(July 11, 2015 at 9:01 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: "It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics,
though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry."

H.L. Mencken

Indeed. I've even heard it argued that the "rhythm method" being a form of birth control (albeit not a very good one) is just as "sinful" as the pill.

The rhythm method is completely moral.

Though it's not a very good way of monitoring fertility. There are other much more accurate ways of doing so.

(July 11, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 7:13 pm)Starvald Demelain Wrote: So you're saying thought crime isn't a staple of Christianity at large? News to me. 

You need to understand what you call "thought crime" actually is. It isn't the feeling of temptation, or a thought that pops into your head. It is when you make the conscious decision to indulge in fantasies of sinful behavior. So to say "even the thought of masturbation is a sin", is wrong.

For example, say you were able to read a person's mind and you found out that this person hated all gay people, wished they'd all die, and spent a lot of time fantasizing about torturing them and burning them to death, and attaining satisfaction from those thoughts. Even if he never actually got up the guts to act on those fantasies and feelings of deep hatred, would knowing all that about him play a role in your perception of his character?

What you call "thought crime" is merely the notion that what is in our hearts and in our thoughts can and do play a role in what type of person we are.

Oh, no, I'm well aware of the differences between passing thoughts and full fledged fantasies. It's also occurred to me that if a person thinks a certain way it's sure to affect their actions. 



Seeing as we're strangers it might help if I told you that I grew up in a Southern Baptist home (with a later influence from Catholicism from another side of the family), and that denomination in particular seems to be unaware of the distinction. I know that my experiences don't make the case for the rest of the world, but for the 20+ years I was a Christian very few people I spoke with took your approach to this issue, and it was an issue I spoke of often because the concept bothered me to no end. A fleeting thought about any sin was just as damning as an imaginative daydream in their eyes, and each was the same as performing the act. 

Matthew 5:28 got thrown around a lot, as did any verses about coveting.

(July 11, 2015 at 9:27 pm)Starvald Demelain Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You need to understand what you call "thought crime" actually is. It isn't the feeling of temptation, or a thought that pops into your head. It is when you make the conscious decision to indulge in fantasies of sinful behavior. So to say "even the thought of masturbation is a sin", is wrong.

For example, say you were able to read a person's mind and you found out that this person hated all gay people, wished they'd all die, and spent a lot of time fantasizing about torturing them and burning them to death, and attaining satisfaction from those thoughts. Even if he never actually got up the guts to act on those fantasies and feelings of deep hatred, would knowing all that about him play a role in your perception of his character?

What you call "thought crime" is merely the notion that what is in our hearts and in our thoughts can and do play a role in what type of person we are.

Oh, no, I'm well aware of the differences between passing thoughts and full fledged fantasies. It's also occurred to me that if a person thinks a certain way it's sure to affect their actions. 



Seeing as we're strangers it might help if I told you that I grew up in a Southern Baptist home (with a later influence from Catholicism from another side of the family), and that denomination in particular seems to be unaware of the distinction. I know that my experiences don't make the case for the rest of the world, but for the 20+ years I was a Christian very few people I spoke with took your approach to this issue, and it was an issue I spoke of often because the concept bothered me to no end. A fleeting thought about any sin was just as damning as an imaginative daydream in their eyes, and each was the same as performing the act. 

Matthew 5:28 got thrown around a lot, as did any verses about coveting.

That's unfortunate that so many people don't understand the difference between the 2.

(July 11, 2015 at 6:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 6:41 pm)Starvald Demelain Wrote: Well when one thinks even the thought of touching oneself is a sin then what isn't taboo?

What religion teaches that? Never heard of that.

Some Protestants follow an extreme purity movement that teaches thoughts are sins.

Yes, coveting....for ever a problem.

(July 11, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 9:01 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Indeed. I've even heard it argued that the "rhythm method" being a form of birth control (albeit not a very good one) is just as "sinful" as the pill.

The rhythm method is completely moral.

Though it's not a very good way of monitoring fertility. There are other much more accurate ways of doing so.

Um, if the method of creating life is sacred, why would rhythm be any better than premature withdrawal, both of which are designed to inhibit pregnancy without unnatural means, when neither of which is very successful?  (And why isn't rhythm spelt rithem?--- a dyslexic.   No CL I don't expect you to answer this last bit, there are entomological reasons, but still. . . )

(July 11, 2015 at 9:52 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The rhythm method is completely moral.

Though it's not a very good way of monitoring fertility. There are other much more accurate ways of doing so.

Um, if the method of creating life is sacred, why would rhythm be any better than premature withdrawal, both of which are designed to inhibit pregnancy without unnatural means, when neither of which is very successful?  (And why isn't rhythm spelt rithem?--- a dyslexic.   No CL I don't expect you to answer this last bit, there are entomological reasons, but still. . .  )

It's not avoiding pregnancy in and of itself that we consider immoral. It's changing the sex act in such a way as to render it infertile. Avoiding sex on your fertile days does not do anything to the sex itself. Sex simply just doesn't happen on those days.

I agree, the rhythm method is not very successful. Other fertility monitoring methods work much more accurately.

Quote:Sex simply just doesn't happen on those days.

Which is where the jerking off comes in.

Theists . . . porn . . . nuns . . . Behind the Green Door! What's not to like?

(July 11, 2015 at 10:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Sex simply just doesn't happen on those days.

Which is where the jerking off comes in.

Mini, you remind me of a poop I once took...