Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Alternatives to Catholicism?

13»

Comments

  • #102
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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.


  • #103
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    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.


  • #104
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    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.


  • #105
    Doc Farrell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭Doc Farrell


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


  • #106
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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. :)


  • #107
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    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.


  • #108
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    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.


  • #109
    La Petite Fleur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭La Petite Fleur


    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.


  • #110
    gimmebroadband
    Registered Users Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    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.


  • #111
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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.


  • #113
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    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?


  • #114
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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.


  • #115
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    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.


  • #116
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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.


  • #117
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #118
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    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"?


  • #119
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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.


  • #120
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    La Petite Fleur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭La Petite Fleur


    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.


  • #122
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Early indoctrination? - You clearly don't know me very well if you're claiming that much.

    There's no need for lazy assumptions.


  • #123
    La Petite Fleur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭La Petite Fleur


    philologos wrote: »
    Early indoctrination? - You clearly don't know me very well if you're claiming that much.

    There's no need for lazy assumptions.

    It's not, I said perhaps . . . so I don't know where you get it from then, any ideas ?


  • #124
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    La Petite Fleur wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »
    Early indoctrination? - You clearly don't know me very well if you're claiming that much.

    There's no need for lazy assumptions.

    It's not, I said perhaps . . . so I don't know where you get it from then, any ideas ?

    What do you mean by it?

    I'm not a Roman Catholic so it should be expected that I'll disagree with a number of it's teachings. I am simply a Christian first and foremost. I look at things with a Biblical emphasis.


Advertisement