound in nature, I will first, and with all haste, go to Rome to ask the pope, for such a matter would be of the utmost importance, and second, if the pope failed to answer my questions satisfactorily, I would regretfully leave the Church, because I will not stand with and for something, if I do not believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is right and just.
Obviously though, that hasn't happened.
Kathryn,
I think that eventually your going to realize that the Church is a human institution that makes mistakes like any other institution, such as our government. You can't go to the Pope for his answer to your questioning.
I think the Church is wrong about abortion, contraception, gay marriage, IVF, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, divorce, sex between unmarried always being sinful, etc.
In addition, being an atheist, I think the Church is wrong about everything involving the supernatural. I hope you find peace in wherever your curiosity and research leads you.
You're comparing me to the Nazis?
Great. Way to go, Ted.
Well, actually I could, and especially with this pope, I'd likely receive an answer relatively quickly.
I've believed it since I can remember, and not simply because of my family. I have studied various other religions, as well as the views held by atheists, and have considered every single one that I've run across. I've taken every single science course currently available to me (or am in the process of taking it), as well as doing years of independent study on a variety of issues. I've studied various philosophical teachings, and am currently studying general philosophy. I have not just sought out questions, but also their answers. I've looked for answers without first checking the Church's teaching on things, and have found my own answers, and further found them to be in unison with those of the Church. If I fall away from the Catholic Church, then it will be more likely that it will come through a fault in my own research than through a fault on the Church's part.
That being said, none of the Church's teachings on such matters are, at least as I have found, unreasonable, when research is done.
As for the supernatural, I need not even try to prove anything there. There's a saying, "Faith is a gift. It is freely given, but one must choose to accept it."
Kathryn,
Some of what you say is impressive. Some not so much. For one, do you think that being the Pope makes Francis the ultimate authority on Catholicism? I'm sure there are people with PhDs in theology that you could turn to who would know a lot more about Catholicism than Pope Francis.
Then, you attribute your belief in the supernatural to a "gift" of faith. No reason or logic, just faith. And I lack the gift. If you are going to research something, study what makes people believe in the supernatural. To attribute it to faith and to call that faith a "gift" isn't serious research.
When the Pope makes any official declaration on Church teachings, that is considered to be the correct one, whether he's truly infallible or not in matters of Church teaching, as is believed by Catholics, what he says goes for it.
While there are people who have PhDs in theology, who may know more about religion in general, unless they received the PhD from a good Catholic college, aren't necessarily the people who will have any good answers for questions on specific points of a certain religion's teachings.
Also, if the head of the Church, who has been preaching since the late sixties doesn't know the answer himself, then he'll at least have the resources to find it.
I'd begin pointing out various Eucharistic miracles which scientists have yet to be able to explain, Marian apparitions, the incorruptibles, and countless other examples of supernatural works, but 1) it'd take too long to go through the individual cases, and 2) you've likely heard of at least a few before.
Faith is a gift, though, and it varies in nature. For example, a child may trust someone that older people wouldn't. While a child may base their trust simply off of the belief that no one will harm them, because no one ever has, an adult might base their distrust off of appearances, social standing, rumors, or past dealings with the person in question.
I have faith, for example, that I'm loved by the people around me, because of who I am, not simply because it is what they do as Christians, but because I am important to them specifically. This isn't based on any feelings of being loved, or being liked. I feel things very rarely, and usually they are negative. Nor is from their actions, for often I don't perceive an action as being loving or caring, till long after it has happened. It is based off of my faith in them.
Kathryn,
I can see by what you have said that your faith is very important to you. I think that if you were to lose it, you would be losing a sense of who you are and I don't think you can bear that loss.
I have not been able to find anything that can replace the faith that I once had. So, it would be wrong for me to try to disabuse you of your own. It can go one of two ways for you. You can hold on tight and keep the faith at any cost (e.g., the effect it might have on a relationship) or you can let it go and see where life takes you without it. One way is nice and safe and secure and the other is risky and scary.
As for signs of the supernatural. I could tell you that they are a combination of delusion and pious fraud but you probably wouldn't believe me. All I can be is negative about faith and I don't have a positive substitute.
Kathryn,
I responded to you on Public Catholic as well. But it has to be reviewed by Rebecca and then she will decide if it can go through. It might not because one of the things I said was that I am not a devil trying to cause you to lose your faith. A part of me wants to do that for your own sake. But that's not my job.
That's fine, I'm used to people trying to convince me that I'm wrong on things like faith, so I don't see it as a personal attack or anything. I'm not a religious zealot who's trying to shove my faith down anyone's throat, although I'd like to try and help people who are looking for it find it.
That's good. It's obvious that you can hold your own against those who don't share your beliefs.
Seems that is the only way to shock you anymore- your tolerance of evil is so great that you openly support the genocide of abortion (55 million dead) as well as euthanasia (used by the Nazis as well to get rid of any "unproductive" members of society). I see NO difference between your arguments and theirs.
"All I can be is negative about faith and I don't have a positive substitute."
Why is that? Although no expert myself, it seems that some of the things you believed to be Church teachings were due to some form of miscommunication. I don't pretend to think that I could convince anyone to return or join the Church, but I do know enough to be able to clear up some misconceptions that people have about it.
On a side note, I think it's relatively likely that I could just go to the pope for his answer to my questioning, much in the manner of this person:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-takes-the-faith-to-the-pages-of-the-secular-press/
This not being the first case of Pope Francis taking time to address individuals' questions on matters of faith, it would seem likely that he'd answer a question from pretty much anyone, whether it comes in the form of a letter, a news column, or in person.
...it would seem likely that he would answer a question from pretty much anyone.
Anyone, Kathryn, does not mean everyone. Anyone can win the lottery. What do you suppose the chances are that out of all the letters he gets, he would answer yours?
I believe that belief in the supernatural is a superstition. The Church should not exist if belief in the supernatural is just a superstition. People who claim to have evidence of the supernatural must be either delusional or lying. The Church relies on these people to assure its own existence.
It all starts with having an unfailing faith that there is no supernatural anything and then just doing the math.
'Kay! Then it's my turn for questions.
I'd love to hear your explanation, with scientific evidence, to disprove the notion that these three things are supernatural.
1) The tilma of St. Juan Diego that has the image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe.
2) The body of St. Philomena, which has been perfectly preserved.
3) Any one of the numerous incidents in which the Eucharist has reportedly turned into human flesh, and hosts that have, at various times bled human blood (the blood and flesh both having been examined by scientists and identified as being human).
Wikipedia, as per most such things, doesn't count as a source, because it can be edited by anyone, and generally tends towards being only fifty-fifty for reliability.
'Kay! Then it's my turn for questions.
I'd love to hear your explanation, with scientific evidence, to disprove the notion that these three things are supernatural.
1) The tilma of St. Juan Diego that has the image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe.
2) The body of St. Silvan, which has been perfectly preserved, since 350, or any one of the other Incorruptibles.
3) Any one of the numerous incidents in which the Eucharist has reportedly turned into human flesh, and hosts that have, at various times bled human blood (the blood and flesh both having been examined by scientists and identified as being human).
Wikipedia, as per most such things, doesn't count as a source, because it can be edited by anyone, and generally tends towards being only fifty-fifty for reliability.
(previous comment deleted for a typo).
Kathryn,
By making a firm commitment to not believe in anything supernatural, I don't have to concern myself with pious frauds and other phenomena. If there is a skeptic who can come up with any kind of explanation for how some supposed miracle could appear to have occurred. That explanation is infinitely more plausible than the Church's explanation.
I know that makes me appear to be cynical but I am confident that this approach to life is the correct one. It doesn't make me happy, but it is not the purpose of the truth to make me happy.
Doesn't really make you seem cynical, no.
Well, when you look at the science, no, not all the time. Skeptics, generally speaking, claim that the tilma of Juan Diego was painted. However, scientists have been free to examine it for any scientific explanation. They concluded that the image shouldn't exist. As in, the image itself is completely impossible. It's not painted, dyed, or otherwise left on the tilma, as far as scientists can tell. The image itself has several unusual characteristics, including that the eyes of the image have reflections in them, of the bishop who first saw it. Also, the tilma itself is a scientific anomaly; it was made out of cactus fibers, completely natural, and by all rights should not be in perfect condition after so many years. It would normally have pretty much disintegrated after about fifty to sixty, and it's been over twice that long since it was made.
The arguments put forth by skeptics on this generally fall into the following categories:
1) It's a painting.
~Not according to scientists.
2) The tilma has been preserved through some form of chemicals, or other special care.
~Again, no; even with special care taken, it should've disintegrated by now. It's made out of fibers similar to rope made from cacti; that stuff breaks down within a few years. A tilma wouldn't last so much longer.
3) The scientists who have examined it are Catholic too!
~Well, for one thing, no, they weren't. The church specifically asked non-Catholic scientists to examine it. Secondly, Catholic scientists, if anything, would be eager to try and DISPROVE it, because either way, it would work out for them. If they do disprove it, they get the thanks of the church at large, if they don't, then they'll have helped to disprove some arguments against it. To be unscrupulous in their work wouldn't be a wise decision for them then, since skeptics
Well. I must admit that I am impressed by the research you have done and how you have presented your findings. I will concede that these facts to appear to indicate something at work that defies any readily available explanations. I am forced to characterize them as unexplainable as opposed to supernatural. To me this would mean that, no matter how mysterious these occurrences may seem, there are yet unknown natural causes for them. We can't just say God did it. That would be a God of the Gaps argument.
On the other hand, if evidence does show up that something has been called a miracle, that has a scientific explanation, and is proven to be nothing but science at work, then the Church accepts it and rescinds the title of miracle given to it, and makes sure to make the explanation, reasoning, and evidence, very public, and easily accessible to the public, so that people know.
Also, simply because something is natural, doesn't mean that it discounts Catholic beliefs on it. Catholicism teaches that God, except in very rare cases, works through nature. People cite science and natural law to be some sort of ace-in-the-hole for winning against the Catholic church, failing to realize that Catholicism teaches that science reveals truth about the universe, and encourages the study of the natural world, because science explains nature, which is believed to be a part of God's creation, and thereby intrinsically good. It is only a misuse of science, such as for killing of humans, or unnecessary killing of other creatures, that the Church is against.
"...science explains nature, which is believed to be part of God's creation".
I would eliminate God and move everything up a rung. What you call God, I call Nature or Universe or Cosmos. But let's stick with Nature. So, Nature gave us a brain to think with. Nature brought about the Big Bang and everything that follows. Nature doesn't care about you or me or whether we are good or bad or whether we live or die. Nature did not descend upon and impregnate a virgin. Nature did not become man and die for our sins. It is Nature that causes natural disasters. We can't pray to Nature for help or protection or forgiveness of sins. We don't spend eternity with Nature after we die. We just cease to exist. That doesn't exactly make your day. Does it. Sorry. That's just the way I am.
And yet, from my point of view, it can be said...
God gave us brains to think with. God created the big bang through nature, and made nature such that everything would work the way it does. God cares about what he has made, but what he has made doesn't necessarily care about him, or about something else he's made. God cares about whether we're good or bad, but gave us free will so that we can be truly good or bad, based on our lives. Nature does cause natural disasters. It was designed for many purposes, and sometimes bad things happen. We can't pray to nature, but we can pray to god. Even if god doesn't exist, it's not bad for a person to take the time to pray, because it's asking for help, is good for confidence and humility, and can cause others to lend a hand. It's also beneficial to health to take a few moments to meditate and reflect, which Christians, in general, do through prayer. Do tell, when was the last time you died?
As for impregnating a virgin, we see an example of an event which is viewed as a miracle, but has neither proof (outside the bible) for it, nor against it. If it is ever disproved though, through science, yeah, that'd destroy pretty much all Christian religions, as far as the new covenant goes. However, in that case, the morals held by Catholics likely would not be dropped, because they can stand independently of any religious beliefs.
Well. It seems that you are a staunch theist and I a staunch atheist. So, on some things we are not going to see eye to eye.
Yup. On the other hand, through discussion, we both gain a better understanding of the other's point of view, which helps us, and others, to lose the misconceptions that they may have about other beliefs.
Going back through these I realize I never properly responded to this one.
I actually think it would be relatively likely, since he takes an especial interest in the world's young Catholics, and since generally-speaking, if I can't find the answer to a question regarding my faith, it's not one that's addressed frequently, so it would be more likely that such persons as the pope, cardinals, and bishops would take an interest in making sure to address it.
Post a Comment