What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

But in Christianity, when we refer to "the sin of lust," we are not referring to the isolated act of being aroused. We are talking about taking it a step further by deliberately continuing to feed that arousal by objectifying someone else for personal gratification.

So, if you are married and you see another woman and become involuntarily aroused but go on about your day, you have not done anything immoral. But if upon feeling that arousal you choose to continue to stare and then proceed to fantasize about having sex with this woman or whatever, this is immoral. (all this per Church teaching of course)

Ah, your Church has interpreted the bible this way. What about the other churches which interpret this passage in a different manner?

Why is your interpretation priviieged?

Also, Parker's Tan, it seems you assume that every time I write something such as I did above, that it is my own personal interpretation that I'm just making up. Lol, trust me I'm not smart enough to make up stuff like this. This is stuff I read in books written by Catholic apologists and theologians. This one in particular I first read about in a Catholic book by Mary Beth Bonacci, but it is a widely accepted view in Catholic circles.

Trust me, I'm not ascribing any originality to you. But you are responsible for the interpretations you choose. In line with the cherry-picking you practice on the Bible itself, you also choose the interpretations that best suit your morality already in place. This is why even in your Catholic Church, there are differences of opinion on matters Biblical.

[Randy Carson]

We also send our children to school where they are forced to accept, believe and do all sorts of things.

No, Randy. They don't have to believe. Only to learn. Which is necessary.

Everything we "learn" apart from personal experience is based upon the rational idea that we can "believe" what reliable people tell us.

They are threatened with going to the principal's office, losing their recess, staying after school, and other forms of immediate public humiliation such as having to stand in the corner, write "I will not talk in class." on the blackboard 100 times, etc. In my day, we were even paddled by the teacher and the principal.

We do this every day all over the world, and no one gives it a second thought.

I don't know what kind of school you went to, but I've only seen the above things in American tv shows.

Public schools in Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina (c. 1966-1978)

If that does happen, it's not comparable to threatening with eternal torture. Eternity in pain, Randy. Doesn't compare to a visit to the principal's office.

In the mind of a child who has no real ability to cognitively deal with the concept of eternity, the pain of a spanking in the principal's office might be more scary.

When I reached the age of 16, my parents gave me a choice. I decided to sleep in. When my kids reached the age of 16, I gave them a choice. They chose to sleep in.

And that is representative of all catholics and the catholic church how? I'm talking about the organization. Not individual cases.[/quote]

See Cato's post above for additional anecdotal support.

What are those reasons?

I'm not fucking talking about it with someone like you.

Fair enough. But if it is that bad, then I'm pretty confident that whatever happened to YOU, it's is not the common experience of kids growing up in the Catholic Church.

For a moment, I'm going to be coldly rational.

1. Your experience cannot be generalized to every other Catholic.
2. Your anger and hurt would be rightly focused on the individuals involved but wrongly attributed to the entire Catholic Church.
3. Your resentment against God is understandable but off-target.

I don't know what your experience was, but I'm pretty sure that until you begin to address it correctly, the healing can't begin.

What is moral about NOT telling someone the truth about a real danger?

You don't know it's a real danger but threaten them anyways. [/quote]

See Cato's testimony above for a clearer picture of Catholic catechesis on the subject of hell.

What is moral about threatening children with being tormented for eternity to get them to obey?

Nothing. Which is why it is not a common Catholic approach to disciplining children.

[Longhorn]

What is the belief that they held previously, and why would they have believed it?

?

I mean they already believed contraception is wrong without the justification you linked

How, precisely, does the Catholic Church control my sexuality?

It tells you what you can and can't do with your junk? Prohibits contraception? -_-

To NEIMENOVIC and others:

I'm sure there are exceptions, but preaching "fire and brimstone" is not part and parcel of the typical Catholic experience.

That's good. I already said I don't claim it is. But that doesn't excuse the exceptions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yet you continue to believe my comment was about you personally, while the language I used made it clear I was speaking generally.

No, I don't, dumbfuck. What I continue to do is object to you using my post in a dishonest manner.

Don't fucking quote me unless I have done what you're complaining about, or else we'll have this conversation again ... and again ... and again.

The Catholic Lady was able to figure that out, why is it so hard for you?  


It would seem someone needs some reading comprehension

... said the asshole who cannot figure out what my complaint is.

You're being a cunt. Stop it.

[Randy Carson]

What is the belief that they held previously, and why would they have believed it?

I mean they already believed contraception is wrong without the justification you linked

Right. Why would they believe that?

How, precisely, does the Catholic Church control my sexuality?

It tells you what you can and can't do with your junk? Prohibits contraception? -_-

Do you have any examples of what I can and can't do?

And how does prohibiting contraception control my sexuality? I can have sex anytime I want...

To NEIMENOVIC and others:

I'm sure there are exceptions, but preaching "fire and brimstone" is not part and parcel of the typical Catholic experience.

That's good. I already said I don't claim it is. But that doesn't excuse the exceptions.

Ah...now we are getting closer to the truth.

No, it does not excuse the exceptions. Bad experiences should be dealt with appropriately. IOW, if there are people who are guilty of doing something harmful to you, then they are at fault and should be held accountable.

But that doesn't justify blaming the entire Catholic Church (or God) for the stupidity or improper actions of others just because they call themselves Catholics.

[Longhorn]

Everything we "learn" apart from personal experience is based upon the rational idea that we can "believe" what reliable people tell us.

No. It's based on evidence that even figures of authority in scientific fields need to present.

In the mind of a child who has no real ability to cognitively deal with the concept of eternity, the pain of a spanking in the principal's office might be more scary.

Physical abuse is prohibited in schools.

It doesn't matter if the child has a concept of eternity or not, it has a concept of pain and knows forever means a long time.

Fair enough. But if it is that bad, then I'm pretty confident that whatever happened to YOU, it's is not the common experience of kids growing up in the Catholic Church.

Never said it was.

For a moment, I'm going to be coldly rational.

1. Your experience cannot be generalized to every other Catholic.

That's why it isn't.

2. Your anger and hurt would be rightly focused on the individuals involved but wrongly attributed to the entire Catholic Church.

I've already said more than once than I don't blame anybody besides those responsible. I hate catholicism for what it teaches, not what I experienced.

3. Your resentment against God is understandable but off-target.

Really? -_-

I don't hate god. What is a god? I don't hate things I don't believe in.

I do hate when theists tell me I hate god.

I don't know what your experience was, but I'm pretty sure that until you begin to address it correctly, the healing can't begin.

With all due respect Randy, fuck off.

You should've left it at 'I don't know what your experience was'. Don't go into this.

Nothing. Which is why it is not a common Catholic approach to disciplining children.

Not common, not on the global scale. But it does happen sometimes.

[Randy Carson]

No, I don't, dumbfuck.  What I continue to do is object to you using my post in a dishonest manner.

Don't fucking quote me unless I have done what you're complaining about, or else we'll have this conversation again ... and again ... and again.

... said the asshole who cannot figure out what my complaint is.  

You're being a cunt.  Stop it.

How does language like this increase the credibility of what you're saying?

Do these words make your arguments stronger?

Or should we take your point of view more seriously because you've chose more forceful language?

[Randy Carson]

Everything we "learn" apart from personal experience is based upon the rational idea that we can "believe" what reliable people tell us.

No. It's based on evidence that even figures of authority in scientific fields need to present.

In the mind of a child who has no real ability to cognitively deal with the concept of eternity, the pain of a spanking in the principal's office might be more scary.

Physical abuse is prohibited in schools.

It doesn't matter if the child has a concept of eternity or not, it has a concept of pain and knows forever means a long time.

Fair enough. But if it is that bad, then I'm pretty confident that whatever happened to YOU, it's is not the common experience of kids growing up in the Catholic Church.

Never said it was.

For a moment, I'm going to be coldly rational.

1. Your experience cannot be generalized to every other Catholic.

That's why it isn't.

2. Your anger and hurt would be rightly focused on the individuals involved but wrongly attributed to the entire Catholic Church.

I've already said more than once than I don't blame anybody besides those responsible. I hate catholicism for what it teaches, not what I experienced.

3. Your resentment against God is understandable but off-target.

Really? -_-

I don't hate god. What is a god? I don't hate things I don't believe in.

I do hate when theists tell me I hate god.

I don't know what your experience was, but I'm pretty sure that until you begin to address it correctly, the healing can't begin.

With all due respect Randy, fuck off.

You should've left it at 'I don't know what your experience was'. Don't go into this.

Nothing. Which is why it is not a common Catholic approach to disciplining children.

Not common, not on the global scale. But it does happen sometimes.

Okay, I've read everything you wrote, and I will try to keep it all in mind as we go forward.

I would like to ask one question. You wrote, "I hate catholicism for what it teaches."

If you can boil it down, what does the Catholic Church teach that you find worthy of such hatred?

[Thumpalumpacus]

You'll need to demonstrate this before you swing it around in a conversation.

Here is some background.

Unfortunately, citing the opinion of a religious man doesn't qualify as demonstrating a fact. The article linked appeals to to the design "god built into" the human race. Given that your god's existence has yet to be demonstrated, citing one of his acts to demonstrate an intrinsic quality in anything is laughably incomplete insofar as an argument is concerned.

You're essentially arguing that "it's evil because I believe it's evil" ... which is circular reasoning. Yet one more logical fallacy from you -- can you not mount one point without engaging in slipshod thinking?

Parkers-

I'm not sure what CL had in mind in her post to which you are objecting. However, I would like to say that while SOME instances of looking at a beautiful woman MAY cross the line to "committing adultery" as Jesus said, not all do.

• It’s one thing to be looking at a marble statue of a nude woman.
  
• It’s another to be looking at a color photograph of a nude woman.
  
• It’s another yet to be looking at a real live nude woman.
  

Why don't you answer the quote from Jesus that I posted? It didn't mention any of those conditions at all. He wasn't even talking about looking at a woman. He makes it perfectly clear that if you desire to be adulterous with a woman, the desire is the sin already committed. Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?

Oh, that's right, it's because you recognize the unjust nature of thoughtcrime and have to explain it away with mental gymnastics.

No, I don't, dumbfuck.  What I continue to do is object to you using my post in a dishonest manner.

Don't fucking quote me unless I have done what you're complaining about, or else we'll have this conversation again ... and again ... and again.

... said the asshole who cannot figure out what my complaint is.  

You're being a cunt.  Stop it.

How does language like this increase the credibility of what you're saying?

Do these words make your arguments stronger?

Or should we take your point of view more seriously because you've chose more forceful language?

This is the only sort of treatment Huggy merits. If you've been around long enough to witness his dishonesty, you'd understand. He's a lying idiot, bereft of any insight, given to an obsessive embrace of the inane -- and he takes any opportunity to slur those who don't agree with him, such as accusing them of tolerating child abuse, which I will never do. I don't appreciate anyone imputing positions to me which I don't hold, and when someone not only does that, but refuses to apologize for their poor treatment, they get the treatment they deserve.

Whether or not that damages my credibility in your eyes doesn't matter. Firstly, I'm not mounting an argument; I'm pointing out a salient fact. There is no arguing with the fact that I didn't post in that thread, and he has no idea what my views re: Milk are, and yet he is imputing a position to me anyways. Secondly, I don't crave your good opinion in this or any other matter. The people who are close to me, their opinion matters; and they know already that when confronted with dishonesty, I am a salty motherfucker. Dishonesty is a quality I don't tolerate.

If you find it discomfiting, go on ahead and put me on ignore.

[SteelCurtain]

What, you mean like Ratzinger stating that condom use aggravates the AIDS crisis in Africa? That "the most effective presence on the front in the battle against HIV/Aids is the Catholic church and her institutions"? Or Archbishop Francisco Chimoio of Mozambique stating in 2007 that European condom manufacturers are deliberately infecting their products with HIV? Nothing harmful about any of that, right?

If someone has AIDS, which is more effective at preventing the spread of the disease: using a condom or abstinence?

If it is the latter, then yes, relying on condoms...with a known failure rate...does provide a false sense of confidence which does aggravate the AIDS crisis.

A completely useless question. Randy. Let's get it through our head. Humans are going to have sex. Doesn't matter what you tell them, what you preach to them, what your doctrine is, what you threaten them with. Sex is among the strongest instincts we have. We know this. Can we stipulate this? Or are you going to pretend that they'll stop if only you just threaten them the right way?

Knowing they will have sex, spreading "lies" about how condoms make things worse is just plain evil.

Let's make it personal.

Do you think if more people used condoms in Africa that the spread of AIDS would be stemmed?

I also noticed that you didn't address the cretin from Mozambique who told his "flock" that condom manufacturers were infecting their condoms with HIV.

Let's make this personal, okay? Just to test your resolve.

You meet a nice girl and you go out a few times. Things are progressing nicely on many levels, and intimacy is a possibility. Then she tells you she has AIDS. "But it's okay," she says. "If you use a condom, you probably won't become infected."

Kind of a show-stopper, isn't it?

Nope. Not at all. If I liked her enough, and there was enough of a connection there to warrant a further relationship where I make sacrifices, I would continue dating her. We wouldn't have sex until I could verify her viral load. If it was zero, I would get prescribed PrEP (Pre-exposure Prophylaxis), which is covered under my insurance. My chances of contracting with PrEP and a condom are effectively zero. The only thing I would have to verify is that she is serious about her cocktail and also that she checks and monitors her viral load regularly. Not a show stopper at all.