atheism and children

[Catholic_Lady]

Only if God deems it such.

Do vaccinations desecrate a child?

What do you think, Alex? What do you honestly think Church teaching is on this?

(I'm asking because I'm not entirely sure your question is a genuine question. sorry if I am wrong)

[Exian]

What would? What does make something a sacred, holy process? Explaining that would help me greatly to understand your view.

Only if God deems it such.

But he doesn't do much deeming these days. I suspect "lovemaking" was deemed sacred in the bible to contrast drunken or thoughtless sex, which I can sort of see an argument for. The bible doesn't have much to say about IVF, does it? And it will continue to be silent as humans progress through time inventing new ways to better our lives, and what were left with are only a few things mentioned in the bible being "sacred", while new perfectly valid forms of reproduction and the like are being deemed un-sacred, not specifically, but by omission, which means from here to our collective demise, when something new crops up and God is silent, it is we humans who are left to do the deeming, such as "IVF is not sacred".

Now, lets jump back to my world, where the bible was written by man. I get the feeling that the authors that spoke as God would have been perfectly fine with IVF, but since they had no clue about it, of course they wouldn't mention it. This is besides the point, but if the bible was God's inerrant word, you'd think he would have seen IVF coming and actually given us some rules on it. As it is, we're left to do the guessing.

[cocunningham]

Only if God deems it such.

But he doesn't do much deeming these days. I suspect "lovemaking" was deemed sacred in the bible to contrast drunken or thoughtless sex, which I can sort of see an argument for. The bible doesn't have much to say about IVF, does it? And it will continue to be silent as humans progress through time inventing new ways to better our lives, and what were left with are only a few things mentioned in the bible being "sacred", while new perfectly valid forms of reproduction and the like are being deemed un-sacred, not specifically, but by omission, which means from here to our collective demise, when something new crops up and God is silent, it is we humans who are left to do the deeming, such as "IVF is not sacred".

Now, lets jump back to my world, where the bible was written by man. I get the feeling that the authors that spoke as God would have been perfectly fine with IVF, but since they had no clue about it, of course they wouldn't mention it. This is besides the point, but if the bible was God's inerrant word, you'd think he would have seen IVF coming and actually given us some rules on it. As it is, we're left to do the guessing.

If the bible mentioned future medical developments I'd be a lot more likely to believe. But this is the same God who put dinosaur bones here to keep us on our toes so I guess he didn't want to make it too easy on us.

[Catholic_Lady]

Only if God deems it such.

But he doesn't do much deeming these days. I suspect "lovemaking" was deemed sacred in the bible to contrast drunken or thoughtless sex, which I can sort of see an argument for. The bible doesn't have much to say about IVF, does it? And it will continue to be silent as humans progress through time inventing new ways to better our lives, and what were left with are only a few things mentioned in the bible being "sacred", while new perfectly valid forms of reproduction and the like are being deemed un-sacred, not specifically, but by omission, which means from here to our collective demise, when something new crops up and God is silent, it is we humans who are left to do the deeming, such as "IVF is not sacred".

Now, lets jump back to my world, where the bible was written by man. I get the feeling that the authors that spoke as God would have been perfectly fine with IVF, but since they had no clue about it, of course they wouldn't mention it. This is besides the point, but if the bible was God's inerrant word, you'd think he would have seen IVF coming and actually give us some rules on it. As it is, we're left to do the guessing.

Well, we believe the Church is led by God on issues of faith and morals. So if there is an official teaching about a belief, such as human life is sacred, the marital act is sacred, then we believe that this teaching came from God.

The bible was written way before IVF existed, and as Catholics we believe the Church is the main pillar of truth, not the bible. (not that the bible is false, just that it doesn't hold all the answers by itself, especially on issues that come up as times change, like you said). We believe the ultimate thing that Jesus left us was the Church, with Peter as the first pope. Not the bible. Otherwise, yes, the bible would explicitly hold allll the answers to everything that is to come in the future.

Also, it makes sense to me for human life to be sacred, and for the venue in which human life is created to also be sacred. I don't feel like I'm just blindly following.

[Catholic_Lady]

By the way, Exian, thank you for the respectful discussion and for genuinely making an attempt at seeing where I'm coming from.

[Longhorn]

@CL

See, you can consider sacred whatever you want. The problem I (we) have with your view is that it seems so disconnected from any actual concerns about actual human beings and their well being and instead focuses on something so seemingly arbitrary that it almost appears insane. Imagine there's a cure for a disease and people are opposed to it because the pills have the wrong color. This is how your views (on this particular issue) appear to outsiders.

Do you think I lack concern for human beings?

(not sure if that's what you're saying, so sorry if not)

As for your second part, I don't know what to say. If you view my belief regarding this the same way you would view someone saying it's wrong to take a pill to save a life because it's the wrong color, then that's how you see it and that's fine. I think it's unfortunate that you see it that way, and that you possibly think little of me because of it, but you are entitled to your own thoughts of course.

It's wrong to create life if it's not a dick in a vagina is exactly as absurd as it's wrong to take life saving pills if they're not red.

If human life is sacred, how can making it not be so?

[Catholic_Lady]

Do you think I lack concern for human beings?

(not sure if that's what you're saying, so sorry if not)

As for your second part, I don't know what to say. If you view my belief regarding this the same way you would view someone saying it's wrong to take a pill to save a life because it's the wrong color, then that's how you see it and that's fine. I think it's unfortunate that you see it that way, and that you possibly think little of me because of it, but you are entitled to your own thoughts of course.

It's wrong to create life if it's not a dick in a vagina is exactly as absurd as it's wrong to take life saving pills if they're not red.

If human life is sacred, how can making it not be so?

...And that is exactly the gap between me and the rest of you, and why it is difficult for you to understand my views.

You think "a penis in a vagina" is just some little thing that you can compare to the color of a pill. We think it's an incredibly sacred, holy, spiritual thing.

[Exian]

Well, we believe the Church is led by God on issues of faith and morals. So if there is an official teaching about a belief, such as human life is sacred, the marital act is sacred, then we believe that this teaching came from God.

The bible was written way before IVF existed, and as Catholics we believe the Church is the main pillar of truth, not the bible. (not that the bible is false, just that it doesn't hold all the answers by itself, especially on issues that come up as times change, like you said). We believe the ultimate thing that Jesus left us was the Church, with Peter as the first pope. Not the bible. Otherwise, yes, the bible would explicitly hold allll the answers to everything that is to come in the future.

Also, it makes sense to me for human life to be sacred, and for the venue in which human life is created to also be sacred. I don't feel like I'm just blindly following.

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?

[Alex K]

@CL

See, you can consider sacred whatever you want. The problem I (we) have with your view is that it seems so disconnected from any actual concerns about actual human beings and their well being and instead focuses on something so seemingly arbitrary that it almost appears insane. Imagine there's a cure for a disease and people are opposed to it because the pills have the wrong color. This is how your views (on this particular issue) appear to outsiders.

Do you think I lack concern for human beings?

(not sure if that's what you're saying, so sorry if not)

As for your second part, I don't know what to say. If you view my belief regarding this the same way you would view someone saying it's wrong to take a pill to save a life because it's the wrong color, then that's how you see it and that's fine. I think it's unfortunate that you see it that way, and that you possibly think little of me because of it, but you are entitled to your own thoughts of course.

Sometimes I wonder whether you want to misinterpret what I write.
No no no, you have shown that you have plenty of concern for your fellow human beings. I'm saying that some of the views you defend here are apparently completely disconnected from concerns for the well being of human beings. Do you understand the difference between me pointing that out as opposed to accusing you as a person of lack of humanity, which I don't?

Case in point: your issues with IVF do not primarily originate from concerns how to make people happy and healthy.And no, I don't think you would reject medicine because of the pill color - that was sn analogy (but if the church would teach it so, you presumablywould!)

[McDoogins]

I'll have kids if I can afford them. Otherwise no.