(June 19, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 5:40 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: How does any of this apply to adult converts to the Christian faith?

Um, I don't know, what the fuck do they have to do with it all of the sudden?

Because all of your argument was aimed at parents teaching their children about God.

So, let's say a famous atheist has a conversion experience and becomes a Catholic. Should he teach his kids what he believes to be true about God or not?

When teaching children anything in regards to religious beliefs that are the equivalent of myth, the children should be taught that there are many beliefs and that they should study before either choosing any belief in which to believe as truth or choosing to not believe in any of the myths as truth.

(June 19, 2015 at 5:45 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 5:40 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And would it be reasonable to assume that you will raise your children to believe that there is no god? Because you believe that to be true?

Thanks to your church, I won't fucking have children, Randy.

Ummm...okay.

Quote:

Quote:But that's NOT harmful, is it? Because you believe it...

You disingenuous asshole. It's not the belief in god that is harmful, and you know that.

Oh, of course it is. You "new atheists" believe that religion causes wars, the spread of AIDS (no condoms, remember) and all kinds of bad stuff.

Religion has to be eradicated, right?

(June 19, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Religion has to be eradicated, right?

Precisely.

(June 19, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: One might argue that God was simply angry with Onan for failing to honor a commandment to produce a child with his dead brother’s wife. But if you look at Deuteronomy 25:9-10, it is clear that the penalty for this failure is public humiliation, not death (the widow “shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; . . . And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, the house of him that had his sandal pulled off”).

But that's not what happened. Onan’s actions evoked a much more serious response from God, and early Jewish and Christian commentators believed that by spilling his semen Onan had violated God’s natural law, the design he built into the human race, which led them to condemn the practice of birth control as being against God’s law.

I know the church teaches that.  It's the standard Catholic defense. 

Thank you. I'm pleased that you know I'm not simply making this stuff up.

Quote:

Quote:But there are two problems with it.  First discharge of semen outside a vagina is discussed as unclean in Leviticus 15.  The penalty is not death but two turtle doves.  It's considered unclean not a crime.  It's treated as ritual impurity like menstruation which is discussed immediately afterwords.  So spilling seed is discussed as an impurity in Leviticus but no where in the law of Deuteronomy.  If it were a major crime that would be very odd.

Levitiicus 15:15-18
 If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening. 17 Everything made of cloth or of skin on which the semen falls shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. 18 If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.

Jenny, I think there are two possibilities that you are failing to consider.

1. Wet dreams (very common - even among married, sexually active men), and
2. Premature ejaculation (which is unintentional).

In either of these cases, there would be NO culpability for sin, but the law still required ritual cleansing, etc. And in the case of v18, God is simply commanding that a couple take a bath after sex. Hello? So, the man was unclean "until evening"...a minor deal and not worthy of death.

Clearly, Onan was guilty of something far worse.

Quote:Second, Onan didn't just violate the Leverite marriage obligations he did so after being asked to do so by his father.
Most of what the Catholic church relies on for prohibiting birth control is it's own idea of natural law. 

Well, first of all, Onan DELIBERATELY spilled his seed to avoid having a child for his brother. Therefore, there WAS culpability because unlike the cases I've just discussed, it was NOT an accident or the result of a completed sex act.

Quote:The Hebrews may have thought differently.  Just for fun read through The Song of Solomon.  Much of the gifts he offers his lover were used in ancient times as birth control, specifically:  pomegranates, wine, myrrh, spikenard and cinnamon.  Somehow I don't think that was an accident.

Ah...so YOU can read the scriptures as YOU see fit, but I cannot quote the NT as I see fit? Kidding...just kidding?

(June 19, 2015 at 5:56 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 5:46 pm)abaris Wrote: A good guess would be nothing. But don't mind him. He's obviously throwing a verbal tantrum of some sorts.

Yea, sure looks so, what with him responding to random posts from x hours ago and ignoring the replies.....just another day in Randytown

Let's see...I come home from work...log on...pick a thread...click the "first unread post" button...and start responding as I think appropriate.

How is that "random"?

How do you do it?

(June 19, 2015 at 5:59 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 5:53 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In the context of this discussion, if you don't want to die of AIDS or catch a disease, then don't have sex with people to whom you are not married.

You ignorant little twat. You know nothing about the regions in question. You know nothing about anything as it turns out, you just like to run your mouth. But when someone calls you out on one of your fundamentally ignorant posts, you pull the copping out manoeuvre and move to take a shit in another thread.

Not that either one of us really cares one way or the other, but either you maintain a respectful tone, or you will be ignored.

It makes no difference to me which you choose, but there are folks in this forum who ARE capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation...even if we disagree.

So, can you do that? If not...

Oh, now that's rich.

(June 19, 2015 at 6:19 pm)pocaracas Wrote: The fact that the church leaders continue to bang on the same key only tells us that they are clearly not getting any directions from any god interested in the most happiness for the most people.... and they never have, based on the fact that this is the same rule from 2000 years ago.

You are correct, pocaracas, and props for seeing it.

1. The Church is NOT going to cave on contraception - unlike all of Protestant denominations beginning with the Anglicans in 1930. The Catholic Church is THE Church that Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt 16:18-19), and she does not cave in to the pressure of popular opinion. That should be something that you can respect if you stop and think about it long enough.

2. The leaders of the Church are not interested in the "most happiness for the most people" and they never have been. They are interested in the most HOLINESS for the most people, and that is a VERY different thing.

Randy Carson
In the context of this discussion, if you don't want to die of AIDS or catch a disease, then don't have sex with people to whom you are not married.

Is this really so difficult? [img' Wrote: http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif[/img]

You are one morally bankrupt asshole, you know that, Randy?

Catholic missionaries in Africa are teaching abstinence and that people shouldn't use condoms because they'll go to hell, knowing that people are going to follow the easy bit of advice and succumb to natural human desires on the harder point.

These people are teaching a doctrine that cannot hope to be followed, thereby dooming people to die who could otherwise easily be saved. It is abhorrent, and you are abhorrent for boiling it down to "just don't have sex, it's that easy."

Meanwhile millions are dying. Fuck you.