PDN wrote: » No, i don't think you are interested to know that at all. I think you will happily deny it as Protestant propagana no matter what evidence is presented to you. The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching many times over the years. According to the law of non-contradiction, the teaching in some past papal bulls was evidently untrue.
smurfhousing wrote: » That is interesting. Jakkass rejects 2000 years of constant Church teaching, and you feel free to reject the witness and teachings of the earliest Christians. Smacks of arrogance and pride.
PDN wrote: » You need to understand that not every post on boards.ie gets answered. Sometimes other posters see them as being irrelevant, or not worth answering. The views of early church fathers are not considered authoritative by non-Catholics (nor are the views of Luther or Calvin), so why would non-Catholics bother answering to a post that doesn't make any kind of argument as to their position? It's like all the times you and Stealth Rolex say that something must be true because the Roman Catholic Church says so. While you are free to believe that if you wish, it is less than convincing to anyone who doesn't share your assumptions.
Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. ~Prophecy Of Isaias 5,20
StealthRolex wrote: » I'm interested to know if there is anything the Catholic Church says that is not true.
PDN wrote: » Actually, and this is rather funny, the word 'rapture' is simply an anglicised form of rapio a word that is found in your beloved Vulgate.deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus (1 Thessalonians 4:17) So, according to your earlier posts, the word 'rapture' is lifted directly from the true Bible as authorised by your Magisterium.
PDN wrote: » It's like all the times you and Stealth Rolex say that something must be true because the Roman Catholic Church says so. While you are free to believe that if you wish, it is less than convincing to anyone who doesn't share your assumptions.
PDN wrote: » And couples who use condoms are less likely to get HIV. :rolleyes:
smurfhousing wrote: »
StealthRolex wrote: » Did you even read the article or my comment to introduce it? read what I said and read the article. Women on the pill are at a higher risk of getting HIV and yes I know that is dependant on who their partner(s) is(are) and where they have been. .
StealthRolex wrote: » Ok then if contraception is not in the bible as a word then where is rapture? Some protestants are all over the web with the Rapture whatever that is and it appears less often in the bible than "faith alone".
Jakkass wrote: » lmaopml: If you want any form of authoritative decision made on your disagreement, pop over to Sys -> Feedback and they will consider your disagreement (boards.ie admins as well as moderators). Best to do it in the early stages of the thread before it becomes too much of a normative. StealthRolex: No way of discussing without making everyone look like a rebellious child when they disagree with you?
Jakkass wrote: » lmaopml - It isn't putting all RC topics into one thread. It's putting all RC / Protestant disputes and debates into this thread, and thus cleaning up the main forum. StealthRolex - The spread of HIV doesn't happen because of contraceptives, but rather due to having sexual relations outside of marriage, or in marriage with multiple partners.
lmaopml wrote: » Please either stick something in the Charter for us to 'abide' by or else don't imprison all RC faith related topics to one thread...
PDN wrote: » And I have children, more so than celibates who are ignoring all the verses you quoted. It doesn't support eating pizza - so it stands in the same light biblically as having sex without having children (although pizza is marginally less enjoyable).
PDN wrote: » That is a total falsehood. The vast majority of non-Catholic denominations have strict rules prohibiting their members from engaging in pre-marital, extra-marital, or homosexual relations.
Jakkass wrote: » Luther and Calvin are not unquestionable authorities.
Jakkass wrote: » You do realise that not all unprotected sex will bring forth children? Another point, should married couples only have sex with the wife is ovulating or can it happen when she is not? If planned correctly, it is possible not to conceive this way either.
StealthRolex wrote: » It is interesting to note that because other denominations do not hold contraception and divorce with the same abhorrence that Catholics do, that they also generally ignore co-habitation and same-sex liaisons.
smurfhousing wrote: » And yet... you somehow are? Since you appear to have cast aside 2000 years of constant Christian teaching on this matter of contraception to come to your own conclusion.
lmaopml wrote: » I don't think the Catholic Church teaches that all people from other denominations will defo 'not' be saved...the same way as it doesn't teach all Catholics 'will' be saved. It is simply the narrow route to being saved, and most of all because we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism and Confirmation of our faith, and obviously, Christ himself in the Eucharist to strengthen us.. We do know, and common sense even tells us that with knowledge comes responsibility.. There are some requirements that are very clear from Scripture and tradition, some groups are more liberal than the Catholic church in so far as contraception etc. is concerned...and will argue till the second coming over the Churchs stance. However, one has to remember that Catholics go by the moral code of the church and see the logic of it in Scripture, even if others don't....every verse counts, not just the ones we want to see..With respect, it's not 'our' plan we're trying to live.....
