Moral Distinctions

Leo Volont said:
Go back and read her seminar on how murderous sluts abort their infants for mere convenience.

My point stands. Considering her viewpoint that it is so terribly uncomfortable for women to have babies, and how many ways they have devised to murder their infants, it is truly Wonderful that the Vampires have allowed any of us to survive.
Click to expand...
How do you know it is for mere convenience. Abortions have existed for longer than man can remember. The sad fact of the matter is that with the Church's stance on abortion and contraception, some women are still having to resort to the same primitive practices that MW has mentioned because there are no family planning clinics available. Some women in third world countries who have more babies than they can feed because they don't have access to contraception (thanks to the church) actually resort to such methods Leo, so that at least some of their children can survive.

It is not merely uncomfortable to have a child Leo, it's painful and at times so dangerous that it's deadly. I know of one woman who is such a strict Catholic that she and her husband refuse to use any form of contraception. She has just had her 5th child and ended up in intensive care when her heart stopped during child birth. She was told not to have any more children after her first because it was too dangerous, but the rhythm method proved ineffective, and since that is the only method approved by the church, that was all they used. She didn't believe in abortion, again because of the church's stance on it. The damage was so extensive after the 5th child that they performed a hystorectomy while she was still under. Her husband had to be forced to sign the consent papers because he still believed that such a stance was against the Church's teachings. You'd probably say that at least she didn't commit murder. :rolleyes: Frankly Leo, your stance on women is scary. You say nothing of the men who had sex with these women for them to fall pregnant in the first place, absolving them of all blame and responsibility, resulting in some of these women having to resort to possible deadly forms of abortion because they could not feed or support their child.

And vampires? Oh please tell me you don't believe in vampires as well... :eek:
 
hi miss t
dont you have to do your bed, after filling up
cause you sound very philosophical with that filling on your tooth
next time pick on philocrazy, so we can crack a few jokes about yourself
like you questioning my philosophy for example

Philosopher Philocrazy
 
philocrazy said:
yes Bells what did you say?
ass?
ok bells go on show us

Philosopher Philocrazy
Click to expand...
What happened little boy? Did the truck miss you? Go back and play with your little cars on the road, I'm sure it wont miss next time. Now, I shall say again child, if you have nothing to add to this discussion or any other discussion, don't type.
 
mis-t-highs said:
leo, where's your faith angel today, will she be coming on later, perhap when you've finished.
Click to expand...

What, are you accusing me of knowing how to open up more than one account? Can you do that? I know that if you are banned, then it is your Computer that gets banned, no matter what your 'Name' is... at least I think so.

Anyway, if you think that "Angel" is me, then pay close attention to her writing style.... and mine. When I really get going with my writing I use alot of the Future and Past Suppositional Tenses. Most people use the easier tenses and don't know how to reconcile the verbs in the more complicated tenses. I use the complicated tenses because they make me sound more pompous -- that is, better educated. Anyway, I doubt if Angel would be able to keep up. But supposing Angel is actually myself, it can only be supposed that I could not but slip into my accustomed verbose writing style.

It reminds me of what Oliver Goldsmith said of Samuel Johnson's fiction style -- that all his characters sounded alike... "That even his little fish come out sounding like Whales".

I don't think you will ever catch "Angel" sounding like a Whale.
 
In India, women in the poor slums are having up to a dozen or so children because contraception is either too expensive or not available to them. Some face the possibility of death or beatings and abuse if they decide to undergo proceedures that will prevent them from having any more children. If we are to attempt to control the world's population, it is imperitive for the church to change its doctrines and dogma in regards to contraception (for a start). I find the thought of the Catholic Church to be immoral in the world (especially third world countries), because of the way that they continue to preach the non-use of contraception, especially condoms. I agree with you that our resources are dwindling on this planet. But people will continue to have dozens of children if the Church continues the way it has in the past and today.
Click to expand...
Why, Bells? The way you're posing this argument that the resources children spend are worth more than the children. Ultimately, it's not resources that will destroy; it's greed. The United States alone is producing enough food to fill the entire world's population, and we have not even begun to produce food in the oceans.

Do I think abortion is murder? No. Anyone with alittle Spiritual Education knows that fetuses are not Quickened with Soul until after the 21st Week. So most abortions don't actually hurt anything.
Click to expand...
This is untrue, Leo. The quickning of the soul is based upon greek philosophy, and some early catholic theologians used this. We now know that at conception there is a living human being.
 
okinrus said:
Why, Bells? The way you're posing this argument that the resources children spend are worth more than the children. Ultimately, it's not resources that will destroy; it's greed. The United States alone is producing enough food to fill the entire world's population, and we have not even begun to produce food in the oceans.
Click to expand...
On the contrary Okinrus, I agree with you totally. It is greed that has a large hand in allowing people to starve in third world countries and families and women are finding themselves in positions where they may be forced to have abortions. Drug companies in the West have ensured that contraception is too expensive. The church has ensured that these people believe it is a sin. The West and its greed have also ensured that third world countries are forced to repay debts which they cannot pay, thereby having to resort on food aid that is not enough to feed the starving. We have the resources to help the third world countries but we do not. Instead our governments are killing others in a bid to attain even more wealth, to the detriment of the poor and the starving.
 
okinrus said:
This is untrue, Leo. The quickning of the soul is based upon greek philosophy, and some early catholic theologians used this. We now know that at conception there is a living human being.
Click to expand...

"Living". A frog is "living". So what?

I am talking about the Quickening in the Body of an Advanced Spiritual Soul. Until about the 21st Week a Fetus is 'alive' but does not possess a Spiritual Soul.

It is a suspicion of mine that some Fetuses never are quickened. From Conception, through birth to physical maturity, some people are never given a Soul. How do we recognize such people? An absence of Moral Reflection. They have perceptions and reactions and they can develop habitual behaviors and routines, but never seem to have a Conscious Selfawareness. You look them in the eyes and nothing really looks back. The 'Windows to the Soul' are simply vacant.
 
Drug companies in the West have ensured that contraception is too expensive.
Click to expand...
Well, the pill can have some very harmful effects, and I don't think these drugs are really safe to be used unless if there is proper medical personel.

The church has ensured that these people believe it is a sin.
Click to expand...
First, I don't think you believe in sin, at least the conventual meaning. Thus, it seems kind of pointless to argue whether contraception is a sin, because you do not believe anything is sin. Second, you're also suggesting that the Church should have a double standard. In some of these countries, this is their tradition and culture. These people like large families. It would be like trying to feed poor muslims a surplus stock of pork simply because we believe pork is healthy. Sure, I don't see any sin in eating pork, but I also respect Islam's devotion, that for them, abstaining from pork to be a sign of their love to God. So I don't see why that should be any different than with catholics. After all, it's not the third world population that's mining and depleting the world resources.
 
Dear Okinirus,

It is not my intent to minimize Sin; however, practically speaking, everything that has to do with biological existence is a 'sin'. Even where the Doctrines of the Bishops encourage it -- as in the Copulations of Marriage; then we have the Mystical Church show its actual disapproval by its favor of the institutions of Celibacy.

And why should practically everything be a Sin? Well, the Church is a Spiritual Institution. It aims for Life in Heaven, in the Spirit, ultimately. By making every Worldly Act a subject for Confession, it gives opportunity to every Catholic's Spiritual Confessor, The Priest, to discuss Spirituality. While acknowledging that Biological Life and the contingencies of the Flesh have their influence, the Priest exhorts the Catholic to remember the Spiritual Perspective.

Most sins are waived off with Penance -- the saying of a number of Prayers, usually. But the Church does have a list of unforgivable Sins. Anybody stupid enough to get married in the Church cannot divorce and then ever again take Holy Communion. The Bishops who decided this should of course be shot. Christ would be appalled that the Vicars of Christ withhold His Grace over such a trivial thing as sexual relations. Christ dismissed the importance of Sex by saying there would be no sex in Heaven. It was only paul who glorified Copulation and brought Fornication up to God's Altar. If I were the Next Pope I would toss out both the Canonization of Paul and the Institution of Marriage. Sex is NEVER Holy.
 
okinrus said:
Well, the pill can have some very harmful effects, and I don't think these drugs are really safe to be used unless if there is proper medical personel.
Click to expand...
Yes, the pill should only be prescribed with medical supervision. However other forms of contraception do not need such forms of supervision. The condom, for example, would be an ideal form of contraception, yet the Church continues to oppose it, because it, along with other artificial contraception, "breaks the link between sex and procreation". They even oppose its use in countries where AIDS has become rampant, bringing out false stories about how condoms cannot stop the AIDS virus.

In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."

Panorama found the claims about permeable condoms repeated by Catholics as far apart as Asia and Latin America.
link
Click to expand...
Now where is the morality in this?

I guess it all stems from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
link
Click to expand...

okinrus said:
First, I don't think you believe in sin, at least the conventual meaning. Thus, it seems kind of pointless to argue whether contraception is a sin, because you do not believe anything is sin. Second, you're also suggesting that the Church should have a double standard. In some of these countries, this is their tradition and culture. These people like large families. It would be like trying to feed poor muslims a surplus stock of pork simply because we believe pork is healthy. Sure, I don't see any sin in eating pork, but I also respect Islam's devotion, that for them, abstaining from pork to be a sign of their love to God. So I don't see why that should be any different than with catholics. After all, it's not the third world population that's mining and depleting the world resources.
Click to expand...
So I can't state the Church's attitude in regards to contraception because I am agnostic? Please okinrus, I was brought up in the Catholic Church and know enough about their doctrines to know that their doctrines in regards to artificial contraception is morally reprehensible.

I understand that in many cultures, large families are the norm and wanted. However, in situations where the distribution of condoms mean not only birth control, but a matter between life and death, the Church should not be setting such standards. I was not talking about Muslim countries, but countries where the Church has so much power and influence that the people are simply not given the choice to use birth control even if they want to.

The impact of the Church’s views extends even beyond its one billion members. The Holy See (the government of the Catholic Church) is the only religious entity that has non-member state permanent observer status at the United Nations. In contrast to all other religions, the Holy See has active participatory and special voting privileges at UN conferences and meetings. This status gives the Church leadership enormous leverage in shaping international human rights standards, international law and public policies that have a tremendous impact on people around the world, especially women.

The Holy See works hard to influence reproductive health policies: At the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women, the Church lobbied against advances made in women’s control of their sexuality and fertility; in 1999, it blocked efforts to include emergency contraception in international policy guidelines; and later that year, the Holy See attacked the UN Foundation for Population Activities for distributing emergency contraception to Kosovar refugees who had been raped. The Holy See regularly makes alliances with governments such as the United States, Pakistan, Nicaragua and Sudan and that seek to deny women their sexual and reproductive rights.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Even in many non-Catholic countries, the Church hierarchy has a stranglehold on national health policy because it supports a vast network of humanitarian relief programs on which poor governments depend. As Ms. Magazine has written, “the poorer the country, the greater the Vatican’s influence.”14 The Catholic Church funds more than 300,000 health facilities worldwide and has made clear that it would withdraw its support if those facilities were to offer condoms to men who are HIV positive or provide abortion services to their patients.
link
Click to expand...
I'd suggest you read through that last article okinrus.
 
Bells, even the Church *wanted* to support distributing condoms and abortion, the nuns and aidworkers who are catholic and do the actual work on this would revolt because they believe it's sinful. Why should the Church support something it doesn't even believe, that it knows is harmful?

Now where is the morality in this?
Click to expand...
Married couples can plan out their children using the rhythm method.

So I can't state the Church's attitude in regards to contraception because I am agnostic? Please okinrus, I was brought up in the Catholic Church and know enough about their doctrines to know that their doctrines in regards to artificial contraception is morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you can make any comment that their morally reprehensible. The Church determines what is spiritually wrong, not by physical consequence alone. Hence, there will always be issues that you believe do not have a bad physical consequence but do have a bad spiritual one.

I understand that in many cultures, large families are the norm and wanted. However, in situations where the distribution of condoms mean not only birth control, but a matter between life and death
Click to expand...
There's never a situation where distributing condoms is a matter between life and death. If people stayed in monogamous relationships, they would not have this problem.

the Church should not be setting such standards. I was not talking about Muslim countries, but countries where the Church has so much power and influence that the people are simply not given the choice to use birth control even if they want to.
Click to expand...
The Church has power and influence in these countries because the church does the health programs.
 
It is not my intent to minimize Sin; however, practically speaking, everything that has to do with biological existence is a 'sin'. Even where the Doctrines of the Bishops encourage it -- as in the Copulations of Marriage; then we have the Mystical Church show its actual disapproval by its favor of the institutions of Celibacy.
Click to expand...
Leo, this is very a bad interpretation. Haven't you've heard, "it's not good that man should live alone."

Most sins are waived off with Penance -- the saying of a number of Prayers, usually. But the Church does have a list of unforgivable Sins.
Click to expand...
There's only one unforgivable sin.

Anybody stupid enough to get married in the Church cannot divorce and then ever again take Holy Communion. The Bishops who decided this should of course be shot.
Click to expand...
I think an annulment is possibile, though I've heard cases where the paperwork and approval take quite a long time.
 
Leo Volont: It is a suspicion of mine that some Fetuses never are quickened. From Conception, through birth to physical maturity, some people are never given a Soul. How do we recognize such people? An absence of Moral Reflection. They have perceptions and reactions and they can develop habitual behaviors and routines, but never seem to have a Conscious Selfawareness. You look them in the eyes and nothing really looks back. The 'Windows to the Soul' are simply vacant.
*************
M*W: Like you said, yourself, "It is a suspicion of MINE...". No soul, no life. It is impossible to be alive and have no "soul." Explain YOUR concept of the word "soul." Recognizing people who APPEAR to have no soul are people with psychological abnormalities like depression. They often have blank stares even though they are able to go through their daily routines and, sometimes, become quite successful.

You're judging again. Your old Messiah Complex is showing. Go talk to your angels. I hear them calling you... they say... "Mary, your blessed mother, is waiting for you to free her from her virginity."
 
Leo Volont: It is not my intent to minimize Sin; however, practically speaking, everything that has to do with biological existence is a 'sin'.
*************
M*W: Now you're sounding like the Messiah again! Shut the fuck up!
*************
Leo Volont: Even where the Doctrines of the Bishops encourage it -- as in the Copulations of Marriage; then we have the Mystical Church show its actual disapproval by its favor of the institutions of Celibacy.
*************
M*W: Celibacy was instituted as a means for the RCC to accumulate the estates of the priests. Nothing more. Of course, the catechism doesn't teach this little tidbit.
*************
Leo Volont: And why should practically everything be a Sin? Well, the Church is a Spiritual Institution. It aims for Life in Heaven, in the Spirit, ultimately. By making every Worldly Act a subject for Confession, it gives opportunity to every Catholic's Spiritual Confessor, The Priest, to discuss Spirituality.
*************
M*W: The church made everything a sin so it could collect more money and property from ignorant peasants whose guilt it shamed.
*************
Leo Volont: While acknowledging that Biological Life and the contingencies of the Flesh have their influence, the Priest exhorts the Catholic to remember the Spiritual Perspective.
*************
M*W: How much money was spiritual perspective worth in those days?
*************
Leo Volont: Most sins are waived off with Penance -- the saying of a number of Prayers, usually. But the Church does have a list of unforgivable Sins. Anybody stupid enough to get married in the Church cannot divorce and then ever again take Holy Communion.
*************
M*W: You are a liar, Leo! I did my share of penance of three Hail Mary's when I was a good catholic... but "unforgiveable sins?" There is NO SUCH THING! Every sin had its affordable price. I was stupid to get married "in the church," but not because of the RCC but to the "righteous" catholic I married. It was my priest who advised me to get a civil divorce to get away from my "righteous" catholic husband, and he never ceased to give me Holy Communion! So you lie again! I received total dispensation from the church with little effort or expense on my part. I was told that I would never be excommunicated as a catholic because I did nothing to sacrifice my marriage sacrament, my husband did. They labeled him an apostate! He was excommunicated... until he moved to a far away parish and continued to live the lie even though he had a child out of wedlock (while we were still married), and he then married a divorced woman of ill repute, and they were all taking communion! So, clarify for me all your "unforgiveable sins." I could go further into the disgusting details of his life and perversions which were not only condoned but sanctified by the church, (he was president of the parish council, lector, deacon, child predator, etc.), but I won't. To this day, he continues to be the "righteous" catholic he always was, and he continues to receive communion. Where do the lies ever end?
*************
Leo Volont: Christ would be appalled that the Vicars of Christ withhold His Grace over such a trivial thing as sexual relations. Christ dismissed the importance of Sex by saying there would be no sex in Heaven.
*************
M*W: Of course there is no sexual relations in "heaven." Heaven is a spiritual place only -- the mortal body doesn't enter heaven.
*************
Leo Volont: It was only paul who glorified Copulation and brought Fornication up to God's Altar.
*************
M*W: Paul didn't "glorify copulation!" He was a misogynist just like you! He was a homosexual and had sex with his lover Timothy. There is a former thread on this topic.
*************
Leo Volont: If I were the Next Pope I would toss out both the Canonization of Paul and the Institution of Marriage. Sex is NEVER Holy.
*************
M*W: Well, Leo, you're not gonna be the next pope, so don't hold your breath. Paul is the antichrist, but don't tell the xians. Marriage is a personal matter and not a matter for the church to decide. If it weren't for sex, none of us would be here. Sex is good, it is healthy, it is a gift of our humanity. If sex were a sin, then we wouldn't even exist. If sex didn't exist, then I'd be outta work. You need to do some reading into the ancient Essenes and their sex practices (also an older thread). Sex in the truest sense of the word is a godly power. It's perpetuates the spirituality of the individuals who participate in it with love. After all, love is the greatest gift of all. A gift that you surely don't have.
 
okinrus said:
Married couples can plan out their children using the rhythm method.
Click to expand...

The Church's position became Morally Bankrupt as soon as they began advocating the Rhythm Method. It surrendered to the Notion that Sex is an acceptable Form of Recreation. After conceding Recreational Sex then why does it matter what form of Contraception is used?

If the Bishops are going to admit they have been wrong, then why do it in mere halfsteps?

The Church's Position should be that Sex and Contraception are Venial Sins.
 
okinrus said:
Leo, this is very a bad interpretation. Haven't you've heard, "it's not good that man should live alone."
Click to expand...

Indeed, I like Hillary Rodham Clinton's book, "It Takes a Village". Men can live in Society. Priests can live in Society.

But the proof is everywhere that it is Unhealthy for Men to Roomate with Women. Men and Women, even when sexually active, should Live in separate Apartments. Women nag. They can't seem to help themselves. When they are together they cluck like chickens and apparently do not listen to each others cattiness. But men, who talk far less to each other, think that conversation must certainly mean something, and are soon overloaded by the useless talk of Females, as they try to discern Meaning where there usually isn't any. Frustration is released as Violence.

Men should live in peace and quiet, that is, men should have a separate abode where they can go to rest and recoup.

As for Celibacy. Is it not better to have fewer appetites than more. It is Liberating to no longer require Copulation. Most men identify with their sexuality, but do not stop to consider how much they must demean their Masculine Dignity in order to 'suck up to' Women. They should consider how happy they would be if, by shedding this Appetite, they could make themselves Free to Sneer at the wiles of the Fairer Sex.
 
okinrus said:
I think an annulment is possibile, though I've heard cases where the paperwork and approval take quite a long time.
Click to expand...

Marriages outside of the Church are instantly annulable. But for a Marriage within the Church, if everyone involved isn't willing to repeatedly lie on a stack of Bibles about having never ever had Sex, even when there have been Children involved, then the Church will find no grounds for Legal Annulment and the Man and Woman involved will never again be eligible to take the Holy Sacrament.

It honestly makes me shudder how Bishops of The Church can dare to cut off the Nurishment of Christ for something as trivial as Sex. There is a reason these Bishops wear Black. They are Bishops to the Antichristical Church of Paul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top