Posts: 3405
Threads: 33
Joined: July 17, 2013
Reputation:
43
RE: atheism and children
August 11, 2015 at 2:59 am
I really don't see how anyone would ever follow the teachings of any authority when they are so demonstrably wrong and/or baseless.
Catholicism is fucking ridiculous. It's like a castle built on thin air. Take away the warm fuzzies that make you "know by personal experience" that gawd exists and it falls apart.
/rant
"Every luxury has a deep price. Every indulgence, a cosmic cost. Each fiber of pleasure you experience causes equivalent pain somewhere else. This is the first law of emodynamics [sic]. Joy can be neither created nor destroyed. The balance of happiness is constant.
Fact: Every time you eat a bite of cake, someone gets horsewhipped.
Facter: Every time two people kiss, an orphanage collapses.
Factest: Every time a baby is born, an innocent animal is severely mocked for its physical appearance. Don't be a pleasure hog. Your every smile is a dagger. Happiness is murder.
Vote "yes" on Proposition 1321. Think of some kids. Some kids."
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
73
RE: atheism and children
August 11, 2015 at 3:15 am
Holy shit, I hope no rape victim ever has to conform to the RCC's doctrine
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: atheism and children
August 11, 2015 at 3:22 am
(This post was last modified: August 11, 2015 at 3:23 am by Alex K.)
(August 10, 2015 at 9:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (August 10, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Alex K Wrote: Always take what I write as a commentary on your young online persona here. It isn't meant to attack you as a person, but to attack perceived inconsistencies in or problematic aspects of your views as you present them here. To leverage a criticism, I think you too quickly become defensive and feel that you are being attacked as a person, and as a result don't address the points others make adequately before offering a knee jerk reaction.
For example, if you reread the text you quoted above you will find that I don't even accuse you of never reflecting on church doctrine. I say that you give the impression that acting on them and rejecting a piece of dogma seems out of the question for you.
Well I just think it's a bit ridiculous when people who barely know me here start accusing me of never having asked myself why and never having contemplated the matter lol. I'm not sure on what grounds anyone here can accuse me of that. You already said that, to which I gave above answer
Quote:I really don't understand what you mean when you say I "give the impression that rejecting church teaching is out of the question." Why, is it because I agree with all of it? I've been asked whether I would still follow the Church if the Church came out and said rape was ok, or if they came out and changed their teaching on IVF. I've said no to both of those. So I'm not sure how I'm "giving the impression" that I'd blindly follow whatever the Church said without contemplating the matter.
Quote:But I accept your explanation that you're in the habit of stating whenever your own thoughts are in line with church teachings, and that this does not necessarily mean that you have no independent opinion. But be aware that this style creates that impression especially if no further reasons of your own are offered for those positions.
Well, it's either I do that and get accused of blindly following, or I don't do that and get accused of being a cafeteria Christian lol. Now I've had both happen.
You leave me pretty confused. I probably missed the parts where you say that you would stop following the church (or God) if it did teach certain things. It all seems really contradictory to me, at one point you say that the church represemts God's will, then again you don't always follow God, but you're not cherry picking. I'm just confused whether there is any consistent attitude behind all of this.
Posts: 6990
Threads: 89
Joined: January 6, 2012
Reputation:
104
RE: atheism and children
August 11, 2015 at 7:40 am
Posts: 2421
Threads: 30
Joined: July 16, 2015
Reputation:
50
RE: atheism and children
August 11, 2015 at 9:01 am
I think where the argument is coming is the definitions and how it's being applied. I do not agree with the Catholic church that IVF is immoral. I think the appropriate words may be that IVF is not the intended divine purpose of conception, but at least to me, that does not make it immoral. Immorality implies willful intent to defy God's purpose. IVF is a means for conception for those that have no other natural means. The intent is not malicious but instead I would argue that it is in most cases the only option in the hopes of resulting in a sacred life.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: atheism and children
August 11, 2015 at 9:07 am
(August 11, 2015 at 3:22 am)Alex K Wrote: (August 10, 2015 at 9:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well I just think it's a bit ridiculous when people who barely know me here start accusing me of never having asked myself why and never having contemplated the matter lol. I'm not sure on what grounds anyone here can accuse me of that. You already said that, to which I gave above answer
Quote:I really don't understand what you mean when you say I "give the impression that rejecting church teaching is out of the question." Why, is it because I agree with all of it? I've been asked whether I would still follow the Church if the Church came out and said rape was ok, or if they came out and changed their teaching on IVF. I've said no to both of those. So I'm not sure how I'm "giving the impression" that I'd blindly follow whatever the Church said without contemplating the matter.
Well, it's either I do that and get accused of blindly following, or I don't do that and get accused of being a cafeteria Christian lol. Now I've had both happen.
You leave me pretty confused. I probably missed the parts where you say that you would stop following the church (or God) if it did teach certain things. It all seems really contradictory to me, at one point you say that the church represemts God's will, then again you don't always follow God, but you're not cherry picking. I'm just confused whether there is any consistent attitude behind all of this.
Lol, damned if I do, damned if I don't, right? 
What I'm saying is that I would stop believing that the Church represents God's will if they completely changed their morality on something, because one of the teachings is that morality doesn't change. So it would lose all credibility with me if they contradicted themselves to that extent and I would stop believing that the Church was divine.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 13122
Threads: 130
Joined: October 18, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: atheism and children
August 11, 2015 at 9:07 am
(August 11, 2015 at 9:01 am)lkingpinl Wrote: I think where the argument is coming is the definitions and how it's being applied. I do not agree with the Catholic church that IVF is immoral. I think the appropriate words may be that IVF is not the intended divine purpose of conception, but at least to me, that does not make it immoral. Immorality implies willful intent to defy God's purpose. IVF is a means for conception for those that have no other natural means. The intent is not malicious but instead I would argue that it is in most cases the only option in the hopes of resulting in a sacred life.
Exactly. I'm not religious, obviously, but I can't understand why some religious people and institutions have a problem with it. For the reasons you've given.
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: atheism and children
August 11, 2015 at 9:09 am
(This post was last modified: August 11, 2015 at 9:10 am by Catholic_Lady.)
(August 11, 2015 at 9:01 am)lkingpinl Wrote: I think where the argument is coming is the definitions and how it's being applied. I do not agree with the Catholic church that IVF is immoral. I think the appropriate words may be that IVF is not the intended divine purpose of conception, but at least to me, that does not make it immoral. Immorality implies willful intent to defy God's purpose. IVF is a means for conception for those that have no other natural means. The intent is not malicious but instead I would argue that it is in most cases the only option in the hopes of resulting in a sacred life.
And that is perfectly fine. As long as my explanations are being understood (which you clearly understood them), I'm not looking to get anyone to agree. 
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: atheism and children
August 11, 2015 at 9:26 am
(This post was last modified: August 11, 2015 at 9:35 am by Alex K.)
Oh I didn't so much mean what if they changed it but rather if it had been a part of their doctrine all along
And yes, I think if you follow the RCC, you really are damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: atheism and children
August 11, 2015 at 1:35 pm
(August 11, 2015 at 9:09 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (August 11, 2015 at 9:01 am)lkingpinl Wrote: I think where the argument is coming is the definitions and how it's being applied. I do not agree with the Catholic church that IVF is immoral. I think the appropriate words may be that IVF is not the intended divine purpose of conception, but at least to me, that does not make it immoral. Immorality implies willful intent to defy God's purpose. IVF is a means for conception for those that have no other natural means. The intent is not malicious but instead I would argue that it is in most cases the only option in the hopes of resulting in a sacred life.
And that is perfectly fine. As long as my explanations are being understood (which you clearly understood them), I'm not looking to get anyone to agree.
And actually that would make following gods will for those who are unable to conceive naturally. After all one of the first things God commanded was to go forth and be fruitful.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
|
![[Image: dancing-jello-o.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=stream1.gifsoup.com%2Fview5%2F2789457%2Fdancing-jello-o.gif)
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
