The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

philologos

I'm OK with the term Protestant. I generally describe myself as a Christian first and foremost.

lmaopml

Right so....

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

And I have children, more so than celibates who are ignoring all the verses you quoted.

It doesn't support eating pizza - so it stands in the same light biblically as having sex without having children (although pizza is marginally less enjoyable).

Ok then if contraception is not in the bible as a word then where is rapture? Some protestants are all over the web with the Rapture whatever that is and it appears less often in the bible than "faith alone".

Celibacy is a gift from Jesus. Do you want to point out to Him how He is contradicting His Father? Or take it up with St. Paul who endorsed celibacy.

Well do you?

philologos

lmaopml: If you want any form of authoritative decision made on your disagreement, pop over to Sys -> Feedback and they will consider your disagreement (boards.ie admins as well as moderators). Best to do it in the early stages of the thread before it becomes too much of a normative.

StealthRolex: No way of discussing without making everyone look like a rebellious child when they disagree with you?

PDN

lmaopml wrote: »

Please either stick something in the Charter for us to 'abide' by or else don't imprison all RC faith related topics to one thread...

Why do you keep repeating something that is untrue?

RC faith related topics can be discussed in other threads. But debates between Protestants and Catholics as to who is right will remain in this thread. Learn to live with it.

When I see the bigotry already on display in this thread (accusing others of basing their beliefs on lies), I feel the rest of the forum is already a healthier environment for all Christians to discuss everything else. It also enables us to deal with the occasional anti-Catholic statements which, at times, have spoiled the forum for others.

We are not going to keep discussing this with you. If you have an issue with moderating decisions then address them through PM or in Feedback. Please let's avoid any more backseat modding.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

lmaopml - It isn't putting all RC topics into one thread. It's putting all RC / Protestant disputes and debates into this thread, and thus cleaning up the main forum.

StealthRolex - The spread of HIV doesn't happen because of contraceptives, but rather due to having sexual relations outside of marriage, or in marriage with multiple partners.

Did you even read the article or my comment to introduce it?

read what I said and read the article. Women on the pill are at a higher risk of getting HIV and yes I know that is dependant on who their partner(s) is(are) and where they have been.

There is only one reason for artificial contraceptives - to turn human beings into sex toys.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

lmaopml: If you want any form of authoritative decision made on your disagreement, pop over to Sys -> Feedback and they will consider your disagreement (boards.ie admins as well as moderators). Best to do it in the early stages of the thread before it becomes too much of a normative.

StealthRolex: No way of discussing without making everyone look like a rebellious child when they disagree with you?

That wouldn't be a back seat mod attempt now would it?

smurfhousing

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

Ok then if contraception is not in the bible as a word then where is rapture? Some protestants are all over the web with the Rapture whatever that is and it appears less often in the bible than "faith alone".

Actually, and this is rather funny, the word 'rapture' is simply an anglicised form of rapio a word that is found in your beloved Vulgate.

deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

So, according to your earlier posts, the word 'rapture' is lifted directly from the true Bible as authorised by your Magisterium.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

Did you even read the article or my comment to introduce it?

read what I said and read the article. Women on the pill are at a higher risk of getting HIV and yes I know that is dependant on who their partner(s) is(are) and where they have been.
.

And couples who use condoms are less likely to get HIV. :rolleyes:

StealthRolex

smurfhousing wrote: »

Sorry smurf - looks like they're too busy looking for easier targets

I think your post 138 and 148 has them stumped. Looks like it's your round

PDN

smurfhousing wrote: »

You need to understand that not every post on boards.ie gets answered. Sometimes other posters see them as being irrelevant, or not worth answering.

The views of early church fathers are not considered authoritative by non-Catholics (nor are the views of Luther or Calvin), so why would non-Catholics bother answering to a post that doesn't make any kind of argument as to their position?

It's like all the times you and Stealth Rolex say that something must be true because the Roman Catholic Church says so. While you are free to believe that if you wish, it is less than convincing to anyone who doesn't share your assumptions.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

And couples who use condoms are less likely to get HIV. :rolleyes:

Did you read the article?

Conclusion: This meta-analysis found a significant association between oral contraceptive use and HIV-1 seroprevalence or seroincidence. For women at risk of HIV-1 infection, oral contraceptive use for prevention of pregnancy should be accompanied by condom use for prevention of HIV-1 infection.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

It's like all the times you and Stealth Rolex say that something must be true because the Roman Catholic Church says so. While you are free to believe that if you wish, it is less than convincing to anyone who doesn't share your assumptions.

I'm interested to know if there is anything the Catholic Church says that is not true.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Actually, and this is rather funny, the word 'rapture' is simply an anglicised form of rapio a word that is found in your beloved Vulgate.

deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

So, according to your earlier posts, the word 'rapture' is lifted directly from the true Bible as authorised by your Magisterium.

Interesting. Another anglicisation is rape. But I'll give you half a point anyway. Good effort.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm interested to know if there is anything the Catholic Church says that is not true.

No, i don't think you are interested to know that at all. I think you will happily deny it as Protestant propagana no matter what evidence is presented to you.

The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching many times over the years. According to the law of non-contradiction, the teaching in some past papal bulls was evidently untrue.

smurfhousing

PDN wrote: »

You need to understand that not every post on boards.ie gets answered. Sometimes other posters see them as being irrelevant, or not worth answering.

The views of early church fathers are not considered authoritative by non-Catholics (nor are the views of Luther or Calvin), so why would non-Catholics bother answering to a post that doesn't make any kind of argument as to their position?

It's like all the times you and Stealth Rolex say that something must be true because the Roman Catholic Church says so. While you are free to believe that if you wish, it is less than convincing to anyone who doesn't share your assumptions.

That is interesting. Jakkass rejects 2000 years of constant Church teaching, and you feel free to reject the witness and teachings of the earliest Christians. Smacks of arrogance and pride.

See, this is a classic case of where sola scriptura breaks down. Without recourse to Tradition, the Natural Law, common sense, the Magisterium, and human experience, all that you have is the bible, and your own fallen human condition, to make your own judgements about what is right and wrong. Cue the natural desire to ignore sin, in order that life might be more convenient and pleasurable. Moral relativity sets in, sin loses its revulsion, and condoning of sins takes place. But at what cost?

Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

~Prophecy Of Isaias 5,20

PDN

smurfhousing wrote: »

That is interesting. Jakkass rejects 2000 years of constant Church teaching, and you feel free to reject the witness and teachings of the earliest Christians. Smacks of arrogance and pride.

The earliest Christians held a wide variety of opinions on many subjects. So do you accept Tertullian's endorsement of Montanism?

The earliest Christians were, like all of us, people who got some things right and also got some stuff wrong.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

No, i don't think you are interested to know that at all. I think you will happily deny it as Protestant propagana no matter what evidence is presented to you.

The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching many times over the years. According to the law of non-contradiction, the teaching in some past papal bulls was evidently untrue.

So lets deal with current teaching. 2000yrs of experience - I reckon most of it should be ok now.

As for protestant propaganda - we've already had Mary worship chucked in so you can't really blame me for thinking like that.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

No, i don't think you are interested to know that at all. I think you will happily deny it as Protestant propagana no matter what evidence is presented to you.

The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching many times over the years. According to the law of non-contradiction, the teaching in some past papal bulls was evidently untrue.

Revised. I think that's actually a cop out and there is nothing that can be presented.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

So lets deal with current teaching. 2000yrs of experience - I reckon most of it should be ok now.

As for protestant propaganda - we've already had Mary worship chucked in so you can't really blame me for thinking like that.

So, let's get this straight. Your position is that the Roman Catholic Church taught stuff that wan't true in the past - but now it's got its act together and everything is true now?

How fortunate of you to live in an age when there are no mistakes, rather than in previous centuries.

smurfhousing

PDN wrote: »

The earliest Christians held a wide variety of opinions on many subjects. So do you accept Tertullian's endorsement of Montanism?

The earliest Christians were, like all of us, people who got some things right and also got some stuff wrong.

If we really love God, if we have really turned our lives over to Him, we would want to do anything to avoid violating God's will. We wouldn't take a chance of doing anything that might offend Him, even if there's only a small chance that it might be wrong.To do otherwise is risk everything for the sake of our own personal convenience and pleasure, and shows, therefore, that we value our own reason more than the love of God. This is pride, the primordial sin.

smurfhousing

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight. Your position is that the Roman Catholic Church taught stuff that wan't true in the past - but now it's got its act together and everything is true now?

How fortunate of you to live in an age when there are no mistakes, rather than in previous centuries.

That is a falsehood. The Church teachings on faith and morals are guaranteed to be without error by the Holy Spirit. You are unable to backup your accusations.

The Church has taught truth without errors on matters of faith and morals over the last 2000 years.

I should add that the tone on this thread has become quite anti-Catholic. It is the spirit of the world at work.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight. Your position is that the Roman Catholic Church taught stuff that wan't true in the past - but now it's got its act together and everything is true now?

How fortunate of you to live in an age when there are no mistakes, rather than in previous centuries.

Not quite and I feel a little misrepresented but that's my fault, I bit your bait
- you seem to think that the Church has changed its teaching. I am of the opinion that the Church has not changed its teaching.

The Catholic Church is protected from error in the teaching of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 3:15 is either true or not true.
- because it is in the Bible it is true.
- if it refers to what is known today as the Catholic Church there is only one conclusion.

As you rightly suggested earlier we are otherwise left with protestant propoganda or truth.
Does the truth lie with the Protestants - any particular church or none
Or does the truth lie with the Catholic Church

Simple - find an error in the teaching of the Catholic Church

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

Why do you keep repeating something that is untrue?

RC faith related topics can be discussed in other threads. But debates between Protestants and Catholics as to who is right will remain in this thread. Learn to live with it.

When I see the bigotry already on display in this thread (accusing others of basing their beliefs on lies), I feel the rest of the forum is already a healthier environment for all Christians to discuss everything else. It also enables us to deal with the occasional anti-Catholic statements which, at times, have spoiled the forum for others.

We are not going to keep discussing this with you. If you have an issue with moderating decisions then address them through PM or in Feedback. Please let's avoid any more backseat modding.

Ok..I wasn't being backseat anything though, I was just 'asking'...

....and by the way 'nobody' discussed it at all really, it just happened.

Bigotry is a two way street! and this thread is the chanell...

So please continue...

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

Bigotry is a two way street! and this thread is the chanell...

I honestly don't know what has been said that could constitute bigotry on the counter side of these arguments. All we have been doing is presenting our disagreement to StealthRolex and smurfhousing since they started advocating certain views on this forum.

smurfhousing

PDN wrote: »

According to the law of non-contradiction, the teaching in some past papal bulls was evidently untrue.

Papal Bulls dealt with all sorts of issues, not just issues pertaining to official Church teachings on faith and morals.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

I honestly don't know what has been said that could constitute bigotry on the counter side of these arguments. All we have been doing is presenting our disagreement to StealthRolex and smurfhousing since they started advocating certain views on this forum.

Unfortunately we find ourselves in a dilemma.

If we answer their questions we are accused of being 'anti-Catholic' because we don't agree with everything they believe.

If we don't answer their questions then they claim to have stumped us.

For what it's worth - I am just as much anti-Protestant as I am anti-Catholic. I think both the Catholic churches and Protestant churches make mistakes, have faults and need to be a bit more humble.

smurfhousing

PDN wrote: »

If we don't answer their questions then they claim to have stumped us.

For what it's worth - I am just as much anti-Protestant as I am anti-Catholic. I think both the Catholic churches and Protestant churches make mistakes, have faults and need to be a bit more humble.

I think I have stumped, because my last few posts have been ignored, like totally.

Usually, the suggestion that the Catholic Church needs to be more humble means, basically ''SHUT UP! We don't like it when you...like.. talk to us about... er... sin... and stuff.''

lmaopml

Jakkass wrote: »

I honestly don't know what has been said that could constitute bigotry on the counter side of these arguments. All we have been doing is presenting our disagreement to StealthRolex and smurfhousing since they started advocating certain views on this forum.

Well then put it in the charter, don't make a huge 'drama' out of it...and create a huge deal...

Stealth and Smurf where approached on this thread first to 'explain' their positions, and likewise during the week when the threads where started asking RC's to define what they meant by a certain position...like or lump the way they explain they have to 'abide' by the charter..and warnings..!

One week when a few RC people with some gusto actually log on here...

There are plenty of people with 'gusto' on the forum..and they all stand down when approached, but don't get a thread donated to them after one week...

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately we find ourselves in a dilemma.

If we answer their questions we are accused of being 'anti-Catholic' because we don't agree with everything they believe.

If we don't answer their questions then they claim to have stumped us.

For what it's worth - I am just as much anti-Protestant as I am anti-Catholic. I think both the Catholic churches and Protestant churches make mistakes, have faults and need to be a bit more humble.

anti-catholic has not yet been used by a catholic on this thread except in defence of the charge of labelling.

PDN

smurfhousing wrote: »

Papal Bulls dealt with all sorts of issues, not just issues pertaining to official Church teachings on faith and morals.

And they contradict each other on matters of faith. I already referred in another thread to different papal bulls that declared the teaching of Christ's poverty as heretical, and others that taught it was OK.

Boniface VIII stated in Unam Sanctam: “Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

This is contradicted by the present Cathechism which states: “[Protestants] who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic church…Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 838

Again, on abortion, Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX (1200) considered abortion to be homicide only when the fetus is "formed."
Pope Sixtus V (1588), declared contraception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy, whether the fetus was "animated or not animated, formed or unformed," to be homicide and a mortal sin.
Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the "quickening" test (the perception by a mother that the fetus moves/is animated) which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy.
Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception.

PDN

lmaopml wrote: »

One week when a few RC people with some gusto actually log on here...

There are plenty of people with 'gusto' on the forum..and they all stand down when approached, but don't get a thread donated to them after one week...

Please consider this your very last inthread warning. Any more backseat modding and you will be infracted.

And kindly stop spreading this untruth. No set of individuals had a thread 'donated' to them. This thread is equally for Catholics who want to argue against Protestantism, and Protestants who want to argue against Roman Catholicism.

PDN

smurfhousing Post#174 wrote:

That is a falsehood. The Church teachings on faith and morals are guaranteed to be without error by the Holy Spirit. You are unable to backup your accusations.

The Church has not taught truth and errors on matters of faith and morals over the last 2000 years.

I should add that the tone on this thread has become quite anti-Catholic. It is the spirit of the world at work.

StealthRolex wrote: »

anti-catholic has not yet been used by a catholic on this thread except in defence of the charge of labelling.

Hmmmm

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

And they contradict each other on matters of faith. I already referred in another thread to different papal bulls that declared the teaching of Christ's poverty as heretical, and others that taught it was OK.

Boniface VIII stated in Unam Sanctam: “Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

This is contradicted by the present Cathechism which states: “[Protestants] who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic church…Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 838

Again, on abortion, Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX (1200) considered abortion to be homicide only when the fetus is "formed."
Pope Sixtus V (1588), declared contraception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy, whether the fetus was "animated or not animated, formed or unformed," to be homicide and a mortal sin.
Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the "quickening" test (the perception by a mother that the fetus moves/is animated) which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy.
Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception.

Where is the contradiction? Unam Sanctam is not contradicted, it is just not mentioned in the CCC extract presented.

wrt abortion I see you referencing discussions as to when ensoulment occurred, not whether abortion is or was ever lawful. If you have the names of the bulls it would assist greatly

smurfhousing

PDN wrote: »

And they contradict each other on matters of faith. I already referred in another thread to different papal bulls that declared the teaching of Christ's poverty as heretical, and others that taught it was OK.

[That is a matter of discipline.]

Boniface VIII stated in Unam Sanctam: “Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

[If you want to understand why there is no issue here, see: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm ]

This is contradicted by the present Cathechism which states: “[Protestants] who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic church…Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 838

Again, on abortion, Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX (1200) considered abortion to be homicide only when the fetus is "formed." [...Because it was OK otherwise? I think not. The Church has taught constantly that the killing of the unborn is gravely sinful. What kind of sin it was, there was some discussion, but it was always a grave sin.]
Pope Sixtus V (1588), declared contraception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy, whether the fetus was "animated or not animated, formed or unformed," to be homicide and a mortal sin. [and this is problematic because?]
Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull [Did he? Can you link me to proof of this so I can examine whether or not your claim has any merit whatsoever (which I strongly doubt) or has just been pulled out of a hat?] and reinstated the "quickening" test (the perception by a mother that the fetus moves/is animated) which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy.
Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception. [You'll find that the Church refined Her teaching as science informed Her of the processes of conception and gestation]

I fisked the post to save myself all that formatting.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Hmmmm

Hmmm yourself, he said the tone. He didn't call anyone or accuse anyone of that :mad:

JimiTime

I don't know whether to laugh or scream reading this thread. One things for sure though, Its great its confined to one thread!

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

And couples who use condoms are less likely to get HIV. :rolleyes:

Which as far as I know the Roman church accept. They don't condemn the use of condoms to prevent a husband or wife getting HIV.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html#ChurchPromotesLife

Paragraph 20: One has to seriously distinguish between the proper use of the condom and the failures of the same due to different causes.

How could they refer to "proper use" if it didn't exist.

In other words the kernel of the Vatican position is: [same source]
What is being proposed is to live one’s sexuality in a way that is consistent with one’s human nature and the nature of the family.

So they do not oppose using condoms to reduce an infection in a married couple. the main issue is one of using condoms to facilitate casual sex or extramarital sex. It is a valid argument because it is casual sex which is the factor in the spread of disease and not condom use. That is why it is called an STD.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception.

Really? O don't think so. IIRC the position is that the soul could not have entered before conception so ensoulment takes place some time after conception but the only way to be 100 per cent sure is to assume at conception and then you can never be wrong.

I think you might also keep in mind that this, by the way, isn't to say a fertilised egg, even if not a human being with a soul,should not have some form of superiour or different rights when compared to other legal persons (including non living ones like corporations) even if it [the embryo] is not a person [i.e. human not "legal entity" ].

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

The earliest Christians held a wide variety of opinions on many subjects. So do you accept Tertullian's endorsement of Montanism?

The earliest Christians were, like all of us, people who got some things right and also got some stuff wrong.

The Met in Church councils and decided what was right. And when they decided that was that.

The Nicaean and Constantinople councils would have regarded Montantism as heretical.

You picked a very "protestant looking" group in the montanists. Mind you maybe they weren't strict enough for Tertullian and he eventually left them. Tertullian was a defender of the necessity of Apostolicity so they would not have suited that idea either.

JimiTime

ISAW wrote: »

Which as far as I know the Roman church accept. They don't condemn the use of condoms to prevent a husband or wife getting HIV.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html#ChurchPromotesLife

Paragraph 20: One has to seriously distinguish between the proper use of the condom and the failures of the same due to different causes.

How could they refer to "proper use" if it didn't exist.

In other words the kernel of the Vatican position is: [same source]
What is being proposed is to live one’s sexuality in a way that is consistent with one’s human nature and the nature of the family.

So they do not oppose using condoms to reduce an infection in a married couple. the main issue is one of using condoms to facilitate casual sex or extramarital sex. It is a valid argument because it is casual sex which is the factor in the spread of disease and not condom use. That is why it is called an STD.

So you are saying that the RCC position is that contraception is fine in the context of marriage?

philologos

ISAW - What do you make of StealthRolex's and smurfhousing's opinion on contraception?

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight. Your position is that the Roman Catholic Church taught stuff that wan't true in the past - but now it's got its act together and everything is true now?

How fortunate of you to live in an age when there are no mistakes, rather than in previous centuries.

AS opposed to "Science"? How is the change in teaching in the light of knowledge different? How is it okay for science to develop a position and not okay for the Church to do so?

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

ISAW - What do you make of StealthRolex's and smurfhousing's opinion on contraception?

I would have to read them. Whether they represent Rome's position I have no idea. As far as I know and have debated here the Roman position is that casual sex is a problem and Rome does not approve of it. This in turn has implications on conception and contraception. i think a lot of people would accept the "causal sex for fun" is a worship of material things just like recreational drug and alcohol use. But the idea that one can't enjoy a drink or that one should not get pleasure from sex I think is also a problem. The idea of "sex is only for having children if you enjoy it put that experience aside and remember it is only for children" is a bit mad but I also respect such people are wrongly attacked by the "free love" brigade as if their antithethesis is a better position to hold.

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't know whether to laugh or scream reading this thread.

Try to enjoy it!

Protestantism/Catholicism debate is a 500 year old sport and deserves some respect. While it might look bizarre for a strange (like baseball for a European) for those who participate I believe it's a great fun.

JimiTime

ISAW wrote: »

AS opposed to "Science"? How is the change in teaching in the light of knowledge different? How is it okay for science to develop a position and not okay for the Church to do so?

Because SR etc are saying that the Church don't err and are always right, because they are led by the holy spirit. If this is truly the case, then its not about in light of new knowledge. It becomes, 'well you obviously aren't inerrant, as you've had to revise your position. This means that you were wrong at a certain point.' Nobody has any issue with this revising of positions in light of new knowledge etc. Its only a problem, if someone is claiming that their authority is THE truth.

JimiTime

ISAW wrote: »

I would have to read them. Whether they represent Rome's position I have no idea. As far as I know and have debated here the Roman position is that casual sex is a problem and Rome does not approve of it. This in turn has implications on conception and contraception. i think a lot of people would accept the "causal sex for fun" is a worship of material things just like recreational drug and alcohol use. But the idea that one can't enjoy a drink or that one should not get pleasure from sex I think is also a problem. The idea of "sex is only for having children if you enjoy it put that experience aside and remember it is only for children" is a bit mad but I also respect such people are wrongly attacked by the "free love" brigade as if their antithethesis is a better position to hold.

That is NOT what this is about though. Nobody here is part of the 'free love' brigade. AFAIK, contraception, even within a marriage, is viewed as wrong by the RCC, or at least by the RC posters here.

JimiTime

Slav wrote: »

Try to enjoy it!

Protestantism/Catholicism debate is a 500 year old sport and deserves some respect. While it might look bizarre for a strange (like baseball for a European) for those who participate I believe it's a great fun.

TBH, I have no issue with a good, open, healthy discussion. Be it calm or heated. In fact, I like a bit of passion, and not the sterile 'Who can be the calmest' contests that are often encouraged.

I think its a bit like silly season here though with certain posters. I'd love to discuss things with a knowledgable RC who can reason their beliefs etc, but I've never come across one in this forum, and there are few lay catholics I know who have any knowledge or desire to discuss their faith in the real world. In fact, they look to me as the knowledgable one, and that says alot!

lmaopml

Ok PND I'll take my axe about the thread, and put it back in it's box.......and get inline with the decision from now on, I promise.