Alternatives to Catholicism?

Festus · 29-02-2012 1:35am

PDN wrote: »

I find that belief fascinating. So do you think God created dogs and cats with menstrual cycles to help them plan the number of their puppies and kittens in a natural way?

You really do beggar belief sometimes. I mean, are you being serious? Apples and oranges we're used to but cats and dogs ???

Lets's take your understanding of biology as being correct and extend it to humans.

Now, tell me, how am I supposed to know when my wife is in heat?

Doc Farrell · 29-02-2012 2:15am

Northclare wrote: »

Catholicism is ok but not for everyone as we all have different ways of looking at things.

What I like in spades you might like in diamonds.

The problems arise when one Christian branch attempts to make out its producing more fruit than the rest,some people like peaches that's ok more like red apples that's ok too some like roses I'm open to that, more like pears but yet all those fruits are in the botanical family called rosaceae.

Some fruit might be sour more sweet some are tough others are soft but yet they are all from the rosacea family.

What I'm saying is who cares about what branch of Christianity one comes from as long as they have can stand together on common ground without having the arrogance of being better than the other.

Jesus is the building block of the wall of Christianity and if you start taking down the blocks one by one,what's left ?

We could end up back with the blackbird and loose the bell.

I'm not sure what the last sentence means it must be a north Clare phrase!

Anyhow some denominations simply are better than others. Some are full of crazies, some are led by crazies and some are recovering from crazies. As an adult it is not arrogance but wisdom to acknowledge that some people who throw around the name of the man from Nazareth are dangerous.
On top of this there are bad apples in all denominations and they can infect quite a few around them. So as I mentioned before I really think you should take a couple of years to travel, experience and most of all Enjoy your spirituality before signing up to any group.
Please don't become a looney!
If I lived in north Clare the sea would be my church!

Xcellor · 29-02-2012 2:56am

Stinicker wrote: »

and answered Atheist in last years Census, I do beleive in God and the afterlife

I got confused at this part.

Alternatives to being a Catholic. Hmmm. Well all Christian religions are like the Revels sweets, different flavours. Some are like coffee flavour. Yick. Too strict, too literal. Others are a bit tangy, different like orange flavour, slightly hippy, the Jesus is cool and loves you brigade. Others are harder to deal with like the toffee they are so sticky on matters of doctrine and others are plain stupid like the crunchy one that's just a deformed malteser and was thrown out by quality control. But really they are all just revels.

I think you should stay an atheist and just believe in god...:pac:

Festus · 29-02-2012 2:59am

Xcellor wrote: »

I got confused at this part.

Alternatives to being a Catholic. Hmmm. Well all Christian religions are like the Revels sweets, different flavours. Some are like coffee flavour. Yick. Too strict, too literal. Others are a bit tangy, different like orange flavour, slightly hippy, the Jesus is cool and loves you brigade. Others are harder to deal with like the toffee they are so sticky on matters of doctrine and others are plain stupid like the crunchy one that's just a deformed malteser and was thrown out by quality control. But really they are all just revels.

I think you should stay an atheist and just believe in god...:pac:

The thing is, some Revels are chocolate all the way through... and the rest aren't

Xcellor · 29-02-2012 3:48am

Festus wrote: »

The thing is, some Revels are chocolate all the way through... and the rest aren't

True. I'd forgotten about the plain and ordinary "vanilla" revel. Good old mainstream comformist Christianity perhaps. The type that allows the rules to bend to appease the flock. The chocolate revel is inoffensive but rather mundane.

If Jesus was here he would probably say the "luke warm" brigade, being neither hot or cold.

Regardless its just another revel. There are so many other choices of confectionery why limit yourself to a bag of revels. OP may want to explore what other religions have to offer. Or even what no religion has to offer.

philologos · 29-02-2012 8:13am

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

The find it in my version of the book game ? Cool.
Please show me the passage of Scripture, (chapters and verses please) where recreational sex and contraception, or even withdrawal method is endorsed. Please show me the passage of Scripture where the docterine of Sola Scriptura is proven ?

The fact that something is absent doesn't mean that it is forbidden. That would be invalid reasoning.

Whereas claiming something is forbidden when it is actually absent Biblically, is valid reasoning.

Even if you are not Sola Scriptura, the Biblical text gives us all we need for salvation, and for living a godly life. It's entirely sufficient.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 (verses 3 - 5 in particular) does claim that sexuality is to a large degree recreational. Likewise do other areas of Scripture such as Song of Solomon.

PDN · 29-02-2012 8:31am

Festus wrote: »

You really do beggar belief sometimes. I mean, are you being serious? Apples and oranges we're used to but cats and dogs ???

Lets's take your understanding of biology as being correct and extend it to humans.

Now, tell me, how am I supposed to know when my wife is in heat?

That's up to you to work out, old chap. You and your wife probably need to communicate more if you're having to ask questions like that on an internet discussion board.

Northclare · 29-02-2012 10:38am

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Catholicism is ok but not for everyone as we all have different ways of looking at things.

What I like in spades you might like in diamonds.

The problems arise when one Christian branch attempts to make out its producing more fruit than the rest,some people like peaches that's ok more like red apples that's ok too some like roses I'm open to that, more like pears but yet all those fruits are in the botanical family called rosaceae.

Some fruit might be sour more sweet some are tough others are soft but yet they are all from the rosacea family.

What I'm saying is who cares about what branch of Christianity one comes from as long as they have can stand together on common ground without having the arrogance of being better than the other.

Jesus is the building block of the wall of Christianity and if you start taking down the blocks one by one,what's left ?

We could end up back with the blackbird and loose the bell.

I'm not sure what the last sentence means it must be a north Clare phrase!

Anyhow some denominations simply are better than others. Some are full of crazies, some are led by crazies and some are recovering from crazies. As an adult it is not arrogance but wisdom to acknowledge that some people who throw around the name of the man from Nazareth are dangerous.
On top of this there are bad apples in all denominations and they can infect quite a few around them. So as I mentioned before I really think you should take a couple of years to travel, experience and most of all Enjoy your spirituality before signing up to any group.
Please don't become a looney!
If I lived in north Clare the sea would be my church!

Going back to the blackbird is going back to nature and the way it was before Christianity

lmaopml · 29-02-2012 11:01am

Stinicker, I hope whatever you decide you take your time. I wouldn't blame you being confused; or indeed looking at Catholics and Christians and thinking that the 'faith' can be confusing, mixed messages etc.....at the core it's very simple, it just takes the will to find out and seek out - I'll be glad if you stay within Christianity, and will pray you find some peace.

If you decide to explore your Catholic faith at anytime, I found that the series of books 'Catholic for a Reason' an exceptional read, they are available on Kindle or from Amazon, Easons may deliver them free too - and they explain such things as why the Trinity, Family, Marriage, Scripture (great reading guide in there too ) and Sacred Tradition form the fabric of the Church in a very clear and understandable way among other things...

Best of luck.

Festus · 29-02-2012 4:36pm

PDN wrote: »

That's up to you to work out, old chap. You and your wife probably need to communicate more if you're having to ask questions like that on an internet discussion board.

Either a very bad dodge or perhaps my question was unclear. I suspect you cannot answer the question but in defference to your expert knowledge in this matter I shall ask it again more plainly.

How do human men know when a woman is in heat or has just ovulated?

PDN · 29-02-2012 6:26pm

Festus wrote: »

Either a very bad dodge or perhaps my question was unclear. I suspect you cannot answer the question but in defference to your expert knowledge in this matter I shall ask it again more plainly.

How do human men know when a woman is in heat or has just ovulated?

I think a biologist can help you more on that one - but here's a wee taster for you if you want to read up on it: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/9/2243.full

Your suspicion that I might not be able to answer the question is well founded, however, as I am not a biologist, nor have I ever claimed to be. In fact I'm rather mystified as to why you would want to ask a pastor such questions. My qualifications are in theology, not biology. There is a Sex and Sexuality Forum on boards.ie if you are experiencing problems in that area.

Festus · 29-02-2012 7:22pm

PDN wrote: »

I think a biologist can help you more on that one - but here's a wee taster for you if you want to read up on it: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/9/2243.full

Your suspicion that I might not be able to answer the question is well founded, however, as I am not a biologist, nor have I ever claimed to be. In fact I'm rather mystified as to why you would want to ask a pastor such questions. My qualifications are in theology, not biology. There is a Sex and Sexuality Forum on boards.ie if you are experiencing problems in that area.

I do not recognise you as a pastor however I recognise when someone is attempting to make a smart point and fails miserably

The link is most informative. The summary agrees with my understanding:

In conclusion, although previous the literature shows that women do not exhibit a distinct pattern of sexual behaviour across the menstrual cycle, recent evidence based on women’s olfactory and visual perception and men’s olfactory perception suggests that women experience recurring periods of increased attractiveness and proceptivity at the periovulatory stage of their menstrual cycle. However, the changes in women’s attractiveness and proceptivity across the menstrual cycle are not as obvious, patent and overt as those displayed by females from other mammalian species.

which is the point I was making:

Cat's and dogs and most mammals have an obvious period of estrus. In humans it is not obvious, and less so in communities that do not subscribe to monogamy.

So God created estrus to help non human mammals maximise their reproductive capacity, however in humans He created the menstrual cycle to allow planning their families in a natural way, should they so desire.

Benny_Cake · 29-02-2012 7:25pm

Festus wrote: »

So God created estrus to help non human mammals maximise their reproductive capacity, however in humans He created the menstrual cycle to allow planning their families in a natural way, should they so desire.

What is so natural about it though? The intention is the same as the intention is using a condom or the pill - to have sex while avoiding pregnancy. The biggest difference between "natural" and "artificial" contraception is the failure rate.

Doc Farrell · 29-02-2012 7:29pm

I can't even remember what the hell this thread is about.....

PDN · 29-02-2012 7:30pm

Festus wrote: »

I do not recognise you as a pastor

And for that I am most grateful.

So God created estrus to help non human mammals maximise their reproductive capacity, however in humans He created the menstrual cycle to allow planning their families in a natural way, should they so desire.

So nothing to do with the lining of the uterus being removed then? If that's what you choose to believe then I won't stop you.

It is, however, equally logical to believe that God created the rubber plant so that we could make condoms.

Benny_Cake · 29-02-2012 7:36pm

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I can't even remember what the hell this thread is about.....

I note the OP has long since checked out, having read this thread he may have decided to give Christianity a miss. I'm as guilty of being going off topic as the next person.

qrrgprgua · 29-02-2012 7:38pm

Stinicker wrote: »

I was born and raised a Catholic like so many others in Ireland. I no longer consider my Catholic and no longer believe in the Catholic Church or want anything to do with them. I have no respect for a Religion that condones pedophillia and covers it up, refuses to allow their priests to have sex with women like normal people yet condones the rape of little Children!!

I no longer consider myself a Catholic and answered Atheist in last years Census, I do beleive in God and the afterlife but don't need the Criminal Catholic Church to act as a go between for my faith.

What other Christian religions offer a true alternative to the RCC?

Hmm. Catholicism does not condone any sin!!. You need to understand faith first before taking offence to the actions of those who did not live their faith. The point was probably already pointed out on this thread.

La Petite Fleur · 29-02-2012 7:46pm

philologos wrote: »

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 (verses 3 - 5 in particular) does claim that sexuality is to a large degree recreational. Likewise do other areas of Scripture such as Song of Solomon.

Just to be clear, contrary to the usual anti-Catholic myths, Catholic teaching has no problem with recreational sex between loving man and wife, during or outside a women's fertile days, just as long as it's open to the possibility of human life. Simple as that. Much more fun than the rubbers and pills brigade.

gimmebroadband · 29-02-2012 7:47pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Hmm. Catholicism does not condone any sin!!. You need to understand faith first before taking offence to the actions of those who did not live their faith. The point was probably already pointed out on this thread.

Exactly, all other faiths caved in to the masses. The CC however was founded on solid foundations, and is unmovable in it's teaching from day 1.

Festus · 29-02-2012 7:47pm

PDN wrote: »

So nothing to do with the lining of the uterus being removed then? If that's what you choose to believe then I won't stop you.

Ah, your ignorance is so endearing. Do you really believe menstruation and estrus are the same?

PDN wrote: »

It is, however, equally logical to believe that God created the rubber plant so that we could make condoms.

Really, I thought it was so we could make tyres and bouncy castles.

PDN · 29-02-2012 8:00pm

Festus wrote: »

Ah, your ignorance is so endearing. Do you really believe menstruation and estrus are the same?

No, which is why I responded to a comment about menstrual cycles, not about the estrous cycle.

Do try to concentrate.

Festus · 29-02-2012 8:08pm

PDN wrote: »

No, which is why I responded to a comment about menstrual cycles, not about the estrous cycle.

Do try to concentrate.

Well what did you really mean when you said

PDN wrote: »

I find that belief fascinating. So do you think God created dogs and cats with menstrual cycles to help them plan the number of their puppies and kittens in a natural way?

and made no mention of the estrous cycle?

PDN · 29-02-2012 8:16pm

Festus wrote: »

Well what did you really mean when you said

and made no mention of the estrous cycle?

If you would try to listen to what others are saying, instead of getting personal, then you might be able to follow things better.

gimmebroadband made a comment about the purpose of the menstrual cycle. I found that interesting, as menstrual cycles occur in animals as well. Therefore it would seem to me to be reasonable that the menstrual cycle in humans would serve a similar purpose to that in animals, namely getting rid of the lining of the uterus.

I'm quite puzzled as to why that should provoke such snideness or personal comments about my role as a pastor.

Festus · 29-02-2012 8:46pm

PDN wrote: »

If you would try to listen to what others are saying, instead of getting personal, then you might be able to follow things better.

likewise I'm sure...

PDN wrote: »

gimmebroadband made a comment about the purpose of the menstrual cycle. I found that interesting, as menstrual cycles occur in animals as well. Therefore it would seem to me to be reasonable that the menstrual cycle in humans would serve a similar purpose to that in animals, namely getting rid of the lining of the uterus.

you did your apples and oranges thing again and equated it with family planning.

PDN wrote: »

I'm quite puzzled as to why that should provoke such snideness or personal comments about my role as a pastor.

I thought your were moderator or poster as the mood takes you. Are you a pastor to this forum? This is an alien concept to me.

Quite simply I don't see (recognise) that what you do you in the real world has any bearing on your presence on a forum and I fail to see what you being a pastor has anything to do with the disucssion.

If you think it is anything to do with being personal or snide that is your problem.

PDN · 29-02-2012 8:57pm

Festus wrote: »

I thought your were moderator or poster as the mood takes you. Are you a pastor to this forum? This is an alien concept to me.

Being a pastor is my job.

Quite simply I don't see (recognise) that what you do you in the real world has any bearing on your presence on a forum and I fail to see what you being a pastor has anything to do with the disucssion.

It is relevant in that this is the Christianity Forum. We discuss issues to do with churches, theology, and Christian life. Therefore my job, while certainly not bestowing any special authority or infallibility, is relevant.

If people start asking me questions about biology then it is reasonable to point out that my profession is one other than that of a biologist.

philologos · 29-02-2012 9:18pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Sure we should enjoy each other's bodies through the union of Christian marriage., but not everyone conceives due to being barren etc., perhaps it God's way of keeping the population in check, and He also created women with menstrual cycles to help with family planning the natural way.

Natural deaths, disease, disasters, famine, accidents etc, decreases the population significantly on a daily basis!

If you're saying it's OK to avoid pregnancy using these means, why is it not acceptable to use other means?

By the by, this also contradicts a lot of RCC intepretations I've heard around Genesis 38.

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Just to be clear, contrary to the usual anti-Catholic myths, Catholic teaching has no problem with recreational sex between loving man and wife, during or outside a women's fertile days, just as long as it's open to the possibility of human life. Simple as that. Much more fun than the rubbers and pills brigade.

I'm not anti-Roman Catholic. I for the most part agree with it. In other respects I disagree. It'd be nice if you didn't put words in my mouth.

I put Christianity before it though. As I do with every single other denomination.

Festus · 29-02-2012 9:39pm

PDN wrote: »

Being a pastor is my job.

It is relevant in that this is the Christianity Forum. We discuss issues to do with churches, theology, and Christian life. Therefore my job, while certainly not bestowing any special authority or infallibility, is relevant.

If people start asking me questions about biology then it is reasonable to point out that my profession is one other than that of a biologist.

Well then I am a biologist and I was not asking you to answer questions on biology but to explain your understanding of biology as it is clearly flawed.

gimmebroadbands point was valid. Your response to him was erroneous and based on a false premise.

You presented the menstrual cycle and the estrous cycle as being the same which is clearly not the case.

The estrous cycle in animals has a period where clearly overt signals alert males to sexually receptive females, and the females are generally only sexually active during this time. Bring on the bonobos if you want which is why I say generally - there are always exceptions - but you were talking cats and dogs so lets stay with the domestics.

In humans, while there may be a covert estrous cycle, the overt is the menstrual cycle, and human females can be sexually active through out most if not all of the cycle.

This allows for human females to restrict when they have sexual encounters that may lead to pregnancy by avoiding the period when eggs are likely to be released and so leads to the possiblity of weeks of sexual activity in any one cycle.

If human female were subject to an estrous cycle then they would be sexually receptive and active for only a few days per month.

While I do not know if that is your experience and so may be where you get your understanding from, it is not mine.

Now, what is the relevance of mentioning "special authority" or "infallibility"?

PDN · 29-02-2012 9:53pm

Festus wrote: »

Well then I am a biologist and I was not asking you to answer questions on biology but to explain your understanding of biology as it is clearly flawed.

gimmebroadbands point was valid. Your response to him was erroneous and based on a false premise.

You presented the menstrual cycle and the estrous cycle as being the same which is clearly not the case.

My question was about the menstrual cycle. Not being a biologist I was unaware that dogs and cats don't have them. So, it would have better for me to have framed my question in terms of chimpanzees or elephant shrews.

Now, what is the relevance of mentioning "special authority" or "infallibility"?

I was trying to answer your question, while striving for clarity and avoiding misunderstandings. However, just forget it, it really isn't worth the unpleasantness.

Festus · 29-02-2012 10:19pm

PDN wrote: »

I was trying to answer your question, while striving for clarity and avoiding misunderstandings. However, just forget it, it really isn't worth the unpleasantness.

Agreed, there really was no need for a belittling and patronizing comment to gimmebroadbands valid point.

La Petite Fleur · 29-02-2012 10:30pm

philologos wrote: »

I'm not anti-Roman Catholic. I for the most part agree with it. In other respects I disagree.

I put Christianity before it though. As I do with every single other denomination.

Glad to hear it, we're all working on our faith brother and a little ecumenism goes a long way.
Perhaps someday it will all be proven to be just different brands of Christian spirituality.

Perhaps it's a slight trace of your early indoctrination your still not free of, but most sincerely, you do come across as having a tone/style similar to those who do peddle/swallow myths about Catholicism.
My apologies so.

Alternatives to Catholicism?

Comments