Personally, I find the 'contraceptives kill babies' argument rather sad, yet funny for some reason. It seems a tad too philosophical to base a sin on. "Do not use contraceptives, or you will be eliminating the possibility that you may conceive a child. You're killing your probability of a child." I mean, once you start making things sins that affect our chances of having children in the future, you open up a whole can of worms of things that could be classified as sins....but clearly aren't. "Not eating tomatos is a sin, because tomatos are good for your prostate, and a dysfunctional prostate could lead to a decreased probability of having children." <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh, and I was in Cathlic school until 2nd grade. That's a fairly long time ago, but I do remember that there was far too little teaching of math, reading, and science, far too much teaching of the Bible. Let's see, which do you think is more important for very small children to learn, the basics of things that they'll use for the rest of their lives, or the names of all of the books of the Bible (which I used to be able to recite. I get to Ruth now and I'm done <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Mar 18 2005, 03:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Mar 18 2005, 03:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Personally, I find the 'contraceptives kill babies' argument rather sad, yet funny for some reason. It seems a tad too philosophical to base a sin on. "Do not use contraceptives, or you will be eliminating the possibility that you may conceive a child. You're killing your probability of a child." I mean, once you start making things sins that affect our chances of having children in the future, you open up a whole can of worms of things that could be classified as sins....but clearly aren't. "Not eating tomatos is a sin, because tomatos are good for your prostate, and a dysfunctional prostate could lead to a decreased probability of having children." <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh, and I was in Cathlic school until 2nd grade. That's a fairly long time ago, but I do remember that there was far too little teaching of math, reading, and science, far too much teaching of the Bible. Let's see, which do you think is more important for very small children to learn, the basics of things that they'll use for the rest of their lives, or the names of all of the books of the Bible (which I used to be able to recite. I get to Ruth now and I'm done <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> you must have went to a pretty crappy school then. i too was in a catholic school up until grade two, and i don't remember a thing about the bible, or any books, or anything at all. we had to pray before meals and before class and that's all the religeous stuff that i remember. there were lots of reading/writing and math taught, but very little science that i could recall.
as for contraceptives, didn't the spanish clergy recently announced that they support the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS?
<!--QuoteBegin-kill4thrills+Mar 18 2005, 03:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Mar 18 2005, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> as for contraceptives, didn't the spanish clergy recently announced that they support the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If they did, the Catholic church has gained a point in my book.
<!--QuoteBegin-Renegade+Mar 19 2005, 12:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade @ Mar 19 2005, 12:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-kill4thrills+Mar 18 2005, 03:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Mar 18 2005, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> as for contraceptives, didn't the spanish clergy recently announced that they support the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If they did, the Catholic church has gained a point in my book. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think I heard that somewhere too renegade. I could be thinking about something else though...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Personally, I find the 'contraceptives kill babies' argument rather sad, yet funny for some reason. It seems a tad too philosophical to base a sin on. "Do not use contraceptives, or you will be eliminating the possibility that you may conceive a child. You're killing your probability of a child." I mean, once you start making things sins that affect our chances of having children in the future, you open up a whole can of worms of things that could be classified as sins....but clearly aren't. "Not eating tomatos is a sin, because tomatos are good for your prostate, and a dysfunctional prostate could lead to a decreased probability of having children." confused-fix.gif <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought that the RCC's view on this was long since changed, but given the response that seems to indiciate this tennet is alive and well, let me ask the Catholics here just to confirm...
Assuming that the "contraceptives kill babies" is still a 'rule' in effect by the RCC, I would like to understand what constitutes as a "contraceptive".
Though my biology knowledge is a little rustic, one of the more inefficient methods of "contraception" I recall is based on the woman's knowledge of her menstrual cycle. Understanding the cycle, the woman can roughly gauge the time periods where sex, even without any physical or chemical contraceptives, will have little to no chance of producing a child. That being said, is it supposed to be considered a sin to deliberately plan sexual intercourse on dates with the intent that a baby won't result?
If it is... wow... just wow....
Not to say that RCC has the most askew view towards sex. I picked up a tidbit from an aquaintance of my church that the view held by (I think it was in the Protestant immigrants during the founding years of the United States), frowned upon the issue of sex so intensely, that when it came to sex for the purposes of procreation, a wooden plank was set up in bed between the couple, with only a single small hole punched through...
Well, what is nice about having a catholic informant is that you can easily debunk anything that may be fiction.
As I am told, the RCC does not condone the morning after pill, nor any means of abortion, (of course), thusly any other means of contraceptive is not viewed as a sin since many women go on the birth control pill to control then menstural cycles and ease the pain that some have.
I'm sure you could arrage a few words or important dates out of that set of keyboard smashing.
Point?
It's a load of horsehockey. They have done this before.
Ok, heres the thing how come no one can predict the FUTURE with this?
This sort of **** is as pointless as Nostradumbass. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Huh?
You don't have the slightest clue what the Da Vinci Code is about do you?
Perhaps your thinking Bible Code...which is totally...completely different...if not your post has gone screaming past quasi-relevance straight into absurdity.
<!--QuoteBegin-DrSuredeath+Mar 23 2005, 11:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DrSuredeath @ Mar 23 2005, 11:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What the hell? I thought Angels & Demons is a better book.
Anyway.
Why is the church arguing that the book is bogus when the novel itself clearly labeled itself as "fiction". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> why? because the church doesn't make sense. they have a blind faith in something and they will scorn anyone that doesn't believe the same thing.
when i used to go to sunday school (way back when i was in elementary school), i was told that "god" made rain. when i argued that rain was caused by the sun heating water molecules into vapor that formed clouds, and then condensed into rain, the sunday school teacher started giving me the evil eye.
church doesn't make sense at all. they tell you "this is what you need to believe" whether or not it's true. it's the blind leading the blind...
It's hard to fault the Church for strictly believing only in what they preach. First of all, they'd be hypocrits otherwise, and second of all, that's what the Church is supposed to do. If the Church isn't absolutely devout, no one would see the sense in believing in the religion at all. I really don't care how zealous the Church itself is; it's when individual citizens refuse to talk rationally about religion that I have a problem.
<--- I know it's ironic! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> if mod see's my name please change to antichrest! I was misinformed on the name.
Anyway a little of topic it seems GOD seemed to show his presence on earth alot before Christ but seems to have not made a appearance since. All world problems and religous problems would be solved with him making an appearance, my reason for saying this is there are 100s of religions, choosing the wrong one could result in going to some form of hell as for all I know beliving in Osama Bin Larden could be the correct religion!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, though I myself am a Catholic I highly highly doubt that God, or at least the God I believe in, would send anybody to Hell just because they celebrated the wrong ceremonies.
No, because knowing humans, we'd somehow misinterpret or reinterpret His message a hundred different ways, until everyone forgot what exactly He had originally said because they're too swept up in their own interpretations. Kinda like what has happened with the entire Christian Church and its myriad schisms. We all started with the message of Jesus, but different people interpreted it different ways, so now we have God-knows-how-many different denominations and sects.
i saw the documentary on the da vinci code, and while the documentary itself was blah, it does point out, and gets admissions from the authors of the supporting (books that the da vinci code was based on) that most of the conspiracy theories are based on assumptions and situations that were admittedly hoaxes. they only thing that was very plausible to be true from these theories is that mary magdalene was very close to jesus indeed. there appears to have been a plot very early on in the religious history to suppress the role of women in the church, and make men the base of power within christianity.
the co-author of the book <i>holy blood, holy grail</i> admits that none of their theories can be proven as fact, but they're basically throwing the idea out there (their own ideas, not historical evidence) that what they surmised <i>could </i>have happened. they mainly presented theories as to why certain groups, mainly in southern france, were wiped out by the powers of the church, and the secrets these groups allegedly held were suppressed with such prejudice that they must be something big like the desendents of jesus. they were not able to tie in at all how southern france and the bloodline of jesus came together.
Comments
Oh, and I was in Cathlic school until 2nd grade. That's a fairly long time ago, but I do remember that there was far too little teaching of math, reading, and science, far too much teaching of the Bible. Let's see, which do you think is more important for very small children to learn, the basics of things that they'll use for the rest of their lives, or the names of all of the books of the Bible (which I used to be able to recite. I get to Ruth now and I'm done <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
Oh, and I was in Cathlic school until 2nd grade. That's a fairly long time ago, but I do remember that there was far too little teaching of math, reading, and science, far too much teaching of the Bible. Let's see, which do you think is more important for very small children to learn, the basics of things that they'll use for the rest of their lives, or the names of all of the books of the Bible (which I used to be able to recite. I get to Ruth now and I'm done <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you must have went to a pretty crappy school then. i too was in a catholic school up until grade two, and i don't remember a thing about the bible, or any books, or anything at all. we had to pray before meals and before class and that's all the religeous stuff that i remember. there were lots of reading/writing and math taught, but very little science that i could recall.
as for contraceptives, didn't the spanish clergy recently announced that they support the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS?
If they did, the Catholic church has gained a point in my book.
If they did, the Catholic church has gained a point in my book. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I heard that somewhere too renegade. I could be thinking about something else though...
I thought that the RCC's view on this was long since changed, but given the response that seems to indiciate this tennet is alive and well, let me ask the Catholics here just to confirm...
Assuming that the "contraceptives kill babies" is still a 'rule' in effect by the RCC, I would like to understand what constitutes as a "contraceptive".
Though my biology knowledge is a little rustic, one of the more inefficient methods of "contraception" I recall is based on the woman's knowledge of her menstrual cycle. Understanding the cycle, the woman can roughly gauge the time periods where sex, even without any physical or chemical contraceptives, will have little to no chance of producing a child. That being said, is it supposed to be considered a sin to deliberately plan sexual intercourse on dates with the intent that a baby won't result?
If it is... wow... just wow....
Not to say that RCC has the most askew view towards sex. I picked up a tidbit from an aquaintance of my church that the view held by (I think it was in the Protestant immigrants during the founding years of the United States), frowned upon the issue of sex so intensely, that when it came to sex for the purposes of procreation, a wooden plank was set up in bed between the couple, with only a single small hole punched through...
The more you know...
As I am told, the RCC does not condone the morning after pill, nor any means of abortion, (of course), thusly any other means of contraceptive is not viewed as a sin since many women go on the birth control pill to control then menstural cycles and ease the pain that some have.
(cue NBC music) The more you know.
<a href='http://www.historytelevision.ca/tv/shows/titledetails/title_86279.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.historytelevision.ca/tv/shows/t...title_86279.asp</a>
I'm sure you could arrage a few words or important dates out of that set of keyboard smashing.
Point?
It's a load of horsehockey. They have done this before.
Ok, heres the thing how come no one can predict the FUTURE with this?
This sort of **** is as pointless as Nostradumbass.
I'm sure you could arrage a few words or important dates out of that set of keyboard smashing.
Point?
It's a load of horsehockey. They have done this before.
Ok, heres the thing how come no one can predict the FUTURE with this?
This sort of **** is as pointless as Nostradumbass. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh?
You don't have the slightest clue what the Da Vinci Code is about do you?
Perhaps your thinking Bible Code...which is totally...completely different...if not your post has gone screaming past quasi-relevance straight into absurdity.
I thought Angels & Demons is a better book.
Anyway.
Why is the church arguing that the book is bogus when the novel clearly labeled itself as "fiction".
I thought Angels & Demons is a better book.
Anyway.
Why is the church arguing that the book is bogus when the novel itself clearly labeled itself as "fiction". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
why? because the church doesn't make sense. they have a blind faith in something and they will scorn anyone that doesn't believe the same thing.
when i used to go to sunday school (way back when i was in elementary school), i was told that "god" made rain. when i argued that rain was caused by the sun heating water molecules into vapor that formed clouds, and then condensed into rain, the sunday school teacher started giving me the evil eye.
church doesn't make sense at all. they tell you "this is what you need to believe" whether or not it's true. it's the blind leading the blind...
Anyway a little of topic it seems GOD seemed to show his presence on earth alot before Christ but seems to have not made a appearance since. All world problems and religous problems would be solved with him making an appearance, my reason for saying this is there are 100s of religions, choosing the wrong one could result in going to some form of hell as for all I know beliving in Osama Bin Larden could be the correct religion!
the co-author of the book <i>holy blood, holy grail</i> admits that none of their theories can be proven as fact, but they're basically throwing the idea out there (their own ideas, not historical evidence) that what they surmised <i>could </i>have happened. they mainly presented theories as to why certain groups, mainly in southern france, were wiped out by the powers of the church, and the secrets these groups allegedly held were suppressed with such prejudice that they must be something big like the desendents of jesus. they were not able to tie in at all how southern france and the bloodline of jesus came together.