(August 10, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Why isn't an instance of creating life without harming anyone not sacred if life is sacred?

And why is heterosexual married sex sacred, and all the rest immoral?

Because we believe the means of doing it was not.

Because we believe sex is sacred, period. And it is sacred because it is the means by which new human life is created, and also by which a union is consummated. It is because it is sacred that it should remain in the context of a husband and wife who love each other and are committed to each other for life.

You know this gives me an idea, if the act of producing life itself is what makes sex sacred in your eyes then what about when the act is committed between a husband and wife without the intention of reproduction? Would that not also be a violation of the sanctity of sex? If not, this would bring into question just what IS the basis for violating the sanctity of sex. If two straight people can have sex without the intention or perhaps the capability of reproduction and not have it be unholy, why would two people of the same gender who can't procreate through natural means be any less capable of getting jiggy with it and avoid committing blasphemy all the same? 

I realize you don't intend to morally proselytize to anybody that disagrees with you and if gays want to cozy up to each other behind closed doors, it's no skin off your back, you're just sharing your personal beliefs on how you feel about sex and marriage. This is just some food for thought (whether you wish for it to be a potato, sandwich, or something else I leave to you).

(August 10, 2015 at 4:19 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: If two straight people can have sex without the intention or perhaps the capability of reproduction and not have it be unholy, why would two people of the same gender who can't procreate through natural means be any less capable of getting jiggy with it and avoid committing blasphemy all the same? 

Because they'd have to be married. And two men can't marry. Because reasons.

That's what I gathered from the answer when I asked the same thing.

(August 10, 2015 at 3:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 2:31 pm)Exian Wrote: Well, color me knowledged. I seriously didn't know the Church was more important (lack of a better word) than the bible to Catholics. On one hand, that's pretty awesome, since your beliefs won't go obsolete as time moves away from things mentioned in the bible, but on the other hand, you guys need to get with the times haha Well, "getting with the times" is maybe second in importance to having a faster system for getting with the times. That administration lag will always ensure that Catholicism is just behind the rest of the secular world. That the church has final say is better than goin by the book though. Catholic administration lag will be worlds ahead of, say, Islam on many issues.

I don't think you're blindly following. Clearly you're not. Anyone with the nuts to come to an atheist forum and duke it out can't be charged for blindly following.

I too believe that human life is important for, you know, human life, but I don't see putting arbitrary regulations on how we go about that with two consenting adults. Now, really that's only insulting to non-Catholics, but to Catholics that are having troubles with getting pregnant, this could ruin worlds. But that isn't weighed in, apparently.

I wonder what's more important- to do something sacred, or to not do something unsacred? I'm sure you do a million things a day that you don't consider sacred, but does that make those things un-sacred or unholy?

It probably just makes them neutral. Like the sandwich I'm eating right now lol. A neutral act.

Then why are things like IVF not just neutral? Did the church come out and say it, or is it by default of not being in the specific way unholy?

Lovemaking- love and making. IVF- love and making. Aside from what the church has decided, I don't see what ingredient the other lacks or has that the other does or doesn't.

(August 10, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 10:42 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I wasn't trying to say you might not think life has any worth. I was trying to say exactly as it says, that you might not think life is sacred. Sacredness is very important here, otherwise, you are right, there should be no reason why IVF is immoral even if you believe human life has worth.  

You may think it's a cop out, to you, but you need to understand that to us, sacredness is a HUGE deal. If you can't accept that, then it's impossible for you do understand where we are coming from, which is exactly what I said in that last sentence.

So therefore we're back to an abitary, undefined, opaque concept of 'sacred' which ultimately defines why one act of creating a zygote is 'immoral' and another act which for all intents and purposes is identical is not.

Still screams of a cop out to me. Nonsensical arbitrary labeling of something as immoral for no other reason than to save face. By the way, where is the actual condemnation of IVF in the bible? Or even artificial insemination?

You know what it reads like? It's as though research on IVF was published and the technique became widespread to assist couples who were having difficulty in conceiving, then some men in the Vatican sat around a table drinking some wine and it was suddenly brought up in conversation. "Oh, IVF? Erm, what is it, artificial insemination? Don't like the sound of that, better condemn it just in case!"

If the RCC suddenly came out and said it was ok (haven't read anything that suggests they haven't thus far) would you go along or stick to your guns?

I too would also like clarification on the question of vaccinations.

I don't expect you to agree with anything I say regarding sacredness. I understand that since you don't believe in God, it means nothing to you when I say "such and such is sacred." I said this on my post to you yesterday.

I have addressed the bible thing with Exian a couple pages back.
I have answered Alex's question and addressed the unnatural thing numerous times in this thread.

If that happened, I would lose all faith in Catholicism, since they claim that revealed moral truths don't change.

(August 10, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Exian Wrote:

(August 10, 2015 at 3:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It probably just makes them neutral. Like the sandwich I'm eating right now lol. A neutral act.

Then why are things like IVF not just neutral? Did the church come out and say it, or is it by default of not being in the specific way unholy?

Lovemaking- love and making. IVF- love and making. Aside from what the church has decided, I don't see what ingredient the other lacks or has that the other does or doesn't.

Because it involves the creation of new human life, which is one of the most sacred things on this planet.

The second line is just a matter of semantics. I think everyone knows that by "lovemaking" I mean having self giving, loving sex with your spouse.

Sorry I'm being short, since most of you here are being genuine and polite. But I only have a limited amount of time/energy. :-)

You know what I just realized, and this is silly, but I've been an atheist for so long that I completely forgot about the idea of the soul, and the role that plays on what you might consider sacred when it comes to life and reproduction. I see life as an organism that is able to reproduce/replicate, and I see no difference in a life created by sexual intercourse and a life created with IVF. To help you understand, I see human reproduction how you might see animal reproduction. There's no discernible difference in the material world.

I wonder now, if you see a person born by IVF as soulless, and is that the missing ingredient I mentioned earlier? (Here's an extra funny bit- if you do consider people born through IVF as soulless, I would somehow find that kind of insulting, even though I consider everybody soulless hahaha)

(August 10, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sorry I'm being short, since most of you here are being genuine and polite. But I only have a limited amount of time/energy. :-)

It's cool. It's a forum. It'll be here later for everybody.

(August 10, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Exian Wrote: You know what I just realized, and this is silly, but I've been an atheist for so long that I completely forgot about the idea of the soul, and the role that plays on what you might consider sacred when it comes to life and reproduction. I see life as an organism that is able to reproduce/replicate, and I see no difference in a life created by sexual intercourse and a life created with IVF. To help you understand, I see human reproduction how you might see animal reproduction. There's no discernible difference in the material world.

I wonder now, if you see a person born by IVF as soulless, and is that the missing ingredient I mentioned earlier? (Here's an extra funny bit- if you do consider people born through IVF as soulless, I would somehow find that kind of insulting, even though I consider everybody soulless hahaha)

It's because of the insinuation and de-humanization of people. Thats all these religions ultimately seek to do, to strip people of their humanity and accuse them of being less than worthy. What was it Hitch said, born sick and commanded to be well?

Similar to when they say people will go to hell. The hell bit is of course nonsense, but it's the almost gleeful way they stroke their ego at the misfortune of others and their belief in being right at all costs, even if that misfortune is entirely make believe. It gives them a justification to be cruel and believe in cruel things.

Those are the types of theists that make me happy to be an atheist. In those conversation I will settle into a strong atheist stance gladly, just for spite and to scratch that itch.

Cath and King don't strike me as these types though. Some proselytize because they are worried for your soul, and others do it because they are worried for their own (aka douchebags). Cath and King are neither, and have been very respectful and down right pleasent with our discourse.

Love you guys