What are your views on contraception?

Sparks43

wench wrote: »

The Motor tax office?

I was going to say Anfield lol

khaldrogo

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote:

Unfortunately, if you don't enter God's Kingdom, you enter the place where you abandon all hope.

Limerick?

antiskeptic

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

Christ gave full authority to His Church.

Says that same Church. Do you always take organisations at their word like that?

Assuming you don't do that, you turn then to your justification for believing the Church in what it says. Which brings you to things like Tatranska's Peter=Pebble and the like

In other words, you shift past the monotonous droning of bald statements. And get down to the meat and potatoes of your position.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I said what I said. I will not enter into a discussion about it, because there is no discussion to be had. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. Any further points are useless and won't do any of us any good. Thank you.

antiskeptic

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

I said what I said. I will not enter into a discussion about it, because there is no discussion to be had. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. Any further points are useless and won't do any of us any good. Thank you.

a. you make bald statements which you want to be taken as true. At least I assume you want them to be taken as true

b. you provide no justification for the statement other than resort to more of a.

There is, of course, discussion to be had. How, for instance, do you conclude that what the Catholic church claims to be the case regarding it's status, is the case.

How did you come to be satisfied that what they say is indeed true? Surely you asked yourself that question and arrived at a satisfactory-to-you answer?


You might say that you received enlightenment from on high. That's fine - at least we know where you're coming from. But if you provide no justification at all, then you give no basis for the bald statements to stick.

They become empty gongs, clanging cymbals. And attract the kind of response/traps which you received/fell into recently in this thread.

Bandana boy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because that's exactly who McGaggs was talking about?





And I was making the point that anyone can afford to do that now, and they always could. It's simply a matter of their own priorities, and that's why I said that I don't have any issue with anyone for what lifestyle choices they make, but when I hear anyone complain that they have to work to pay for childcare... they don't! They may have to work to make the payments on a mortgage, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about parents ability to raise their own children.

My wife has never thought she made any sacrifices to stay at home and raise our child, we were both glad we were able to afford to do that. That was a lifestyle choice that we made, and now that we are separated, I'm still raising our child, and I'm still working, and I've never once complained that I had to work to pay for childcare, and I've never complained that I had to work instead of being able to stay at home to raise my child either.

I chose to work, while my wife chose to stay at home to raise our child, and neither of us felt we had to make any sacrifices, just lifestyle choices.

Jack , you can not even afford to take your kids to the zoo, so not sure you are a great example of financial planning

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

What I write I write. Either I am right and you are wrong. Or I am wrong and you are right. We can't both be right. The truth is indivisible ie it can't be broken up. There is only one truth, and I am speaking it.

frag420

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

What I write I write. Either I am right and you are wrong. Or I am wrong and you are right. We can't both be right. The truth is indivisible ie it can't be broken up. There is only one truth, and I am speaking it.

So have I got this correct, either Ayou are right and we are wrong but you’re still right as you’re speaking the only truth...I think you need to lay off the alter wine Baloney, it’s going to your head!

antiskeptic

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

What I write I write. Either I am right and you are wrong. Or I am wrong and you are right. We can't both be right. The truth is indivisible ie it can't be broken up. There is only one truth, and I am speaking it.

What I write I write. Either I am right and you are wrong. Or I am wrong and you are right. We can't both be right. The truth is indivisible ie it can't be broken up. There is only one truth, and I am speaking it.

Do you see what happens when bald statement meets bald statement?

Stalemate.

Your position is stalemated simply by responding in kind. Nothing more need be done.

That is about as weak a position as it is possible to hold. A pair of two's matches a pair of two's. Are you happy to represent what you presumably suppose to be a magnificent Lord so shabbily? Can you not raise your game in representing Him?

Give a reason for the hope that you have. Reason involves reasoning.

sparksfly

If Christ did not return during the Jewish holocaust or the various middle eastern wars, I cant imagine him returning because of condom wearers.

fergus1001

Spider Rico wrote:

This thread cannot be serious?! I’ve rarely read such nonsense!

It all a load of owenybaloney

Cabaal

sparksfly wrote: »

If Christ did not return during the Jewish holocaust or the various middle eastern wars, I cant imagine him returning because of condom wearers.

Apparently as already stated he'll return soon because of the bankers, he really hates bankers!

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I write I write. Either I am right and you are wrong. Or I am wrong and you are right. We can't both be right. The truth is indivisible ie it can't be broken up. There is only one truth, and I am speaking it.

Do you see what happens when bald statement meets bald statement?

Stalemate.

Your position is stalemated simply by responding in kind. Nothing more need be done.

That is about as weak a position as it is possible to hold. A pair of two's matches a pair of two's. Are you happy to represent what you presumably suppose to be a magnificent Lord so shabbily? Can you not raise your game in representing Him?

Give a reason for the hope that you have. Reason involves reasoning.

At least he enters into discussion with everyone....even if it is one liners.....the other alternative is he puts everyone on ignore and we all know where that got us:D

Cabaal

Emilia Ashy Harpoon wrote: »

At least he enters into discussion with everyone....even if it is one liners.....the other alternative is he puts everyone on ignore and we all know where that got us:D

One liners isn't really discussion, certainly not meaningful discussion and if you look at this thread the one liners have basically derailed it. Which is a shame as there were some very meaningful contributions

Timberrrrrrrr

Cabaal wrote: »

Apparently as already stated he'll return soon because of the bankers, he really hates bankers!

Don't we all?

quickbeam

sparksfly wrote: »

If Christ did not return during the Jewish holocaust or the various middle eastern wars, I cant imagine him returning because of condom wearers.

Maybe the Jews just weren't worth returning for? Is Christ an anti-Semite? Though as a Jew himself, I guess he'd be a self-hating anti-Semite.

I actually find the discussion fascinating. The extremes to which faith can trump logic are a sight to behold.

wench

quickbeam wrote: »

Maybe the Jews just weren't worth returning for? Is Christ an anti-Semite? Though as a Jew himself, I guess he'd be a self-hating anti-Semite.

I actually find the discussion fascinating. The extremes to which faith can trump logic are a sight to behold.

Maybe he's still bearing a grudge over the whole crucifixion thing

FishOnABike

wench wrote: »

Maybe he's still bearing a grudge over the whole crucifixion thing

He might be a bit cross about it alright.

LCD

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

Masturbation is a grievous sin, which must be confessed. If not, such sinners will not enter the Kingdom of God. God has provided for legitimate release of aged sperm in the monthly wet dream.

Myself & Mrs LCD had no joy conceiving. I went to the clinic & produced a sample, which showed the route of the problem. 9month course of medication & I produced another sample, from which 1 or 2 not completely useless swimmers were found & a number of my wives eggs were fertilised. Following a number of failed IVFs we now have a daughter. So how many "grievous sins" did I commit to create a life?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Hector Savage

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

Foreplay is of course allowed However, sexual activity ie oral sex is a debasement of proper sexual activity.

You are entitled to fondle by hand each others sexual organs, and other parts of the human body, but with the proviso that the full emission is deposited in the vagina, thus holding open the possibility of new life, should God desire it.

What happens if myself and my darling wife are in the act of procreation - and definetely want a baby, but I accidentally ejaculate during foreplay, do I need to go see my priest for a confession ?

Hector Savage

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

Masturbation is a grievous sin, which must be confessed. If not, such sinners will not enter the Kingdom of God. God has provided for legitimate release of aged sperm in the monthly wet dream.

Owen, I'm at work and just knocked one out in the jacks, should I be ashamed that I just flushed millions of sperm cells down the toilet ?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Hector Savage wrote:

What happens if myself and my darling wife are in the act of procreation - and definetely want a baby, but I accidentally ejaculate during foreplay, do I need to go see my priest for a confession ?

Accidental ejaculation is not a sin.

frag420

Hector Savage wrote: »

Owen, I'm at work and just knocked one out in the jacks, should I be ashamed that I just flushed millions of sperm cells down the toilet ?

And here was me thinking I was the only genocidal maniac that did this!?

Do you ever dress up in a Nazi contume too for max effect?

frag420

Hector Savage wrote: »

What happens if myself and my darling wife are in the act of procreation - and definetely want a baby, but I accidentally ejaculate during foreplay, do I need to go see my priest for a confession ?

Hector Savage wrote: »

Owen, I'm at work and just knocked one out in the jacks, should I be ashamed that I just flushed millions of sperm cells down the toilet ?

Maybe shag the missus at the office?

Just a thought...:D:D

Hector Savage

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

Accidental ejaculation is not a sin.

Phew ... OK that's a relief, still there's the issue of the genocide I commited earlier in the jacks, maybe I'll get the local priest later to do a service inside.

1,236,329 funerals ....

Effects

Cabaal wrote: »

Also what are your views in relation to a married couple where one of the partners has aids, do you still think condom use in this situation is wrong?

You are mixing up HIV and AIDS.

Modern medicine allows for people who are HIV positive to have unprotected sex and not transmit the virus. It's undetectable and and can't be transmitted.

Hector Savage

frag420 wrote: »

And here was me thinking I was the only genocidal maniac that did this!?

Do you ever dress up in a Nazi contume too for max effect?

I was walking in to work this morning thinking of that line and couldn't stop laughing.

People were giving me strange looks

Imagine telling them, "Don't mind me , I'm just imagining myself knocking one out in a full SS Stormenfeinheintrooper outfit ... hat and all" !!!

Cabaal

Effects wrote: »

You are mixing up HIV and AIDS.

Modern medicine allows for people who are HIV positive to have unprotected sex and not transmit the virus. It's undetectable and and can't be transmitted.

Thats great and all, but the country's where AIDS is most widespread are country's that are very poor and also where religious groups such as the catholic church push the no condoms thing.

What good are modern meds to people if they don't have access to them or can't afford them?

So the religious view of condoms are bad is leading to needless deaths still

Schorpio

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

What I write I write. Either I am right and you are wrong. Or I am wrong and you are right. We can't both be right. The truth is indivisible ie it can't be broken up. There is only one truth, and I am speaking it.

Oweny, as someone self-proclaiming the 'one truth', I was having a flick through your previous posts, and I stumbled across some posts (here, here and here) which, if I was God himself, I'd be less than impressed with. They don't exactly follow the 'love thy neighbor' or 'turn the other cheek' mantra, do they? Perhaps you skipped that memo and dived straight into the 'condoms are the work of the devil'.

In fact, I reckon I'd be less impressed with someone who had threatened to find someone on the internet, than with a reasonable person who has effectively used contraceptives to bring lives into this world responsibly when they are in the financially and emotionally ready to care for them.

Personally, I believe that the anti-contraceptive stance of the Church followed 'no sex before marriage' rule. Prohibiting sex before marriage dates to a time before artificial contraceptives were even a thing, in an effort to stop men having children with a number of different women. When contraceptives became a thing, I believe that the Church outlawed them as it made it easier for people to have sex before they were married, without the "shame" of a child being born to unmarried parents.

In reality, the use of contraceptives achieves what I believe to be the original motives of the ban on sex before marriage, i.e. stop men having children with a number of different or unmarried women. However, the Church couldn't go back on the rule it made day 1, so instead it outlawed contraceptives; thus promoting the spread of diseases like HIV and AIDS in poorer Catholic countries.