RE: Could an aetheist do this?

RE: Could an aetheist do this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Powergamz1 -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/1/2013 10:12:13 PM)
It is actually a little more nuanced than that. If anyone who is knowledgeable about Catholicism should come along, I'm sure they'll be able to cite the right document. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren <SNIP> On the other hand, the no sex except in the vagina is teaching, pure and simply, and everything else is banned.

DomKen -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/1/2013 10:13:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Missdressed Just to come back to something that was brought up in a previous post. As Far as being physically attacked because you're an atheist, if you call being spat at being attacked, then yes I was attacked because I was an atheist. Spat at outside a shop. And told that people like me should not be allowed in the shops where the good god fearing Christian people shopped. Edited coz I missed out a word. Anyone remember George Bush Senior, at the GOP convention in 88, in some sort of religious epiphany, saying that he thought that Atheists shouldn't be allowed to be citizens? If atheists attack Christians, we need to remember that atheists have been under attack for a lot of years, along with non traditional religious people, from the very people who claim they are attacked...... It wasn't at the convention. It was at a campaign stop in Chicago.

dcnovice -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/1/2013 10:20:13 PM)
quote: You can argue all the semantics you want, but when people talk about 'the religious', they often mean what I was talking about, not people who proclaim faith, but rather those who are way into it. I'm a veteran wordsmith, so I know the importance of semantics ("the study of meanings," as M-W puts it). You used a clear and common world, and you qualified it not at all. Now you're basically trying to tell us that you wrote incompetently. You used a catch-all word when you actually meant, or now claim to, a smaller subset. Well, if you meant "those who are way into it," that's what you should have said. quote: What you are doing is trying to pick a fight, probably because that is how you get your rocks off, Nope. As a wordsmith with high standards, I've identified text that fell far short of its mark. The reference to my "rocks" is juvenile and a bit pathetic.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/1/2013 10:27:29 PM)
Religiosity, defined as the quality of being religious, is an overarching concept, not an extreme. Saying that only those far into it constitute 'the religious' fails basic Venn diagram logic.

dcnovice -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/1/2013 10:35:44 PM)
quote: You must be using a different browser, mine doesn't show a single word anything like 'missionary position' in anything I wrote on post 90. You're playing head games at this point. You waded into a discussion about the missionary position and offered the encyclicals as potential sources about sex teachings. Now you're engaging in Clintonesque microparsing to wriggle away. Clever but not an invitation to take you seriously. quote: not in the Catechisms taught to children in CCD. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not the flimsy books kids get in CCD (which I think is called RE now). It's a massive, official compendium of Catholic beliefs.

dcnovice -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/1/2013 10:38:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Religiosity, defined as the quality of being religious, is an overarching concept, not an extreme. Saying that only those far into it constitute 'the religious' fails basic Venn diagram logic. Precisely. That's the nub of my exchange with Lauren.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/1/2013 10:44:07 PM)
You are making statements that are patently untrue. The person who started the topic has directly told you they were talking about procreation, I've directly told I was talking about procreation, anyone who wants to scroll up can see that the topic is sex for procreation vs. sex for pleasure. If you were in the least bit interested in discussing that topic, why haven't you bothered to look in the actual Catholic document that is so well known that even atheists know it off the top of their heads, instead of continuing this pattern of misrepresenting Catholicism, and not backing it up with sources? quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You must be using a different browser, mine doesn't show a single word anything like 'missionary position' in anything I wrote on post 90. You're playing head games at this point. You waded into a discussion about the missionary position and offered the encyclicals as potential sources about sex teachings. Now you're engaging in Clintonesque microparsing to wriggle away. Clever but not an invitation to take you seriously. quote: not in the Catechisms taught to children in CCD. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not the flimsy books kids get in CCD (which I think is called RE now). It's a massive, official compendium of Catholic beliefs.

dcnovice -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 12:31:25 AM)
quote: You are making statements that are patently untrue. Examples? quote: The person who started the topic has directly told you they were talking about procreation, I've directly told I was talking about procreation, anyone who wants to scroll up can see that the topic is sex for procreation vs. sex for pleasure. Within the broader topic of procreation, Lauren made a very specific claim: The Catholic Church forbids sex in any form but the missionary position. She caught my attention, since I'd never heard that claim before. As it happens, I've noticed lately a tendency of some posters to claim that the Catholic Church teaches x, y, or z but then to fail to back up the claim. And, yes, I wondered if this was another such instance. Hence my questions about sources. Lauren seemed to disown her claim in Post 98. What point you were trying to make by bringing up the encyclicals remains unclear to me. quote: If you were in the least bit interested in discussing that topic, why haven't you bothered to look in the actual Catholic document that is so well known that even atheists know it off the top of their heads, instead of continuing this pattern of misrepresenting Catholicism, and not backing it up with sources? I wasn't interested in the broader topic of contraception, because the church's teaching (which long predates Humanae Vitae) is ancient news for me. What intrigued me was the new twist that the church had forbidden anything but the missionary position, so that's what I zeroed in on. How am I misrepresenting Catholicism?

Moonhead -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 6:19:35 AM)
FR: Just apropos of the Catholic abhorrence of any form of deviant rumpy pumpy or contraception, which flavours of Christian heresy have publically denied this stance, besides the anglicans okaying the use of prophylaxis the best part of a century ago? Given the number of idiots in here who claim that three or four half bearded halfwits in a caver in afghanistan speak for the whole of the muslim faith, because they can't be arsed looking for repudiations, why aren't we applying the same preposterous standards to the Christian faith as well? If the Pope doesn't speak for the whole of Christianity, no cunt does.

cordeliasub -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 7:13:30 AM)
Not Catholic here, Baptist (and we are supposed to be the worst of the worst depending on who you talk to) Our pastor did a month long study of Song of Solomon extolling the beauty of sex. He was very open, and I remember him using that verse about the marriage bed being undefiled and saying that if what is done in that bed is pleasing to both people then God smiles on it. He even said "even if that means the couple wants to swing from chandeliers and wear handcuffs." Of course, I was about 21 and not married yet and had never even heard of BDSM or anything, but I remember a 50 something year old lady sitting in the back with her husband shouting "AMEN!" And before anyone asks, no, he did NOT address homosexuality at all. That wasn't the point of the sermon series, and the couple in Song of Solomon are a man and woman, so no...it was neither pro nor anti gay...it was a study of Song of Solomon. So no....not all religious people and churches are uptight about sex,,,even kinky sex. Intelligent people are capable of NOT generalizing. And I'm still looking for a crucifix on that dollar bill.

jlf1961 -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 7:20:14 AM)
Cordeliasub, it is an upside down crucifix inside a pentagram with the image of Satan above it. And Catholicism does not dictate what position you have to use during sex, they only stipulate that sex is for procreation.

Moonhead -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 7:21:09 AM)
I know that, dear: I was just pointing out that we have a few Christians in this thread getting snotty about atheists not extending them the same courtesies that they refuse to extend to other religions themselves. I'm sure Christ had some critical things to say about hypocrisy in at least a couple of the gospels, didn't he?

cordeliasub -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 7:29:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Cordeliasub, it is an upside down crucifix inside a pentagram with the image of Satan above it. And Catholicism does not dictate what position you have to use during sex, they only stipulate that sex is for procreation. So is it supposed to be an example of a Christian symbol or a satanic one? And is one less ok than the other? I'm confused.

jlf1961 -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 7:33:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Cordeliasub, it is an upside down crucifix inside a pentagram with the image of Satan above it. And Catholicism does not dictate what position you have to use during sex, they only stipulate that sex is for procreation. So is it supposed to be an example of a Christian symbol or a satanic one? And is one less ok than the other? I'm confused. Considering that none of those symbols are actually on the dollar bill, contrary to what some conspiracy theorists would have you believe, I wouldnt worry about it. I worry about the RFID chips that the government has placed in vitamin tablets to track the volume and mass of our bowel movements.

eulero83 -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 7:39:05 AM)
I've been educated as a catholic but i'm not very religious person so I could have missed some turn overs in what cardinals and pope can change from year to year, by the way, what's not permitted is the waste of semen, so sperm must be deposited in the vagina and left there, so if god's will is to generate a baby it is materially possible, so natural methods are approved by cattholics as if the providence intervenes a child can be generated even in infertile periods, ask the priest in my parish and his illegitimate daughter for confirmation, so it's not forbidden petting or oral sex preliminaries if the point in doing it is to finalize with a good old cream pie. Masturbation, oral or anal sex that leads to spreading or eating of semen is forbidden. This was different years ago and could change in future with the new popes that will follow.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 7:42:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Cordeliasub, it is an upside down crucifix inside a pentagram with the image of Satan above it. And Catholicism does not dictate what position you have to use during sex, they only stipulate that sex is for procreation. So is it supposed to be an example of a Christian symbol or a satanic one? And is one less ok than the other? I'm confused. When I was still a practicing Catholic, I was confused about how sodomy worked in relation to marriage so, in the confessional, I had what I can assure you was a very comfortable conversation with my favorite priest (I jest). His answer (almost verbatim): "As long as the act is completed in the proper place, anything that comes before is okay". On procreation, he said: "as long as your intention isn't to NOT have a baby (rolling the dice, I guess?), you're fine" Peace asnd comfort, Michael

eulero83 -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 8:09:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Cordeliasub, it is an upside down crucifix inside a pentagram with the image of Satan above it. And Catholicism does not dictate what position you have to use during sex, they only stipulate that sex is for procreation. So is it supposed to be an example of a Christian symbol or a satanic one? And is one less ok than the other? I'm confused. When I was still a practicing Catholic, I was confused about how sodomy worked in relation to marriage so, in the confessional, I had what I can assure you was a very comfortable conversation with my favorite priest (I jest). His answer (almost verbatim): "As long as the act is completed in the proper place, anything that comes before is okay". On procreation, he said: "as long as your intention isn't to NOT have a baby (rolling the dice, I guess?), you're fine" Peace asnd comfort, Michael ok that confirms what I said before

DaddySatyr -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 8:18:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 ok that confirms what I said before I apologize. I didn't see your post before I typed mine. Peace and comfort, Michael

eulero83 -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 8:34:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 ok that confirms what I said before I apologize. I didn't see your post before I typed mine. Peace and comfort, Michael no need to apologize, I meant "it's nice to see a confirmation", I never talked so openly about sex with my religion teacher in high school, and for sure not with a priest, you had more specific discussion.

Kaliko -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 8:39:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 It is actually a little more nuanced than that. If anyone who is knowledgeable about Catholicism should come along, I'm sure they'll be able to cite the right document. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren <SNIP> On the other hand, the no sex except in the vagina is teaching, pure and simply, and everything else is banned. Without getting into whether these interpretations are correct, there have been interpretations of Catholicism that allowed for teaching that missionary sex is the only allowable sexual activity. For the woman to be on top is for the man to be submissive to his wife. For the man to enter from the rear is bestial. So yes, it was "taught," I suppose. But it's not actually spelled out as such in Catholic law, and I don't believe it's taught these days in general except as holdovers from medieval times. Canon Law (1084) states that "Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature." But if one is sterile (either party) then that's okay: "Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies a marriage..." A married couple must at least be able to attempt procreation. The ability to deposit semen into the vagina is supremely important. So, while swallowing semen isn't outright banned, it surely can be interpreted that way.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125